Addiction Medicine

Only 56% of children enrolled in Medicaid received any outpatient follow-up within 30 days after a mental health emergency department discharge, according to results of a large study released in Pediatrics.

Fewer than one-third (31.2%) had an outpatient visit within a week after a mental health ED discharge.

Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 28,551 children ages 6-17 years old who had mental health discharges from EDs from January 2018 to June 2019.

The researchers, led by Jennifer A. Hoffmann, MD, MS, with the division of emergency medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and Northwestern University, Chicago, also analyzed the effect that having a timely follow-up had on whether the child was likely to return to the ED.
 

Follow-up within 30 days cuts risk of quick return to ED

They found that follow-up within 30 days was linked with a 26% decreased risk of return within 5 days of the initial ED discharge (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.91).

The researchers also found racial disparities in the data. The odds for getting follow-up outpatient care were lower for non-Hispanic Black children, for children with fee-for-service insurance, and for children with no previous mental health outpatient visits.

The numbers were particularly striking for Black children, who were 10% less likely to get outpatient follow-up than their White counterparts.

In addition, 27% of all children in this sample returned to the ED for mental health-related symptoms within 6 months, 20% spent more than 48 hours in the ED for their initial mental health visit, and children with 14 or more mental health outpatient visits had five times higher adjusted odds of follow-up within 7 days and 9.5 times higher adjusted odds of follow-up within 30 days, compared with children with no outpatient mental health visits in the previous year.

A ‘mental health system of care in crisis’

In an accompanying editorial, Hannah E. Karpman, MSW, PhD, with the department of pediatrics, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, and colleagues said those statistics help expose other signs of “a pediatric mental health system of care in crisis.”

If one in five children are spending more than 2 days in the ED for their initial mental health visit, they wrote, that signals the follow-up care they need is not readily available.

The 27% returning to the ED shows that, even if the children are getting outpatient services, that environment is failing them, they noted.

Additionally, 28% of children presented with more than four mental health diagnoses, “suggesting poor diagnostic specificity or perhaps inadequate diagnostic categories to characterize their needs.”

The authors called for interventions that link patients to outpatient care within 5 days of a mental health ED discharge.

The editorialists wrote: “We believe it is time for a “child mental health moonshot,” and call on the field and its funders to come together to launch the next wave of bold mental health research for the benefit of these children and their families who so desperately need our support.”
 

Things may even be worse in light of COVID

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview the numbers won’t surprise clinicians who support these children or the patients’ families.

He added that he wouldn’t be surprised if things are even worse now after this study’s data collection, “as COVID and other factors have driven more mental health professionals away from many of the people who need them the most.”

The study does present new evidence that quick access to care is particularly tough for young people who aren’t already established in care, he noted.

“As wait lists grow at outpatient clinics, we are seeing ever stronger need for centers willing and able to provide actual mental health assessment and treatment for people right ‘off the street,’” he said.

Dr. Rettew emphasized that, because mental health conditions rarely improve quickly, having a timely follow-up appointment is important, but won’t likely bring quick improvement.

He agreed with the editorialists’ argument and emphasized, “not only do we need to focus on more rapid care, but also more comprehensive and effective care.

“For an adolescent in crisis, achieving stability often involves more than a medication tweak and a supportive conversation,” Dr. Rettew said. “Rather, it can require an intensive multimodal approach that addresses things like family financial stressors, parental mental health and substance use concerns, school supports, and health promotion or lifestyle changes. What we desperately need are more teams that can quickly intervene on all these levels.”
 

Addressing problems before crisis is essential

Ideally, teams would address these issues before a crisis. That helps support the “moonshot” charge the editorialists suggest, which “would significantly disrupt the current way we value different components of our health care system,” Dr. Rettew said.

He highlighted a statistic that may get lost in the data: Nearly 40% of youth in enough danger to need an ED visit had no more than one health-related appointment of any kind in the previous year.

“To me, this speaks volumes about the need for earlier involvement before things escalate to the level of an emergency,” Dr. Rettew said.

The authors and editorialists declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

Only 56% of children enrolled in Medicaid received any outpatient follow-up within 30 days after a mental health emergency department discharge, according to results of a large study released in Pediatrics.

Fewer than one-third (31.2%) had an outpatient visit within a week after a mental health ED discharge.

Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 28,551 children ages 6-17 years old who had mental health discharges from EDs from January 2018 to June 2019.

The researchers, led by Jennifer A. Hoffmann, MD, MS, with the division of emergency medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and Northwestern University, Chicago, also analyzed the effect that having a timely follow-up had on whether the child was likely to return to the ED.
 

Follow-up within 30 days cuts risk of quick return to ED

They found that follow-up within 30 days was linked with a 26% decreased risk of return within 5 days of the initial ED discharge (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.91).

The researchers also found racial disparities in the data. The odds for getting follow-up outpatient care were lower for non-Hispanic Black children, for children with fee-for-service insurance, and for children with no previous mental health outpatient visits.

The numbers were particularly striking for Black children, who were 10% less likely to get outpatient follow-up than their White counterparts.

In addition, 27% of all children in this sample returned to the ED for mental health-related symptoms within 6 months, 20% spent more than 48 hours in the ED for their initial mental health visit, and children with 14 or more mental health outpatient visits had five times higher adjusted odds of follow-up within 7 days and 9.5 times higher adjusted odds of follow-up within 30 days, compared with children with no outpatient mental health visits in the previous year.

A ‘mental health system of care in crisis’

In an accompanying editorial, Hannah E. Karpman, MSW, PhD, with the department of pediatrics, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, and colleagues said those statistics help expose other signs of “a pediatric mental health system of care in crisis.”

If one in five children are spending more than 2 days in the ED for their initial mental health visit, they wrote, that signals the follow-up care they need is not readily available.

The 27% returning to the ED shows that, even if the children are getting outpatient services, that environment is failing them, they noted.

Additionally, 28% of children presented with more than four mental health diagnoses, “suggesting poor diagnostic specificity or perhaps inadequate diagnostic categories to characterize their needs.”

The authors called for interventions that link patients to outpatient care within 5 days of a mental health ED discharge.

The editorialists wrote: “We believe it is time for a “child mental health moonshot,” and call on the field and its funders to come together to launch the next wave of bold mental health research for the benefit of these children and their families who so desperately need our support.”
 

Things may even be worse in light of COVID

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview the numbers won’t surprise clinicians who support these children or the patients’ families.

He added that he wouldn’t be surprised if things are even worse now after this study’s data collection, “as COVID and other factors have driven more mental health professionals away from many of the people who need them the most.”

The study does present new evidence that quick access to care is particularly tough for young people who aren’t already established in care, he noted.

“As wait lists grow at outpatient clinics, we are seeing ever stronger need for centers willing and able to provide actual mental health assessment and treatment for people right ‘off the street,’” he said.

Dr. Rettew emphasized that, because mental health conditions rarely improve quickly, having a timely follow-up appointment is important, but won’t likely bring quick improvement.

He agreed with the editorialists’ argument and emphasized, “not only do we need to focus on more rapid care, but also more comprehensive and effective care.

“For an adolescent in crisis, achieving stability often involves more than a medication tweak and a supportive conversation,” Dr. Rettew said. “Rather, it can require an intensive multimodal approach that addresses things like family financial stressors, parental mental health and substance use concerns, school supports, and health promotion or lifestyle changes. What we desperately need are more teams that can quickly intervene on all these levels.”
 

Addressing problems before crisis is essential

Ideally, teams would address these issues before a crisis. That helps support the “moonshot” charge the editorialists suggest, which “would significantly disrupt the current way we value different components of our health care system,” Dr. Rettew said.

He highlighted a statistic that may get lost in the data: Nearly 40% of youth in enough danger to need an ED visit had no more than one health-related appointment of any kind in the previous year.

“To me, this speaks volumes about the need for earlier involvement before things escalate to the level of an emergency,” Dr. Rettew said.

The authors and editorialists declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

Only 56% of children enrolled in Medicaid received any outpatient follow-up within 30 days after a mental health emergency department discharge, according to results of a large study released in Pediatrics.

Fewer than one-third (31.2%) had an outpatient visit within a week after a mental health ED discharge.

Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 28,551 children ages 6-17 years old who had mental health discharges from EDs from January 2018 to June 2019.

The researchers, led by Jennifer A. Hoffmann, MD, MS, with the division of emergency medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and Northwestern University, Chicago, also analyzed the effect that having a timely follow-up had on whether the child was likely to return to the ED.
 

Follow-up within 30 days cuts risk of quick return to ED

They found that follow-up within 30 days was linked with a 26% decreased risk of return within 5 days of the initial ED discharge (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.91).

The researchers also found racial disparities in the data. The odds for getting follow-up outpatient care were lower for non-Hispanic Black children, for children with fee-for-service insurance, and for children with no previous mental health outpatient visits.

The numbers were particularly striking for Black children, who were 10% less likely to get outpatient follow-up than their White counterparts.

In addition, 27% of all children in this sample returned to the ED for mental health-related symptoms within 6 months, 20% spent more than 48 hours in the ED for their initial mental health visit, and children with 14 or more mental health outpatient visits had five times higher adjusted odds of follow-up within 7 days and 9.5 times higher adjusted odds of follow-up within 30 days, compared with children with no outpatient mental health visits in the previous year.

A ‘mental health system of care in crisis’

In an accompanying editorial, Hannah E. Karpman, MSW, PhD, with the department of pediatrics, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, and colleagues said those statistics help expose other signs of “a pediatric mental health system of care in crisis.”

If one in five children are spending more than 2 days in the ED for their initial mental health visit, they wrote, that signals the follow-up care they need is not readily available.

The 27% returning to the ED shows that, even if the children are getting outpatient services, that environment is failing them, they noted.

Additionally, 28% of children presented with more than four mental health diagnoses, “suggesting poor diagnostic specificity or perhaps inadequate diagnostic categories to characterize their needs.”

The authors called for interventions that link patients to outpatient care within 5 days of a mental health ED discharge.

The editorialists wrote: “We believe it is time for a “child mental health moonshot,” and call on the field and its funders to come together to launch the next wave of bold mental health research for the benefit of these children and their families who so desperately need our support.”
 

Things may even be worse in light of COVID

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview the numbers won’t surprise clinicians who support these children or the patients’ families.

He added that he wouldn’t be surprised if things are even worse now after this study’s data collection, “as COVID and other factors have driven more mental health professionals away from many of the people who need them the most.”

The study does present new evidence that quick access to care is particularly tough for young people who aren’t already established in care, he noted.

“As wait lists grow at outpatient clinics, we are seeing ever stronger need for centers willing and able to provide actual mental health assessment and treatment for people right ‘off the street,’” he said.

Dr. Rettew emphasized that, because mental health conditions rarely improve quickly, having a timely follow-up appointment is important, but won’t likely bring quick improvement.

He agreed with the editorialists’ argument and emphasized, “not only do we need to focus on more rapid care, but also more comprehensive and effective care.

“For an adolescent in crisis, achieving stability often involves more than a medication tweak and a supportive conversation,” Dr. Rettew said. “Rather, it can require an intensive multimodal approach that addresses things like family financial stressors, parental mental health and substance use concerns, school supports, and health promotion or lifestyle changes. What we desperately need are more teams that can quickly intervene on all these levels.”
 

Addressing problems before crisis is essential

Ideally, teams would address these issues before a crisis. That helps support the “moonshot” charge the editorialists suggest, which “would significantly disrupt the current way we value different components of our health care system,” Dr. Rettew said.

He highlighted a statistic that may get lost in the data: Nearly 40% of youth in enough danger to need an ED visit had no more than one health-related appointment of any kind in the previous year.

“To me, this speaks volumes about the need for earlier involvement before things escalate to the level of an emergency,” Dr. Rettew said.

The authors and editorialists declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

In 2016, when Erin Schanning lost her brother Ethan to an overdose, she wanted to know what could have been done to have helped him. Ethan, who had struggled with opioids since getting a prescription for the drugs after a dental procedure in middle school, had tried dozens of treatments. But at the age of 30, he was gone.

“After my brother died, I started researching and was surprised to learn that there were many evidence-based ways to treat substance use disorder that he hadn’t had access to, even though he had doggedly pursued treatment,” Ms. Schanning told me in an interview. One of those treatments, buprenorphine, is one of the most effective tools that health care providers have to treat opioid use disorder. A partial opioid agonist, it reduces cravings and prevents overdose, decreasing mortality more effectively than almost any medication for any disease. Yet most providers have never prescribed it.

That may be about to change. Thanks largely to advocates such as Ms. Schanning, who founded End Substance Use Disorder after she lost her brother, Congress has finally removed barriers to prescribing buprenorphine. The special license to prescribe the medication, commonly known as the “X-waiver,” was officially eliminated as part of the passage of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act. Immediately, following the passage of the Act, any provider with a DEA license became eligible to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, and limits on the number of patients they could treat were eliminated.

Previously, buprenorphine, which has a better safety profile than almost any other prescription opioid because of its ceiling effect on respiratory depression,nonetheless required providers to obtain a special license to prescribe it, and – prior to an executive order from the Biden administration – 8 to 24 hours of training to do so. This led to a misconception that buprenorphine was dangerous, and created barriers for treatment during the worst overdose crisis in our country’s history. More than 110,00 overdose deaths occurred in 2021, representing a 468% increase in the last 2 decades.

Along with the MAT Act, the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act was passed in the same spending bill, requiring all prescribers who obtain a DEA license to do 8 hours of training on the treatment of substance use disorders. According to the Act, addiction specialty societies will have a role in creating trainings. Medical schools and residencies will also be able to fulfill this requirement with a “comprehensive” curriculum that covers all approved medications for the treatment of substance use disorders.

The DEA has not yet confirmed what training will be accepted, according to the Chief Medical Officer of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Neeraj Gandotra, MD, who spoke to me in an interview. However, it is required to do so by April 5, 2023. Dr. Gandotra also emphasized that state and local laws, as well as insurance requirements, remain in place, and may place other constraints on prescribing. According to the Act, this new rule will be in effect by June 2023.

As an addiction medicine specialist and longtime buprenorphine prescriber, I am excited about these changes but wary of lingering resistance among health care providers. Will providers who have chosen not to get an X-waiver now look for another reason to not treat patients with substance use disorders?

Ms. Schanning remains hopeful. “I’m incredibly optimistic that health care providers are going to learn about buprenorphine and prescribe it to patients, and that patients are going to start asking about this medication,” she told me. “Seven in 10 providers say that they do feel an obligation to treat their patients with [opioid use disorder], but the federal government has made it very difficult to do so.”

Now with the X-waiver gone, providers and patients may be able to push for a long overdue shift in how we treat and conceptualize substance use disorders, she noted.

“Health care providers need to recognize substance use disorder as a medical condition that deserves treatment, and to speak about it like a medical condition,” Ms. Schanning said, by, for instance, moving away from using words such as “abuse” and “clean” and, instead, talking about treatable substance use disorders that can improve with evidence-based care, such as buprenorphine and methadone. “We also need to share stories of success and hope with people,” she added. “Once you’ve seen how someone can be transformed by treatment, it’s really difficult to say that substance use disorder is a character flaw, or their fault.”
 

A patient-centered approach

Over the past decade of practicing medicine, I have experienced this transformation personally. In residency, I believed that people had to be ready for help, to stop using, to change. I failed to recognize that many of those same people were asking me for help, and I wasn’t offering what they needed. The person who had to change was me.

As I moved toward a patient-centered approach, lowering barriers to starting and remaining in treatment, and collaborating with teams that could meet people wherever they might be, addictions became the most rewarding part of my practice.

I have never had more people thank me spontaneously and deeply for the care I provide. Plus, I have never seen a more profound change in the students I work with than when they witness someone with a substance use disorder offered treatment that works.

The X-waiver was not the only barrier to care, and the overdose crisis is not slowing down. But maybe with a new tool widely accessible, more of us will be ready to help.
 

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures, and she serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

In 2016, when Erin Schanning lost her brother Ethan to an overdose, she wanted to know what could have been done to have helped him. Ethan, who had struggled with opioids since getting a prescription for the drugs after a dental procedure in middle school, had tried dozens of treatments. But at the age of 30, he was gone.

“After my brother died, I started researching and was surprised to learn that there were many evidence-based ways to treat substance use disorder that he hadn’t had access to, even though he had doggedly pursued treatment,” Ms. Schanning told me in an interview. One of those treatments, buprenorphine, is one of the most effective tools that health care providers have to treat opioid use disorder. A partial opioid agonist, it reduces cravings and prevents overdose, decreasing mortality more effectively than almost any medication for any disease. Yet most providers have never prescribed it.

That may be about to change. Thanks largely to advocates such as Ms. Schanning, who founded End Substance Use Disorder after she lost her brother, Congress has finally removed barriers to prescribing buprenorphine. The special license to prescribe the medication, commonly known as the “X-waiver,” was officially eliminated as part of the passage of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act. Immediately, following the passage of the Act, any provider with a DEA license became eligible to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, and limits on the number of patients they could treat were eliminated.

Previously, buprenorphine, which has a better safety profile than almost any other prescription opioid because of its ceiling effect on respiratory depression,nonetheless required providers to obtain a special license to prescribe it, and – prior to an executive order from the Biden administration – 8 to 24 hours of training to do so. This led to a misconception that buprenorphine was dangerous, and created barriers for treatment during the worst overdose crisis in our country’s history. More than 110,00 overdose deaths occurred in 2021, representing a 468% increase in the last 2 decades.

Along with the MAT Act, the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act was passed in the same spending bill, requiring all prescribers who obtain a DEA license to do 8 hours of training on the treatment of substance use disorders. According to the Act, addiction specialty societies will have a role in creating trainings. Medical schools and residencies will also be able to fulfill this requirement with a “comprehensive” curriculum that covers all approved medications for the treatment of substance use disorders.

The DEA has not yet confirmed what training will be accepted, according to the Chief Medical Officer of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Neeraj Gandotra, MD, who spoke to me in an interview. However, it is required to do so by April 5, 2023. Dr. Gandotra also emphasized that state and local laws, as well as insurance requirements, remain in place, and may place other constraints on prescribing. According to the Act, this new rule will be in effect by June 2023.

As an addiction medicine specialist and longtime buprenorphine prescriber, I am excited about these changes but wary of lingering resistance among health care providers. Will providers who have chosen not to get an X-waiver now look for another reason to not treat patients with substance use disorders?

Ms. Schanning remains hopeful. “I’m incredibly optimistic that health care providers are going to learn about buprenorphine and prescribe it to patients, and that patients are going to start asking about this medication,” she told me. “Seven in 10 providers say that they do feel an obligation to treat their patients with [opioid use disorder], but the federal government has made it very difficult to do so.”

Now with the X-waiver gone, providers and patients may be able to push for a long overdue shift in how we treat and conceptualize substance use disorders, she noted.

“Health care providers need to recognize substance use disorder as a medical condition that deserves treatment, and to speak about it like a medical condition,” Ms. Schanning said, by, for instance, moving away from using words such as “abuse” and “clean” and, instead, talking about treatable substance use disorders that can improve with evidence-based care, such as buprenorphine and methadone. “We also need to share stories of success and hope with people,” she added. “Once you’ve seen how someone can be transformed by treatment, it’s really difficult to say that substance use disorder is a character flaw, or their fault.”
 

A patient-centered approach

Over the past decade of practicing medicine, I have experienced this transformation personally. In residency, I believed that people had to be ready for help, to stop using, to change. I failed to recognize that many of those same people were asking me for help, and I wasn’t offering what they needed. The person who had to change was me.

As I moved toward a patient-centered approach, lowering barriers to starting and remaining in treatment, and collaborating with teams that could meet people wherever they might be, addictions became the most rewarding part of my practice.

I have never had more people thank me spontaneously and deeply for the care I provide. Plus, I have never seen a more profound change in the students I work with than when they witness someone with a substance use disorder offered treatment that works.

The X-waiver was not the only barrier to care, and the overdose crisis is not slowing down. But maybe with a new tool widely accessible, more of us will be ready to help.
 

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures, and she serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

In 2016, when Erin Schanning lost her brother Ethan to an overdose, she wanted to know what could have been done to have helped him. Ethan, who had struggled with opioids since getting a prescription for the drugs after a dental procedure in middle school, had tried dozens of treatments. But at the age of 30, he was gone.

“After my brother died, I started researching and was surprised to learn that there were many evidence-based ways to treat substance use disorder that he hadn’t had access to, even though he had doggedly pursued treatment,” Ms. Schanning told me in an interview. One of those treatments, buprenorphine, is one of the most effective tools that health care providers have to treat opioid use disorder. A partial opioid agonist, it reduces cravings and prevents overdose, decreasing mortality more effectively than almost any medication for any disease. Yet most providers have never prescribed it.

That may be about to change. Thanks largely to advocates such as Ms. Schanning, who founded End Substance Use Disorder after she lost her brother, Congress has finally removed barriers to prescribing buprenorphine. The special license to prescribe the medication, commonly known as the “X-waiver,” was officially eliminated as part of the passage of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act. Immediately, following the passage of the Act, any provider with a DEA license became eligible to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, and limits on the number of patients they could treat were eliminated.

Previously, buprenorphine, which has a better safety profile than almost any other prescription opioid because of its ceiling effect on respiratory depression,nonetheless required providers to obtain a special license to prescribe it, and – prior to an executive order from the Biden administration – 8 to 24 hours of training to do so. This led to a misconception that buprenorphine was dangerous, and created barriers for treatment during the worst overdose crisis in our country’s history. More than 110,00 overdose deaths occurred in 2021, representing a 468% increase in the last 2 decades.

Along with the MAT Act, the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act was passed in the same spending bill, requiring all prescribers who obtain a DEA license to do 8 hours of training on the treatment of substance use disorders. According to the Act, addiction specialty societies will have a role in creating trainings. Medical schools and residencies will also be able to fulfill this requirement with a “comprehensive” curriculum that covers all approved medications for the treatment of substance use disorders.

The DEA has not yet confirmed what training will be accepted, according to the Chief Medical Officer of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Neeraj Gandotra, MD, who spoke to me in an interview. However, it is required to do so by April 5, 2023. Dr. Gandotra also emphasized that state and local laws, as well as insurance requirements, remain in place, and may place other constraints on prescribing. According to the Act, this new rule will be in effect by June 2023.

As an addiction medicine specialist and longtime buprenorphine prescriber, I am excited about these changes but wary of lingering resistance among health care providers. Will providers who have chosen not to get an X-waiver now look for another reason to not treat patients with substance use disorders?

Ms. Schanning remains hopeful. “I’m incredibly optimistic that health care providers are going to learn about buprenorphine and prescribe it to patients, and that patients are going to start asking about this medication,” she told me. “Seven in 10 providers say that they do feel an obligation to treat their patients with [opioid use disorder], but the federal government has made it very difficult to do so.”

Now with the X-waiver gone, providers and patients may be able to push for a long overdue shift in how we treat and conceptualize substance use disorders, she noted.

“Health care providers need to recognize substance use disorder as a medical condition that deserves treatment, and to speak about it like a medical condition,” Ms. Schanning said, by, for instance, moving away from using words such as “abuse” and “clean” and, instead, talking about treatable substance use disorders that can improve with evidence-based care, such as buprenorphine and methadone. “We also need to share stories of success and hope with people,” she added. “Once you’ve seen how someone can be transformed by treatment, it’s really difficult to say that substance use disorder is a character flaw, or their fault.”
 

A patient-centered approach

Over the past decade of practicing medicine, I have experienced this transformation personally. In residency, I believed that people had to be ready for help, to stop using, to change. I failed to recognize that many of those same people were asking me for help, and I wasn’t offering what they needed. The person who had to change was me.

As I moved toward a patient-centered approach, lowering barriers to starting and remaining in treatment, and collaborating with teams that could meet people wherever they might be, addictions became the most rewarding part of my practice.

I have never had more people thank me spontaneously and deeply for the care I provide. Plus, I have never seen a more profound change in the students I work with than when they witness someone with a substance use disorder offered treatment that works.

The X-waiver was not the only barrier to care, and the overdose crisis is not slowing down. But maybe with a new tool widely accessible, more of us will be ready to help.
 

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures, and she serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Drinking one or two cocktails a day may protect against dementia, while having three or more could increase risk, new research suggests.

Investigators assessed dementia risk using changes in alcohol consumption over a 2-year period in nearly 4 million people in South Korea. After about 7 years, dementia was 21% less likely in mild drinkers and 17% less likely in moderate drinkers. Heavy drinking was linked to an 8% increased risk.

Other studies of the relationship between alcohol and dementia have yielded mixed results, and this study does little to clear those murky waters. Nor do the results mean that drinking is recommended, the investigators note.

But the study does offer new information on how risk changes over time as people change their drinking habits, lead investigator Keun Hye Jeon, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at Cha Gumi Medical Center at Cha University, Gumi, South Korea, told this news organization.

“Although numerous studies have shown a relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia, there is a paucity of understanding as to how the incidence of dementia changes with changes in drinking habits,” Dr. Jeon said.

“By measuring alcohol consumption at two time points, we were able to study the relationship between reducing, ceasing, maintaining, and increasing alcohol consumption and incident dementia,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

Tracking drinking habits

Researchers analyzed data from nearly 4 million individuals aged 40 years and older in the Korean National Health Insurance Service who completed questionnaires and underwent physical exams in 2009 and 2011.

Study participants completed questionnaires on their drinking habits and were assigned to one of five groups according to change in alcohol consumption during the study period. These groups consisted of sustained nondrinkers; those who stopped drinking (quitters); those who reduced their consumption of alcohol but did not stop drinking (reducers); those who maintained the same level of consumption (sustainers); and those who increased their level of consumption (increasers).

A standard drink in the United States contains 14 g of alcohol. For this study, mild drinking was defined as less than 15 g/day, or one drink; moderate consumption as 15-29.9 g/day, or one to two drinks; and heavy drinking as 30 g/day or more, or three or more drinks.

At baseline, 54.8% of participants were nondrinkers, 26.7% were mild drinkers, 11.0% were moderate drinkers, and 7.5% were heavy drinkers.

From 2009 to 2011, 24.2% of mild drinkers, 8.4% of moderate drinkers, and 7.6% of heavy drinkers became quitters. In the same period, 13.9% of nondrinkers, 16.1% of mild drinkers, and 17.4% of moderate drinkers increased their drinking level.

After a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2.5% of participants were diagnosed with dementia, 2.0% with Alzheimer’s disease, and 0.3% with vascular dementia.
 

Unexpected finding

Compared with consistently not drinking, mild and moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a 21% (adjust hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.81) and 17% (aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88) decreased risk for dementia, respectively.

Heavy drinking was linked to an 8% increased risk (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

Similar associations were found between alcohol consumption and risk for Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia.

Reducing drinking habits from heavy to moderate led to a reduction in risk for dementia and Alzheimer’s, and increasing drinking levels led to an increase in risk for both conditions.

But when the researchers analyzed dementia risk for nondrinkers who began drinking at mild levels during the study period, they found something unexpected – the risk in this group decreased by 7% for dementia (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and by 8% for Alzheimer’s (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95), compared with sustained mild drinkers.

“Our study showed that initiation of mild alcohol consumption leads to a reduced risk of all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, which has never been reported in previous studies,” Dr. Jeon said.

However, Dr. Jeon was quick to point out that this doesn’t mean that people who don’t drink should start.

Previous studies have shown that heavy alcohol use can triple an individual’s dementia risk, while other studies have shown that no amount of alcohol consumption is good for the brain.

“None of the existing health guidelines recommend starting alcohol drinking,” Dr. Jeon said. “Our findings regarding an initiation of mild alcohol consumption cannot be directly translated into clinical recommendations,” but the findings do warrant additional study, he added.
 

Risks persist

Commenting on the findings, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association in Chicago, agrees.

“While this study is interesting, and this topic deserves further study, no one should drink alcohol as a method of reducing risk of Alzheimer’s disease or other dementia based on this study,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not part of the study.

The exact tipping point in alcohol consumption that can lead to problems with cognition or increased dementia risk is unknown, Dr. Griffin said. Nor do researchers understand why mild drinking may have a protective effect.

“We do know, however, that excessive alcohol consumption has negative effects on heart health and general health, which can lead to problems with brain function,” he said. “Clinicians should have discussions with their patients around their alcohol consumption patterns and the risks associated with drinking in excess, including potential damage to their cognition.”

Funding for the study was not disclosed. Dr. Jeon and Dr. Griffin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking one or two cocktails a day may protect against dementia, while having three or more could increase risk, new research suggests.

Investigators assessed dementia risk using changes in alcohol consumption over a 2-year period in nearly 4 million people in South Korea. After about 7 years, dementia was 21% less likely in mild drinkers and 17% less likely in moderate drinkers. Heavy drinking was linked to an 8% increased risk.

Other studies of the relationship between alcohol and dementia have yielded mixed results, and this study does little to clear those murky waters. Nor do the results mean that drinking is recommended, the investigators note.

But the study does offer new information on how risk changes over time as people change their drinking habits, lead investigator Keun Hye Jeon, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at Cha Gumi Medical Center at Cha University, Gumi, South Korea, told this news organization.

“Although numerous studies have shown a relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia, there is a paucity of understanding as to how the incidence of dementia changes with changes in drinking habits,” Dr. Jeon said.

“By measuring alcohol consumption at two time points, we were able to study the relationship between reducing, ceasing, maintaining, and increasing alcohol consumption and incident dementia,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

Tracking drinking habits

Researchers analyzed data from nearly 4 million individuals aged 40 years and older in the Korean National Health Insurance Service who completed questionnaires and underwent physical exams in 2009 and 2011.

Study participants completed questionnaires on their drinking habits and were assigned to one of five groups according to change in alcohol consumption during the study period. These groups consisted of sustained nondrinkers; those who stopped drinking (quitters); those who reduced their consumption of alcohol but did not stop drinking (reducers); those who maintained the same level of consumption (sustainers); and those who increased their level of consumption (increasers).

A standard drink in the United States contains 14 g of alcohol. For this study, mild drinking was defined as less than 15 g/day, or one drink; moderate consumption as 15-29.9 g/day, or one to two drinks; and heavy drinking as 30 g/day or more, or three or more drinks.

At baseline, 54.8% of participants were nondrinkers, 26.7% were mild drinkers, 11.0% were moderate drinkers, and 7.5% were heavy drinkers.

From 2009 to 2011, 24.2% of mild drinkers, 8.4% of moderate drinkers, and 7.6% of heavy drinkers became quitters. In the same period, 13.9% of nondrinkers, 16.1% of mild drinkers, and 17.4% of moderate drinkers increased their drinking level.

After a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2.5% of participants were diagnosed with dementia, 2.0% with Alzheimer’s disease, and 0.3% with vascular dementia.
 

Unexpected finding

Compared with consistently not drinking, mild and moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a 21% (adjust hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.81) and 17% (aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88) decreased risk for dementia, respectively.

Heavy drinking was linked to an 8% increased risk (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

Similar associations were found between alcohol consumption and risk for Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia.

Reducing drinking habits from heavy to moderate led to a reduction in risk for dementia and Alzheimer’s, and increasing drinking levels led to an increase in risk for both conditions.

But when the researchers analyzed dementia risk for nondrinkers who began drinking at mild levels during the study period, they found something unexpected – the risk in this group decreased by 7% for dementia (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and by 8% for Alzheimer’s (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95), compared with sustained mild drinkers.

“Our study showed that initiation of mild alcohol consumption leads to a reduced risk of all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, which has never been reported in previous studies,” Dr. Jeon said.

However, Dr. Jeon was quick to point out that this doesn’t mean that people who don’t drink should start.

Previous studies have shown that heavy alcohol use can triple an individual’s dementia risk, while other studies have shown that no amount of alcohol consumption is good for the brain.

“None of the existing health guidelines recommend starting alcohol drinking,” Dr. Jeon said. “Our findings regarding an initiation of mild alcohol consumption cannot be directly translated into clinical recommendations,” but the findings do warrant additional study, he added.
 

Risks persist

Commenting on the findings, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association in Chicago, agrees.

“While this study is interesting, and this topic deserves further study, no one should drink alcohol as a method of reducing risk of Alzheimer’s disease or other dementia based on this study,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not part of the study.

The exact tipping point in alcohol consumption that can lead to problems with cognition or increased dementia risk is unknown, Dr. Griffin said. Nor do researchers understand why mild drinking may have a protective effect.

“We do know, however, that excessive alcohol consumption has negative effects on heart health and general health, which can lead to problems with brain function,” he said. “Clinicians should have discussions with their patients around their alcohol consumption patterns and the risks associated with drinking in excess, including potential damage to their cognition.”

Funding for the study was not disclosed. Dr. Jeon and Dr. Griffin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking one or two cocktails a day may protect against dementia, while having three or more could increase risk, new research suggests.

Investigators assessed dementia risk using changes in alcohol consumption over a 2-year period in nearly 4 million people in South Korea. After about 7 years, dementia was 21% less likely in mild drinkers and 17% less likely in moderate drinkers. Heavy drinking was linked to an 8% increased risk.

Other studies of the relationship between alcohol and dementia have yielded mixed results, and this study does little to clear those murky waters. Nor do the results mean that drinking is recommended, the investigators note.

But the study does offer new information on how risk changes over time as people change their drinking habits, lead investigator Keun Hye Jeon, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at Cha Gumi Medical Center at Cha University, Gumi, South Korea, told this news organization.

“Although numerous studies have shown a relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia, there is a paucity of understanding as to how the incidence of dementia changes with changes in drinking habits,” Dr. Jeon said.

“By measuring alcohol consumption at two time points, we were able to study the relationship between reducing, ceasing, maintaining, and increasing alcohol consumption and incident dementia,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

Tracking drinking habits

Researchers analyzed data from nearly 4 million individuals aged 40 years and older in the Korean National Health Insurance Service who completed questionnaires and underwent physical exams in 2009 and 2011.

Study participants completed questionnaires on their drinking habits and were assigned to one of five groups according to change in alcohol consumption during the study period. These groups consisted of sustained nondrinkers; those who stopped drinking (quitters); those who reduced their consumption of alcohol but did not stop drinking (reducers); those who maintained the same level of consumption (sustainers); and those who increased their level of consumption (increasers).

A standard drink in the United States contains 14 g of alcohol. For this study, mild drinking was defined as less than 15 g/day, or one drink; moderate consumption as 15-29.9 g/day, or one to two drinks; and heavy drinking as 30 g/day or more, or three or more drinks.

At baseline, 54.8% of participants were nondrinkers, 26.7% were mild drinkers, 11.0% were moderate drinkers, and 7.5% were heavy drinkers.

From 2009 to 2011, 24.2% of mild drinkers, 8.4% of moderate drinkers, and 7.6% of heavy drinkers became quitters. In the same period, 13.9% of nondrinkers, 16.1% of mild drinkers, and 17.4% of moderate drinkers increased their drinking level.

After a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2.5% of participants were diagnosed with dementia, 2.0% with Alzheimer’s disease, and 0.3% with vascular dementia.
 

Unexpected finding

Compared with consistently not drinking, mild and moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a 21% (adjust hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.81) and 17% (aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88) decreased risk for dementia, respectively.

Heavy drinking was linked to an 8% increased risk (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

Similar associations were found between alcohol consumption and risk for Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia.

Reducing drinking habits from heavy to moderate led to a reduction in risk for dementia and Alzheimer’s, and increasing drinking levels led to an increase in risk for both conditions.

But when the researchers analyzed dementia risk for nondrinkers who began drinking at mild levels during the study period, they found something unexpected – the risk in this group decreased by 7% for dementia (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and by 8% for Alzheimer’s (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95), compared with sustained mild drinkers.

“Our study showed that initiation of mild alcohol consumption leads to a reduced risk of all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, which has never been reported in previous studies,” Dr. Jeon said.

However, Dr. Jeon was quick to point out that this doesn’t mean that people who don’t drink should start.

Previous studies have shown that heavy alcohol use can triple an individual’s dementia risk, while other studies have shown that no amount of alcohol consumption is good for the brain.

“None of the existing health guidelines recommend starting alcohol drinking,” Dr. Jeon said. “Our findings regarding an initiation of mild alcohol consumption cannot be directly translated into clinical recommendations,” but the findings do warrant additional study, he added.
 

Risks persist

Commenting on the findings, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association in Chicago, agrees.

“While this study is interesting, and this topic deserves further study, no one should drink alcohol as a method of reducing risk of Alzheimer’s disease or other dementia based on this study,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not part of the study.

The exact tipping point in alcohol consumption that can lead to problems with cognition or increased dementia risk is unknown, Dr. Griffin said. Nor do researchers understand why mild drinking may have a protective effect.

“We do know, however, that excessive alcohol consumption has negative effects on heart health and general health, which can lead to problems with brain function,” he said. “Clinicians should have discussions with their patients around their alcohol consumption patterns and the risks associated with drinking in excess, including potential damage to their cognition.”

Funding for the study was not disclosed. Dr. Jeon and Dr. Griffin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Measures enacted in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic to increase access to buprenorphine did not lead to an increase in the proportion of overdose deaths involving the drug, new research suggests.

Researchers say the data add weight to the argument for permanently adopting the pandemic-era prescribing regulations for buprenorphine, a treatment for opioid use disorder.

“We saw no evidence that increased availability of buprenorphine through the loosening of rules around prescribing and dispensing of buprenorphine during the pandemic increased overdose deaths,” investigator Wilson Compton, MD, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, told this news organization.

“This is reassuring that, even when we opened up the doors to easier access to buprenorphine, we didn’t see that most serious consequence,” Dr. Compton said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open .
 

Cause and effect

Federal agencies relaxed prescribing regulations for buprenorphine in March 2020 to make it easier for clinicians to prescribe the drug via telemedicine and for patients to take the medication at home.

The number of buprenorphine prescriptions has increased since that change, with more than 1 million people receiving the medication in 2021 from retail pharmacies in the United States.

However, questions remained about whether increased access would lead to an increase in buprenorphine-involved overdose.

Researchers with NIDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed data from the State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System, a CDC database that combines medical examiner and coroner reports and postmortem toxicology testing.

The study included information about overdose deaths from July 2019 to June 2021 in 46 states and the District of Columbia.

Between July 2019 and June 2021, there were 1,955 buprenorphine-involved overdose deaths, which accounted for 2.2% of all drug overdose deaths and 2.6% of opioid-involved overdose deaths.

However, researchers went beyond overall numbers and evaluated details from coroner’s and medical examiner reports, something they had not done before.

“For the first time we looked at the characteristics of decedents from buprenorphine because this has not been studied in this type of detail with a near-national sample,” Dr. Compton said.

“That allowed us to look at patterns of use of other substances as well as the circumstances that are recorded at the death scene that are in the data set,” he added.
 

Important insights

Reports from nearly all buprenorphine-involved deaths included the presence of at least one other drug, compared with opioid overdose deaths that typically involved only one drug.

“This is consistent with the pharmacology of buprenorphine being a partial agonist, so it may not be as fatal all by itself as some of the other opioids,” Dr. Compton said.

Deaths involving buprenorphine were less likely to include illicitly manufactured fentanyls, and other prescription medications were more often found on the scene, such as antidepressants.

Compared with opioid decedents, buprenorphine decedents were more likely to be women, age 35-44, White, and receiving treatment for mental health conditions, including for substance use disorder (SUD).

These kinds of characteristics provide important insights about potential ways to improve safety and clinical outcomes, Dr. Compton noted.

“When we see things like a little higher rate of SUD treatment and this evidence of other prescription drugs on the scene, and some higher rates of antidepressants in these decedents than I might have expected, I’m very curious about their use of other medical services outside of substance use treatment, because that might be a place where some interventions could be implemented,” he said.

A similar study showed pandemic-era policy changes that allowed methadone to be taken at home was followed by a decrease in methadone-related overdose deaths.

The new findings are consistent with those results, Dr. Compton said.
 

‘Chipping away’ at stigma

Commenting on the study, O. Trent Hall, DO, assistant professor of addiction medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said that, although he welcomed the findings, they aren’t unexpected.

“Buprenorphine is well established as a safe and effective medication for opioid use disorder and as a physician who routinely cares for patients in the hospital after opioid overdose, I am not at all surprised by these results,” said Dr. Hall, who was not involved with the research.

“When my patients leave the hospital with a buprenorphine prescription, they are much less likely to return with another overdose or serious opioid-related medical problem,” he added.

U.S. drug overdose deaths topped 100,000 for the first time in 2021, and most were opioid-related. Although the latest data from the CDC shows drug overdose deaths have been declining slowly since early 2022, the numbers remain high.

Buprenorphine is one of only two drugs known to reduce the risk of opioid overdose. While prescriptions have increased since 2020, the medication remains underutilized, despite its known effectiveness in treating opioid use disorder.

Dr. Hall noted that research such as the new study could help increase buprenorphine’s use.

“Studies like this one chip away at the stigma that has been misapplied to buprenorphine,” he said. “I hope this article will encourage more providers to offer buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder.”

The study was funded internally by NIDA and the CDC. Dr. Compton reported owning stock in General Electric, 3M, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Hall has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Measures enacted in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic to increase access to buprenorphine did not lead to an increase in the proportion of overdose deaths involving the drug, new research suggests.

Researchers say the data add weight to the argument for permanently adopting the pandemic-era prescribing regulations for buprenorphine, a treatment for opioid use disorder.

“We saw no evidence that increased availability of buprenorphine through the loosening of rules around prescribing and dispensing of buprenorphine during the pandemic increased overdose deaths,” investigator Wilson Compton, MD, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, told this news organization.

“This is reassuring that, even when we opened up the doors to easier access to buprenorphine, we didn’t see that most serious consequence,” Dr. Compton said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open .
 

Cause and effect

Federal agencies relaxed prescribing regulations for buprenorphine in March 2020 to make it easier for clinicians to prescribe the drug via telemedicine and for patients to take the medication at home.

The number of buprenorphine prescriptions has increased since that change, with more than 1 million people receiving the medication in 2021 from retail pharmacies in the United States.

However, questions remained about whether increased access would lead to an increase in buprenorphine-involved overdose.

Researchers with NIDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed data from the State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System, a CDC database that combines medical examiner and coroner reports and postmortem toxicology testing.

The study included information about overdose deaths from July 2019 to June 2021 in 46 states and the District of Columbia.

Between July 2019 and June 2021, there were 1,955 buprenorphine-involved overdose deaths, which accounted for 2.2% of all drug overdose deaths and 2.6% of opioid-involved overdose deaths.

However, researchers went beyond overall numbers and evaluated details from coroner’s and medical examiner reports, something they had not done before.

“For the first time we looked at the characteristics of decedents from buprenorphine because this has not been studied in this type of detail with a near-national sample,” Dr. Compton said.

“That allowed us to look at patterns of use of other substances as well as the circumstances that are recorded at the death scene that are in the data set,” he added.
 

Important insights

Reports from nearly all buprenorphine-involved deaths included the presence of at least one other drug, compared with opioid overdose deaths that typically involved only one drug.

“This is consistent with the pharmacology of buprenorphine being a partial agonist, so it may not be as fatal all by itself as some of the other opioids,” Dr. Compton said.

Deaths involving buprenorphine were less likely to include illicitly manufactured fentanyls, and other prescription medications were more often found on the scene, such as antidepressants.

Compared with opioid decedents, buprenorphine decedents were more likely to be women, age 35-44, White, and receiving treatment for mental health conditions, including for substance use disorder (SUD).

These kinds of characteristics provide important insights about potential ways to improve safety and clinical outcomes, Dr. Compton noted.

“When we see things like a little higher rate of SUD treatment and this evidence of other prescription drugs on the scene, and some higher rates of antidepressants in these decedents than I might have expected, I’m very curious about their use of other medical services outside of substance use treatment, because that might be a place where some interventions could be implemented,” he said.

A similar study showed pandemic-era policy changes that allowed methadone to be taken at home was followed by a decrease in methadone-related overdose deaths.

The new findings are consistent with those results, Dr. Compton said.
 

‘Chipping away’ at stigma

Commenting on the study, O. Trent Hall, DO, assistant professor of addiction medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said that, although he welcomed the findings, they aren’t unexpected.

“Buprenorphine is well established as a safe and effective medication for opioid use disorder and as a physician who routinely cares for patients in the hospital after opioid overdose, I am not at all surprised by these results,” said Dr. Hall, who was not involved with the research.

“When my patients leave the hospital with a buprenorphine prescription, they are much less likely to return with another overdose or serious opioid-related medical problem,” he added.

U.S. drug overdose deaths topped 100,000 for the first time in 2021, and most were opioid-related. Although the latest data from the CDC shows drug overdose deaths have been declining slowly since early 2022, the numbers remain high.

Buprenorphine is one of only two drugs known to reduce the risk of opioid overdose. While prescriptions have increased since 2020, the medication remains underutilized, despite its known effectiveness in treating opioid use disorder.

Dr. Hall noted that research such as the new study could help increase buprenorphine’s use.

“Studies like this one chip away at the stigma that has been misapplied to buprenorphine,” he said. “I hope this article will encourage more providers to offer buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder.”

The study was funded internally by NIDA and the CDC. Dr. Compton reported owning stock in General Electric, 3M, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Hall has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Measures enacted in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic to increase access to buprenorphine did not lead to an increase in the proportion of overdose deaths involving the drug, new research suggests.

Researchers say the data add weight to the argument for permanently adopting the pandemic-era prescribing regulations for buprenorphine, a treatment for opioid use disorder.

“We saw no evidence that increased availability of buprenorphine through the loosening of rules around prescribing and dispensing of buprenorphine during the pandemic increased overdose deaths,” investigator Wilson Compton, MD, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, told this news organization.

“This is reassuring that, even when we opened up the doors to easier access to buprenorphine, we didn’t see that most serious consequence,” Dr. Compton said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open .
 

Cause and effect

Federal agencies relaxed prescribing regulations for buprenorphine in March 2020 to make it easier for clinicians to prescribe the drug via telemedicine and for patients to take the medication at home.

The number of buprenorphine prescriptions has increased since that change, with more than 1 million people receiving the medication in 2021 from retail pharmacies in the United States.

However, questions remained about whether increased access would lead to an increase in buprenorphine-involved overdose.

Researchers with NIDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed data from the State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System, a CDC database that combines medical examiner and coroner reports and postmortem toxicology testing.

The study included information about overdose deaths from July 2019 to June 2021 in 46 states and the District of Columbia.

Between July 2019 and June 2021, there were 1,955 buprenorphine-involved overdose deaths, which accounted for 2.2% of all drug overdose deaths and 2.6% of opioid-involved overdose deaths.

However, researchers went beyond overall numbers and evaluated details from coroner’s and medical examiner reports, something they had not done before.

“For the first time we looked at the characteristics of decedents from buprenorphine because this has not been studied in this type of detail with a near-national sample,” Dr. Compton said.

“That allowed us to look at patterns of use of other substances as well as the circumstances that are recorded at the death scene that are in the data set,” he added.
 

Important insights

Reports from nearly all buprenorphine-involved deaths included the presence of at least one other drug, compared with opioid overdose deaths that typically involved only one drug.

“This is consistent with the pharmacology of buprenorphine being a partial agonist, so it may not be as fatal all by itself as some of the other opioids,” Dr. Compton said.

Deaths involving buprenorphine were less likely to include illicitly manufactured fentanyls, and other prescription medications were more often found on the scene, such as antidepressants.

Compared with opioid decedents, buprenorphine decedents were more likely to be women, age 35-44, White, and receiving treatment for mental health conditions, including for substance use disorder (SUD).

These kinds of characteristics provide important insights about potential ways to improve safety and clinical outcomes, Dr. Compton noted.

“When we see things like a little higher rate of SUD treatment and this evidence of other prescription drugs on the scene, and some higher rates of antidepressants in these decedents than I might have expected, I’m very curious about their use of other medical services outside of substance use treatment, because that might be a place where some interventions could be implemented,” he said.

A similar study showed pandemic-era policy changes that allowed methadone to be taken at home was followed by a decrease in methadone-related overdose deaths.

The new findings are consistent with those results, Dr. Compton said.
 

‘Chipping away’ at stigma

Commenting on the study, O. Trent Hall, DO, assistant professor of addiction medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said that, although he welcomed the findings, they aren’t unexpected.

“Buprenorphine is well established as a safe and effective medication for opioid use disorder and as a physician who routinely cares for patients in the hospital after opioid overdose, I am not at all surprised by these results,” said Dr. Hall, who was not involved with the research.

“When my patients leave the hospital with a buprenorphine prescription, they are much less likely to return with another overdose or serious opioid-related medical problem,” he added.

U.S. drug overdose deaths topped 100,000 for the first time in 2021, and most were opioid-related. Although the latest data from the CDC shows drug overdose deaths have been declining slowly since early 2022, the numbers remain high.

Buprenorphine is one of only two drugs known to reduce the risk of opioid overdose. While prescriptions have increased since 2020, the medication remains underutilized, despite its known effectiveness in treating opioid use disorder.

Dr. Hall noted that research such as the new study could help increase buprenorphine’s use.

“Studies like this one chip away at the stigma that has been misapplied to buprenorphine,” he said. “I hope this article will encourage more providers to offer buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder.”

The study was funded internally by NIDA and the CDC. Dr. Compton reported owning stock in General Electric, 3M, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Hall has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The drug overdose death rate in the United States climbed 376% from 2001 to 2021, with much of that increase occurring in the last 2 years, according to the National Center for Heath Statistics.

The 376% represents the change in age-adjusted overdose deaths per 100,000 population, which went from 6.9 in 2001 to 32.4 in 2021, as the total number of deaths rose from 19,394 to 106,699 (450%) over that time period, the NCHS said in a recent data brief. That total made 2021 the first year ever with more than 100,000 overdose deaths.

Since the age-adjusted rate stood at 21.6 per 100,000 in 2019, that means 42% of the total increase over 20 years actually occurred in 2020 and 2021. The number of deaths increased by about 36,000 over those 2 years, accounting for 41% of the total annual increase from 2001 to 2021, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System mortality files.

The overdose death rate was significantly higher for males than females for all of the years from 2001 to 2021, with males seeing an increase from 9.0 to 45.1 per 100,000 and females going from 4.6 to 19.6 deaths per 100,000. In the single year from 2020 to 2021, the age-adjusted rate was up by 14% for males and 15% for females, the mortality-file data show.

Analysis by age showed an even larger effect in some groups from 2020 to 2021. Drug overdose deaths jumped 28% among adults aged 65 years and older, more than any other group, and by 21% in those aged 55-64 years, according to the NCHS.

The only age group for which deaths didn’t increase significantly from 2020 to 2021 was 15- to 24-year-olds, whose rate rose by just 3%. The age group with the highest rate in both 2020 and 2021, however, was the 35- to 44-year-olds: 53.9 and 62.0 overdose deaths per 100,000, respectively, for an increase of 15%, the NCHS said in the report.

The drugs now involved in overdose deaths are most often opioids, a change from 2001. That year, opioids were involved in 49% of all overdose deaths, but by 2021 that share had increased to 75%. The trend for opioid-related deaths almost matches that of overall deaths over the 20-year span, and the significantly increasing trend that began for all overdose deaths in 2013 closely follows that of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and tramadol, the report shows.

Overdose deaths involving cocaine and psychostimulants such as methamphetamine, amphetamine, and methylphenidate also show similar increases. The cocaine-related death rate rose 22% from 2020 to 2021 and is up by 421% since 2012, while the corresponding increases for psychostimulant deaths were 33% and 2,400%, the NCHS said.

The drug overdose death rate in the United States climbed 376% from 2001 to 2021, with much of that increase occurring in the last 2 years, according to the National Center for Heath Statistics.

The 376% represents the change in age-adjusted overdose deaths per 100,000 population, which went from 6.9 in 2001 to 32.4 in 2021, as the total number of deaths rose from 19,394 to 106,699 (450%) over that time period, the NCHS said in a recent data brief. That total made 2021 the first year ever with more than 100,000 overdose deaths.

Since the age-adjusted rate stood at 21.6 per 100,000 in 2019, that means 42% of the total increase over 20 years actually occurred in 2020 and 2021. The number of deaths increased by about 36,000 over those 2 years, accounting for 41% of the total annual increase from 2001 to 2021, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System mortality files.

The overdose death rate was significantly higher for males than females for all of the years from 2001 to 2021, with males seeing an increase from 9.0 to 45.1 per 100,000 and females going from 4.6 to 19.6 deaths per 100,000. In the single year from 2020 to 2021, the age-adjusted rate was up by 14% for males and 15% for females, the mortality-file data show.

Analysis by age showed an even larger effect in some groups from 2020 to 2021. Drug overdose deaths jumped 28% among adults aged 65 years and older, more than any other group, and by 21% in those aged 55-64 years, according to the NCHS.

The only age group for which deaths didn’t increase significantly from 2020 to 2021 was 15- to 24-year-olds, whose rate rose by just 3%. The age group with the highest rate in both 2020 and 2021, however, was the 35- to 44-year-olds: 53.9 and 62.0 overdose deaths per 100,000, respectively, for an increase of 15%, the NCHS said in the report.

The drugs now involved in overdose deaths are most often opioids, a change from 2001. That year, opioids were involved in 49% of all overdose deaths, but by 2021 that share had increased to 75%. The trend for opioid-related deaths almost matches that of overall deaths over the 20-year span, and the significantly increasing trend that began for all overdose deaths in 2013 closely follows that of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and tramadol, the report shows.

Overdose deaths involving cocaine and psychostimulants such as methamphetamine, amphetamine, and methylphenidate also show similar increases. The cocaine-related death rate rose 22% from 2020 to 2021 and is up by 421% since 2012, while the corresponding increases for psychostimulant deaths were 33% and 2,400%, the NCHS said.

The drug overdose death rate in the United States climbed 376% from 2001 to 2021, with much of that increase occurring in the last 2 years, according to the National Center for Heath Statistics.

The 376% represents the change in age-adjusted overdose deaths per 100,000 population, which went from 6.9 in 2001 to 32.4 in 2021, as the total number of deaths rose from 19,394 to 106,699 (450%) over that time period, the NCHS said in a recent data brief. That total made 2021 the first year ever with more than 100,000 overdose deaths.

Since the age-adjusted rate stood at 21.6 per 100,000 in 2019, that means 42% of the total increase over 20 years actually occurred in 2020 and 2021. The number of deaths increased by about 36,000 over those 2 years, accounting for 41% of the total annual increase from 2001 to 2021, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System mortality files.

The overdose death rate was significantly higher for males than females for all of the years from 2001 to 2021, with males seeing an increase from 9.0 to 45.1 per 100,000 and females going from 4.6 to 19.6 deaths per 100,000. In the single year from 2020 to 2021, the age-adjusted rate was up by 14% for males and 15% for females, the mortality-file data show.

Analysis by age showed an even larger effect in some groups from 2020 to 2021. Drug overdose deaths jumped 28% among adults aged 65 years and older, more than any other group, and by 21% in those aged 55-64 years, according to the NCHS.

The only age group for which deaths didn’t increase significantly from 2020 to 2021 was 15- to 24-year-olds, whose rate rose by just 3%. The age group with the highest rate in both 2020 and 2021, however, was the 35- to 44-year-olds: 53.9 and 62.0 overdose deaths per 100,000, respectively, for an increase of 15%, the NCHS said in the report.

The drugs now involved in overdose deaths are most often opioids, a change from 2001. That year, opioids were involved in 49% of all overdose deaths, but by 2021 that share had increased to 75%. The trend for opioid-related deaths almost matches that of overall deaths over the 20-year span, and the significantly increasing trend that began for all overdose deaths in 2013 closely follows that of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and tramadol, the report shows.

Overdose deaths involving cocaine and psychostimulants such as methamphetamine, amphetamine, and methylphenidate also show similar increases. The cocaine-related death rate rose 22% from 2020 to 2021 and is up by 421% since 2012, while the corresponding increases for psychostimulant deaths were 33% and 2,400%, the NCHS said.

Pregnancy-associated deaths, including drug-related deaths and homicide, were up 35% in 2020, compared with prepandemic 2019, new research indicates.

The data also show a 7.1% decrease in pregnancy-related suicides in 2020 from 2019.

The study, led by Claire E. Margerison, PhD, with the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Michigan State University, East Lansing, included 4,528 pregnancy-associated deaths. The rate of deaths per 100,000 live births from April to December 2020 was 66.9 (95% confidence interval, 63.9-70.1). The comparative rate from April to December 2019 was 49.6. Researchers looked at that time period because the pandemic started in March 2020.

The findings were published online in JAMA Open Network.
 

Drug-related deaths up 55.3%

During the study period, drug deaths increased 55.3% and deaths from homicide increased 41.2%. Deaths from obstetric and other causes (mainly vehicle crashes) increased 28.4% and 56.7%, respectively, according to Dr. Margerison's group.

“Although pregnancy-associated deaths increased over time, increases from 2019 to 2020 were substantially larger than increases from 2018 to 2019,” the authors wrote.

The findings align with deaths in the general population in that time frame, they added.

Another study – this one looking at all-cause and cause-specific mortality from 2019 to 2020 in recently pregnant women, also published in JAMA Network Open, found significant racial and ethnic disparities in rates and cause of death.

According to the study, “Compared with non-Hispanic White women, mortality rates were three- to fivefold higher among American Indian or Alaska Native women for every cause, including suicide. Likewise, these findings suggest that non-Hispanic Black women experienced significantly higher mortality rates across causes, with the highest rates for homicide.”

Dr. Margerison and colleagues did not try to answer what caused the increases but pointed to the fentanyl epidemic, the murder of George Floyd, and COVID-19–related economic strain as potential stressors. They also suggest fewer screenings during the pandemic may have played a role.
 

Prevention opportunities missed

“Although pregnancy is considered an opportunity for screening and prevention related to physical, mental, and behavioral health, our data suggest that such opportunities were missed for hundreds of pregnant people during the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

Researchers analyzed cross-sectional U.S. death certificates from Jan. 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2020, for female U.S. residents ages 15-44 years. They then obtained the count for live births for the same population and time frame from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database.

They were able to identify pregnancy-associated deaths as the 2003 Revised Death Certificate contains a standardized pregnancy checkbox that asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death, or within 43 days to 1 year of death.

Researchers also included deaths with ICD-10 codes linked with death from obstetric causes.

Deaths from overdose, suicide, and homicide are making up large and growing proportions of all deaths during pregnancy and in the first year postpartum, the authors report.

Dr. Margerison and coauthors, in research published in 2022, reported that these causes account for more than one-fifth of all pregnancy-related deaths. They also reported that drug-related deaths and homicides in this population have increased over the past 10 years.

“Substantial racial and ethnic inequities in these deaths exist,” they wrote in that paper.

The authors concluded in the current research: “Our study findings suggest that there is a need for prevention and intervention efforts, including harm-reduction strategies, tailored to pregnant and postpartum women, particularly during times of population stress and decreased utilization of preventive care, such as a pandemic.”

Dr. Margerison and coauthors reported receiving grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development during the study. One coauthor received personal fees from the World Health Organization and Population Reference Bureau outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grant support from the National Institutes of Mental Health during the study.

*This story was updated on 2/1.

Pregnancy-associated deaths, including drug-related deaths and homicide, were up 35% in 2020, compared with prepandemic 2019, new research indicates.

The data also show a 7.1% decrease in pregnancy-related suicides in 2020 from 2019.

The study, led by Claire E. Margerison, PhD, with the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Michigan State University, East Lansing, included 4,528 pregnancy-associated deaths. The rate of deaths per 100,000 live births from April to December 2020 was 66.9 (95% confidence interval, 63.9-70.1). The comparative rate from April to December 2019 was 49.6. Researchers looked at that time period because the pandemic started in March 2020.

The findings were published online in JAMA Open Network.
 

Drug-related deaths up 55.3%

During the study period, drug deaths increased 55.3% and deaths from homicide increased 41.2%. Deaths from obstetric and other causes (mainly vehicle crashes) increased 28.4% and 56.7%, respectively, according to Dr. Margerison's group.

“Although pregnancy-associated deaths increased over time, increases from 2019 to 2020 were substantially larger than increases from 2018 to 2019,” the authors wrote.

The findings align with deaths in the general population in that time frame, they added.

Another study – this one looking at all-cause and cause-specific mortality from 2019 to 2020 in recently pregnant women, also published in JAMA Network Open, found significant racial and ethnic disparities in rates and cause of death.

According to the study, “Compared with non-Hispanic White women, mortality rates were three- to fivefold higher among American Indian or Alaska Native women for every cause, including suicide. Likewise, these findings suggest that non-Hispanic Black women experienced significantly higher mortality rates across causes, with the highest rates for homicide.”

Dr. Margerison and colleagues did not try to answer what caused the increases but pointed to the fentanyl epidemic, the murder of George Floyd, and COVID-19–related economic strain as potential stressors. They also suggest fewer screenings during the pandemic may have played a role.
 

Prevention opportunities missed

“Although pregnancy is considered an opportunity for screening and prevention related to physical, mental, and behavioral health, our data suggest that such opportunities were missed for hundreds of pregnant people during the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

Researchers analyzed cross-sectional U.S. death certificates from Jan. 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2020, for female U.S. residents ages 15-44 years. They then obtained the count for live births for the same population and time frame from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database.

They were able to identify pregnancy-associated deaths as the 2003 Revised Death Certificate contains a standardized pregnancy checkbox that asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death, or within 43 days to 1 year of death.

Researchers also included deaths with ICD-10 codes linked with death from obstetric causes.

Deaths from overdose, suicide, and homicide are making up large and growing proportions of all deaths during pregnancy and in the first year postpartum, the authors report.

Dr. Margerison and coauthors, in research published in 2022, reported that these causes account for more than one-fifth of all pregnancy-related deaths. They also reported that drug-related deaths and homicides in this population have increased over the past 10 years.

“Substantial racial and ethnic inequities in these deaths exist,” they wrote in that paper.

The authors concluded in the current research: “Our study findings suggest that there is a need for prevention and intervention efforts, including harm-reduction strategies, tailored to pregnant and postpartum women, particularly during times of population stress and decreased utilization of preventive care, such as a pandemic.”

Dr. Margerison and coauthors reported receiving grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development during the study. One coauthor received personal fees from the World Health Organization and Population Reference Bureau outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grant support from the National Institutes of Mental Health during the study.

*This story was updated on 2/1.

Pregnancy-associated deaths, including drug-related deaths and homicide, were up 35% in 2020, compared with prepandemic 2019, new research indicates.

The data also show a 7.1% decrease in pregnancy-related suicides in 2020 from 2019.

The study, led by Claire E. Margerison, PhD, with the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Michigan State University, East Lansing, included 4,528 pregnancy-associated deaths. The rate of deaths per 100,000 live births from April to December 2020 was 66.9 (95% confidence interval, 63.9-70.1). The comparative rate from April to December 2019 was 49.6. Researchers looked at that time period because the pandemic started in March 2020.

The findings were published online in JAMA Open Network.
 

Drug-related deaths up 55.3%

During the study period, drug deaths increased 55.3% and deaths from homicide increased 41.2%. Deaths from obstetric and other causes (mainly vehicle crashes) increased 28.4% and 56.7%, respectively, according to Dr. Margerison's group.

“Although pregnancy-associated deaths increased over time, increases from 2019 to 2020 were substantially larger than increases from 2018 to 2019,” the authors wrote.

The findings align with deaths in the general population in that time frame, they added.

Another study – this one looking at all-cause and cause-specific mortality from 2019 to 2020 in recently pregnant women, also published in JAMA Network Open, found significant racial and ethnic disparities in rates and cause of death.

According to the study, “Compared with non-Hispanic White women, mortality rates were three- to fivefold higher among American Indian or Alaska Native women for every cause, including suicide. Likewise, these findings suggest that non-Hispanic Black women experienced significantly higher mortality rates across causes, with the highest rates for homicide.”

Dr. Margerison and colleagues did not try to answer what caused the increases but pointed to the fentanyl epidemic, the murder of George Floyd, and COVID-19–related economic strain as potential stressors. They also suggest fewer screenings during the pandemic may have played a role.
 

Prevention opportunities missed

“Although pregnancy is considered an opportunity for screening and prevention related to physical, mental, and behavioral health, our data suggest that such opportunities were missed for hundreds of pregnant people during the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

Researchers analyzed cross-sectional U.S. death certificates from Jan. 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2020, for female U.S. residents ages 15-44 years. They then obtained the count for live births for the same population and time frame from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database.

They were able to identify pregnancy-associated deaths as the 2003 Revised Death Certificate contains a standardized pregnancy checkbox that asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death, or within 43 days to 1 year of death.

Researchers also included deaths with ICD-10 codes linked with death from obstetric causes.

Deaths from overdose, suicide, and homicide are making up large and growing proportions of all deaths during pregnancy and in the first year postpartum, the authors report.

Dr. Margerison and coauthors, in research published in 2022, reported that these causes account for more than one-fifth of all pregnancy-related deaths. They also reported that drug-related deaths and homicides in this population have increased over the past 10 years.

“Substantial racial and ethnic inequities in these deaths exist,” they wrote in that paper.

The authors concluded in the current research: “Our study findings suggest that there is a need for prevention and intervention efforts, including harm-reduction strategies, tailored to pregnant and postpartum women, particularly during times of population stress and decreased utilization of preventive care, such as a pandemic.”

Dr. Margerison and coauthors reported receiving grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development during the study. One coauthor received personal fees from the World Health Organization and Population Reference Bureau outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grant support from the National Institutes of Mental Health during the study.

*This story was updated on 2/1.

A network of neural connections is linked to six psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), depression, addiction, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and anxiety, new research shows.

Investigators used coordinate and lesion network mapping to assess whether there was a shared brain network common to multiple psychiatric disorders. In a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies encompassing more than 15,000 individuals, they found that atrophy coordinates across these six psychiatric conditions all mapped to a common brain network.

Moreover, lesion damage to this network in patients with penetrating head trauma correlated with the number of psychiatric illnesses that the patients were diagnosed with post trauma.

The findings have “bigger-picture potential implications,” lead author Joseph Taylor, MD, PhD, medical director of transcranial magnetic stimulation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics, Boston, told this news organization.

“In psychiatry, we talk about symptoms and define our disorders based on symptom checklists, which are fairly reliable but don’t have neurobiological underpinnings,” said Dr. Taylor, who is also an associate psychiatrist in Brigham’s department of psychiatry.

By contrast, “in neurology, we ask: ‘Where is the lesion?’ Studying brain networks could potentially help us diagnose and treat people with psychiatric illness more effectively, just as we treat neurological disorders,” he added.

The findings were published online in Nature Human Behavior.
 

Beyond symptom checklists

Dr. Taylor noted that, in the field of psychiatry, “we often study disorders in isolation,” such as generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

“But what see clinically is that half of patients meet the criteria for more than one psychiatric disorder,” he said. “It can be difficult to diagnose and treat these patients, and there are worse treatment outcomes.”

There is also a “discrepancy” between how these disorders are studied (one at a time) and how patients are treated in clinic, Dr. Taylor noted. And there is increasing evidence that psychiatric disorders may share a common neurobiology.

This “highlights the possibility of potentially developing transdiagnostic treatments based on common neurobiology, not just symptom checklists,” Dr. Taylor said.

Prior work “has attempted to map abnormalities to common brain regions rather than to a common brain network,” the investigators wrote. Moreover, “prior studies have rarely tested specificity by comparing psychiatric disorders to other brain disorders.”

In the current study, the researchers used “morphometric brain lesion datasets coupled with a wiring diagram of the human brain to derive a convergent brain network for psychiatric illness.”

They analyzed four large published datasets. Dataset 1 was sourced from an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis (ALE) of whole-brain voxel-based studies that compared patients with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, BD, depression, addiction, OCD, and anxiety to healthy controls (n = 193 studies; 15,892 individuals in total).

Dataset 2 was drawn from published neuroimaging studies involving patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative conditions (n = 72 studies). They reported coordinates regarding which patients with these disorders had more atrophy compared with control persons.

Dataset 3 was sourced from the Vietnam Head Injury study, which followed veterans with and those without penetrating head injuries (n = 194 veterans with injuries). Dataset 4 was sourced from published neurosurgical ablation coordinates for depression.
 

Shared neurobiology

Upon analyzing dataset 1, the researchers found decreased gray matter in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and parietal operculum – findings that are “consistent with prior work.”

However, fewer than 35% of the studies contributed to any single cluster; and no cluster was specific to psychiatric versus neurodegenerative coordinates (drawn from dataset 2).

On the other hand, coordinate network mapping yielded “more statistically robust” (P < .001) results, which were found in 85% of the studies. “Psychiatric atrophy coordinates were functionally connected to the same network of brain regions,” the researchers reported.

This network was defined by two types of connectivity, positive and negative.

“The topography of this transdiagnostic network was independent of the statistical threshold and specific to psychiatric (vs. neurodegenerative) disorders, with the strongest peak occurring in the posterior parietal cortex (Brodmann Area 7) near the intraparietal sulcus,” the investigators wrote.

When lesions from dataset 3 were overlaid onto the ALE map and the transdiagnostic network in order to evaluate whether damage to either map correlated with number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnosis, results showed no evidence of a correlation between psychiatric comorbidity and damage on the ALE map (Pearson r, 0.02; P = .766).

However, when the same approach was applied to the transdiagnostic network, a statistically significant correlation was found between psychiatric comorbidity and lesion damage (Pearson r, –0.21; P = .01). A multiple regression model showed that the transdiagnostic, but not the ALE, network “independently predicted the number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnoses” (P = .003 vs. P = .1), the investigators reported.

All four neurosurgical ablative targets for psychiatric disorders found on analysis of dataset 4 “intersected” and aligned with the transdiagnostic network.

“The study does not immediately impact clinical practice, but it would be helpful for practicing clinicians to know that psychiatric disorders commonly co-occur and might share common neurobiology and a convergent brain network,” Dr. Taylor said.

“Future work based on our findings could potentially influence clinical trials and clinical practice, especially in the area of brain stimulation,” he added.
 

‘Exciting new targets’

In a comment, Desmond Oathes, PhD, associate director, Center for Neuromodulation and Stress, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the “next step in the science is to combine individual brain imaging, aka, ‘individualized connectomes,’ with these promising group maps to determine something meaningful at the individual patient level.”

Dr. Oathes, who is also a faculty clinician at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety and was not involved with the study, noted that an open question is whether the brain volume abnormalities/atrophy “can be changed with treatment and in what direction.”

A “strong take-home message from this paper is that brain volume measures from single coordinates are noisy as measures of psychiatric abnormality, whereas network effects seem to be especially sensitive for capturing these effects,” Dr. Oathes said.

The “abnormal networks across these disorders do not fit easily into well-known networks from healthy participants. However, they map well onto other databases relevant to psychiatric disorders and offer exciting new potential targets for prospective treatment studies,” he added.

The investigators received no specific funding for this work. Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oathes reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A network of neural connections is linked to six psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), depression, addiction, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and anxiety, new research shows.

Investigators used coordinate and lesion network mapping to assess whether there was a shared brain network common to multiple psychiatric disorders. In a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies encompassing more than 15,000 individuals, they found that atrophy coordinates across these six psychiatric conditions all mapped to a common brain network.

Moreover, lesion damage to this network in patients with penetrating head trauma correlated with the number of psychiatric illnesses that the patients were diagnosed with post trauma.

The findings have “bigger-picture potential implications,” lead author Joseph Taylor, MD, PhD, medical director of transcranial magnetic stimulation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics, Boston, told this news organization.

“In psychiatry, we talk about symptoms and define our disorders based on symptom checklists, which are fairly reliable but don’t have neurobiological underpinnings,” said Dr. Taylor, who is also an associate psychiatrist in Brigham’s department of psychiatry.

By contrast, “in neurology, we ask: ‘Where is the lesion?’ Studying brain networks could potentially help us diagnose and treat people with psychiatric illness more effectively, just as we treat neurological disorders,” he added.

The findings were published online in Nature Human Behavior.
 

Beyond symptom checklists

Dr. Taylor noted that, in the field of psychiatry, “we often study disorders in isolation,” such as generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

“But what see clinically is that half of patients meet the criteria for more than one psychiatric disorder,” he said. “It can be difficult to diagnose and treat these patients, and there are worse treatment outcomes.”

There is also a “discrepancy” between how these disorders are studied (one at a time) and how patients are treated in clinic, Dr. Taylor noted. And there is increasing evidence that psychiatric disorders may share a common neurobiology.

This “highlights the possibility of potentially developing transdiagnostic treatments based on common neurobiology, not just symptom checklists,” Dr. Taylor said.

Prior work “has attempted to map abnormalities to common brain regions rather than to a common brain network,” the investigators wrote. Moreover, “prior studies have rarely tested specificity by comparing psychiatric disorders to other brain disorders.”

In the current study, the researchers used “morphometric brain lesion datasets coupled with a wiring diagram of the human brain to derive a convergent brain network for psychiatric illness.”

They analyzed four large published datasets. Dataset 1 was sourced from an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis (ALE) of whole-brain voxel-based studies that compared patients with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, BD, depression, addiction, OCD, and anxiety to healthy controls (n = 193 studies; 15,892 individuals in total).

Dataset 2 was drawn from published neuroimaging studies involving patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative conditions (n = 72 studies). They reported coordinates regarding which patients with these disorders had more atrophy compared with control persons.

Dataset 3 was sourced from the Vietnam Head Injury study, which followed veterans with and those without penetrating head injuries (n = 194 veterans with injuries). Dataset 4 was sourced from published neurosurgical ablation coordinates for depression.
 

Shared neurobiology

Upon analyzing dataset 1, the researchers found decreased gray matter in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and parietal operculum – findings that are “consistent with prior work.”

However, fewer than 35% of the studies contributed to any single cluster; and no cluster was specific to psychiatric versus neurodegenerative coordinates (drawn from dataset 2).

On the other hand, coordinate network mapping yielded “more statistically robust” (P < .001) results, which were found in 85% of the studies. “Psychiatric atrophy coordinates were functionally connected to the same network of brain regions,” the researchers reported.

This network was defined by two types of connectivity, positive and negative.

“The topography of this transdiagnostic network was independent of the statistical threshold and specific to psychiatric (vs. neurodegenerative) disorders, with the strongest peak occurring in the posterior parietal cortex (Brodmann Area 7) near the intraparietal sulcus,” the investigators wrote.

When lesions from dataset 3 were overlaid onto the ALE map and the transdiagnostic network in order to evaluate whether damage to either map correlated with number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnosis, results showed no evidence of a correlation between psychiatric comorbidity and damage on the ALE map (Pearson r, 0.02; P = .766).

However, when the same approach was applied to the transdiagnostic network, a statistically significant correlation was found between psychiatric comorbidity and lesion damage (Pearson r, –0.21; P = .01). A multiple regression model showed that the transdiagnostic, but not the ALE, network “independently predicted the number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnoses” (P = .003 vs. P = .1), the investigators reported.

All four neurosurgical ablative targets for psychiatric disorders found on analysis of dataset 4 “intersected” and aligned with the transdiagnostic network.

“The study does not immediately impact clinical practice, but it would be helpful for practicing clinicians to know that psychiatric disorders commonly co-occur and might share common neurobiology and a convergent brain network,” Dr. Taylor said.

“Future work based on our findings could potentially influence clinical trials and clinical practice, especially in the area of brain stimulation,” he added.
 

‘Exciting new targets’

In a comment, Desmond Oathes, PhD, associate director, Center for Neuromodulation and Stress, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the “next step in the science is to combine individual brain imaging, aka, ‘individualized connectomes,’ with these promising group maps to determine something meaningful at the individual patient level.”

Dr. Oathes, who is also a faculty clinician at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety and was not involved with the study, noted that an open question is whether the brain volume abnormalities/atrophy “can be changed with treatment and in what direction.”

A “strong take-home message from this paper is that brain volume measures from single coordinates are noisy as measures of psychiatric abnormality, whereas network effects seem to be especially sensitive for capturing these effects,” Dr. Oathes said.

The “abnormal networks across these disorders do not fit easily into well-known networks from healthy participants. However, they map well onto other databases relevant to psychiatric disorders and offer exciting new potential targets for prospective treatment studies,” he added.

The investigators received no specific funding for this work. Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oathes reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A network of neural connections is linked to six psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), depression, addiction, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and anxiety, new research shows.

Investigators used coordinate and lesion network mapping to assess whether there was a shared brain network common to multiple psychiatric disorders. In a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies encompassing more than 15,000 individuals, they found that atrophy coordinates across these six psychiatric conditions all mapped to a common brain network.

Moreover, lesion damage to this network in patients with penetrating head trauma correlated with the number of psychiatric illnesses that the patients were diagnosed with post trauma.

The findings have “bigger-picture potential implications,” lead author Joseph Taylor, MD, PhD, medical director of transcranial magnetic stimulation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics, Boston, told this news organization.

“In psychiatry, we talk about symptoms and define our disorders based on symptom checklists, which are fairly reliable but don’t have neurobiological underpinnings,” said Dr. Taylor, who is also an associate psychiatrist in Brigham’s department of psychiatry.

By contrast, “in neurology, we ask: ‘Where is the lesion?’ Studying brain networks could potentially help us diagnose and treat people with psychiatric illness more effectively, just as we treat neurological disorders,” he added.

The findings were published online in Nature Human Behavior.
 

Beyond symptom checklists

Dr. Taylor noted that, in the field of psychiatry, “we often study disorders in isolation,” such as generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

“But what see clinically is that half of patients meet the criteria for more than one psychiatric disorder,” he said. “It can be difficult to diagnose and treat these patients, and there are worse treatment outcomes.”

There is also a “discrepancy” between how these disorders are studied (one at a time) and how patients are treated in clinic, Dr. Taylor noted. And there is increasing evidence that psychiatric disorders may share a common neurobiology.

This “highlights the possibility of potentially developing transdiagnostic treatments based on common neurobiology, not just symptom checklists,” Dr. Taylor said.

Prior work “has attempted to map abnormalities to common brain regions rather than to a common brain network,” the investigators wrote. Moreover, “prior studies have rarely tested specificity by comparing psychiatric disorders to other brain disorders.”

In the current study, the researchers used “morphometric brain lesion datasets coupled with a wiring diagram of the human brain to derive a convergent brain network for psychiatric illness.”

They analyzed four large published datasets. Dataset 1 was sourced from an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis (ALE) of whole-brain voxel-based studies that compared patients with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, BD, depression, addiction, OCD, and anxiety to healthy controls (n = 193 studies; 15,892 individuals in total).

Dataset 2 was drawn from published neuroimaging studies involving patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative conditions (n = 72 studies). They reported coordinates regarding which patients with these disorders had more atrophy compared with control persons.

Dataset 3 was sourced from the Vietnam Head Injury study, which followed veterans with and those without penetrating head injuries (n = 194 veterans with injuries). Dataset 4 was sourced from published neurosurgical ablation coordinates for depression.
 

Shared neurobiology

Upon analyzing dataset 1, the researchers found decreased gray matter in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and parietal operculum – findings that are “consistent with prior work.”

However, fewer than 35% of the studies contributed to any single cluster; and no cluster was specific to psychiatric versus neurodegenerative coordinates (drawn from dataset 2).

On the other hand, coordinate network mapping yielded “more statistically robust” (P < .001) results, which were found in 85% of the studies. “Psychiatric atrophy coordinates were functionally connected to the same network of brain regions,” the researchers reported.

This network was defined by two types of connectivity, positive and negative.

“The topography of this transdiagnostic network was independent of the statistical threshold and specific to psychiatric (vs. neurodegenerative) disorders, with the strongest peak occurring in the posterior parietal cortex (Brodmann Area 7) near the intraparietal sulcus,” the investigators wrote.

When lesions from dataset 3 were overlaid onto the ALE map and the transdiagnostic network in order to evaluate whether damage to either map correlated with number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnosis, results showed no evidence of a correlation between psychiatric comorbidity and damage on the ALE map (Pearson r, 0.02; P = .766).

However, when the same approach was applied to the transdiagnostic network, a statistically significant correlation was found between psychiatric comorbidity and lesion damage (Pearson r, –0.21; P = .01). A multiple regression model showed that the transdiagnostic, but not the ALE, network “independently predicted the number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnoses” (P = .003 vs. P = .1), the investigators reported.

All four neurosurgical ablative targets for psychiatric disorders found on analysis of dataset 4 “intersected” and aligned with the transdiagnostic network.

“The study does not immediately impact clinical practice, but it would be helpful for practicing clinicians to know that psychiatric disorders commonly co-occur and might share common neurobiology and a convergent brain network,” Dr. Taylor said.

“Future work based on our findings could potentially influence clinical trials and clinical practice, especially in the area of brain stimulation,” he added.
 

‘Exciting new targets’

In a comment, Desmond Oathes, PhD, associate director, Center for Neuromodulation and Stress, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the “next step in the science is to combine individual brain imaging, aka, ‘individualized connectomes,’ with these promising group maps to determine something meaningful at the individual patient level.”

Dr. Oathes, who is also a faculty clinician at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety and was not involved with the study, noted that an open question is whether the brain volume abnormalities/atrophy “can be changed with treatment and in what direction.”

A “strong take-home message from this paper is that brain volume measures from single coordinates are noisy as measures of psychiatric abnormality, whereas network effects seem to be especially sensitive for capturing these effects,” Dr. Oathes said.

The “abnormal networks across these disorders do not fit easily into well-known networks from healthy participants. However, they map well onto other databases relevant to psychiatric disorders and offer exciting new potential targets for prospective treatment studies,” he added.

The investigators received no specific funding for this work. Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oathes reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published updated guidelines on prescribing opioids for pain that stress the need for a flexible and individual approach to pain management.¹ New recommendations emphasize the use of nonopioid therapies whenever appropriate, support consideration of opioid therapy for patients with acute pain when the benefits are expected to outweigh the risks, and urge clinicians to work with patients receiving opioid therapy to determine whether it should be continued or tapered.

This revision to the agency’s 2016 guidelines is aimed at primary care clinicians who prescribe opioids to adult outpatients for treatment of pain. The recommendations are not meant for patients with sickle-cell disease or cancer-related pain, or those receiving palliative and end-of-life care.

Why an update was needed. In 2021, more than 107,000 Americans died of a drug overdose.² Although prescription opioids caused only about 16% of these deaths, they account for a population death rate of 4:100,000—which, despite national efforts, has not changed much since 2013.^3,4

Following publication of the CDC’s 2016 guidelines on prescribing opioids for chronic pain,⁵ there was a decline in opioid prescribing but not in related deaths. Furthermore, there appeared to have been some negative effects of reduced prescribing, including untreated and undertreated pain, and rapid tapering or sudden discontinuation of opioids in chronic users, causing withdrawal symptoms and psychological distress in these patients. To address these issues, the CDC published the new guideline in 2022.¹

Categories of pain. The guideline panel classified pain into 3 categories: acute pain (duration of < 1 month), subacute pain (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic pain (duration of > 3 months).

When to prescribe opioids. The guidelines recommend a new approach to deciding whether to prescribe opioid therapy. In most cases, nonopioid options—such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and exercise—should be tried first, since they are as effective as opioids for many types of acute, subacute, and chronic pain. Opioids should be considered if these options fail and the potential benefits outweigh the risks. In moderate-to-severe acute pain, opioids are an option if NSAIDs are unlikely to be effective or are contraindicated.¹

How to prescribe opioids. Before prescribing opioids, clinicians should discuss with the patient the known risks and benefits and offer an accompanying prescription for naloxone. Opioids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dose and for a time period limited to the expected duration of the pain. When starting opioids, immediate-release opioids should be prescribed instead of extended-release or long-acting opioids.¹

Precautionary measures. Clinicians should review the patient’s history of controlled substance prescriptions via their state’s prescription drug monitoring program and consider the use of toxicology testing to determine whether the patient is receiving high-risk opioid dosages or combinations. Clinicians should be especially cautious about prescribing opioids and benzodiazepines concurrently.¹

Continue or stop opioid treatment? A new recommendation advises clinicians to individually assess the benefits and risks of continuing therapy for patients who have been receiving opioids chronically. Whenever the decision is made to stop or reduce treatment, remember that opioid therapy should not be stopped abruptly or reduced quickly. The guideline panel suggests tapering by 10% per month.¹

Finally, patients with opioid use disorder should be offered or referred for treatment with medications. Detoxification alone, without medication, is not recommended.¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published updated guidelines on prescribing opioids for pain that stress the need for a flexible and individual approach to pain management.¹ New recommendations emphasize the use of nonopioid therapies whenever appropriate, support consideration of opioid therapy for patients with acute pain when the benefits are expected to outweigh the risks, and urge clinicians to work with patients receiving opioid therapy to determine whether it should be continued or tapered.

This revision to the agency’s 2016 guidelines is aimed at primary care clinicians who prescribe opioids to adult outpatients for treatment of pain. The recommendations are not meant for patients with sickle-cell disease or cancer-related pain, or those receiving palliative and end-of-life care.

Why an update was needed. In 2021, more than 107,000 Americans died of a drug overdose.² Although prescription opioids caused only about 16% of these deaths, they account for a population death rate of 4:100,000—which, despite national efforts, has not changed much since 2013.^3,4

Following publication of the CDC’s 2016 guidelines on prescribing opioids for chronic pain,⁵ there was a decline in opioid prescribing but not in related deaths. Furthermore, there appeared to have been some negative effects of reduced prescribing, including untreated and undertreated pain, and rapid tapering or sudden discontinuation of opioids in chronic users, causing withdrawal symptoms and psychological distress in these patients. To address these issues, the CDC published the new guideline in 2022.¹

Categories of pain. The guideline panel classified pain into 3 categories: acute pain (duration of < 1 month), subacute pain (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic pain (duration of > 3 months).

When to prescribe opioids. The guidelines recommend a new approach to deciding whether to prescribe opioid therapy. In most cases, nonopioid options—such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and exercise—should be tried first, since they are as effective as opioids for many types of acute, subacute, and chronic pain. Opioids should be considered if these options fail and the potential benefits outweigh the risks. In moderate-to-severe acute pain, opioids are an option if NSAIDs are unlikely to be effective or are contraindicated.¹

How to prescribe opioids. Before prescribing opioids, clinicians should discuss with the patient the known risks and benefits and offer an accompanying prescription for naloxone. Opioids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dose and for a time period limited to the expected duration of the pain. When starting opioids, immediate-release opioids should be prescribed instead of extended-release or long-acting opioids.¹

Precautionary measures. Clinicians should review the patient’s history of controlled substance prescriptions via their state’s prescription drug monitoring program and consider the use of toxicology testing to determine whether the patient is receiving high-risk opioid dosages or combinations. Clinicians should be especially cautious about prescribing opioids and benzodiazepines concurrently.¹

Continue or stop opioid treatment? A new recommendation advises clinicians to individually assess the benefits and risks of continuing therapy for patients who have been receiving opioids chronically. Whenever the decision is made to stop or reduce treatment, remember that opioid therapy should not be stopped abruptly or reduced quickly. The guideline panel suggests tapering by 10% per month.¹

Finally, patients with opioid use disorder should be offered or referred for treatment with medications. Detoxification alone, without medication, is not recommended.¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published updated guidelines on prescribing opioids for pain that stress the need for a flexible and individual approach to pain management.¹ New recommendations emphasize the use of nonopioid therapies whenever appropriate, support consideration of opioid therapy for patients with acute pain when the benefits are expected to outweigh the risks, and urge clinicians to work with patients receiving opioid therapy to determine whether it should be continued or tapered.

This revision to the agency’s 2016 guidelines is aimed at primary care clinicians who prescribe opioids to adult outpatients for treatment of pain. The recommendations are not meant for patients with sickle-cell disease or cancer-related pain, or those receiving palliative and end-of-life care.

Why an update was needed. In 2021, more than 107,000 Americans died of a drug overdose.² Although prescription opioids caused only about 16% of these deaths, they account for a population death rate of 4:100,000—which, despite national efforts, has not changed much since 2013.^3,4

Following publication of the CDC’s 2016 guidelines on prescribing opioids for chronic pain,⁵ there was a decline in opioid prescribing but not in related deaths. Furthermore, there appeared to have been some negative effects of reduced prescribing, including untreated and undertreated pain, and rapid tapering or sudden discontinuation of opioids in chronic users, causing withdrawal symptoms and psychological distress in these patients. To address these issues, the CDC published the new guideline in 2022.¹

Categories of pain. The guideline panel classified pain into 3 categories: acute pain (duration of < 1 month), subacute pain (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic pain (duration of > 3 months).

When to prescribe opioids. The guidelines recommend a new approach to deciding whether to prescribe opioid therapy. In most cases, nonopioid options—such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and exercise—should be tried first, since they are as effective as opioids for many types of acute, subacute, and chronic pain. Opioids should be considered if these options fail and the potential benefits outweigh the risks. In moderate-to-severe acute pain, opioids are an option if NSAIDs are unlikely to be effective or are contraindicated.¹

How to prescribe opioids. Before prescribing opioids, clinicians should discuss with the patient the known risks and benefits and offer an accompanying prescription for naloxone. Opioids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dose and for a time period limited to the expected duration of the pain. When starting opioids, immediate-release opioids should be prescribed instead of extended-release or long-acting opioids.¹

Precautionary measures. Clinicians should review the patient’s history of controlled substance prescriptions via their state’s prescription drug monitoring program and consider the use of toxicology testing to determine whether the patient is receiving high-risk opioid dosages or combinations. Clinicians should be especially cautious about prescribing opioids and benzodiazepines concurrently.¹

Continue or stop opioid treatment? A new recommendation advises clinicians to individually assess the benefits and risks of continuing therapy for patients who have been receiving opioids chronically. Whenever the decision is made to stop or reduce treatment, remember that opioid therapy should not be stopped abruptly or reduced quickly. The guideline panel suggests tapering by 10% per month.¹

Finally, patients with opioid use disorder should be offered or referred for treatment with medications. Detoxification alone, without medication, is not recommended.¹

Adhering to six healthy lifestyle behaviors is linked to slower memory decline in older adults, a large population-based study suggests.

Investigators found that a healthy diet, cognitive activity, regular physical exercise, not smoking, and abstaining from alcohol were significantly linked to slowed cognitive decline irrespective of APOE4 status.

After adjusting for health and socioeconomic factors, investigators found that each individual healthy behavior was associated with a slower-than-average decline in memory over a decade. A healthy diet emerged as the strongest deterrent, followed by cognitive activity and physical exercise.

“A healthy lifestyle is associated with slower memory decline, even in the presence of the APOE4 allele,” study investigators led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, of the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders and the department of neurology, Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, write.

“This study might offer important information to protect older adults against memory decline,” they add.

The study was published online in the BMJ.
 

Preventing memory decline

Memory “continuously declines as people age,” but age-related memory decline is not necessarily a prodrome of dementia and can “merely be senescent forgetfulness,” the investigators note. This can be “reversed or [can] become stable,” instead of progressing to a pathologic state.

Factors affecting memory include aging, APOE4 genotype, chronic diseases, and lifestyle patterns, with lifestyle “receiving increasing attention as a modifiable behavior.”

Nevertheless, few studies have focused on the impact of lifestyle on memory, and those that have are mostly cross-sectional and also “did not consider the interaction between a healthy lifestyle and genetic risk,” the researchers note.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study, known as the China Cognition and Aging Study, that considered genetic risk as well as lifestyle factors.

The study began in 2009 and concluded in 2019. Participants were evaluated and underwent neuropsychological testing in 2012, 2014, 2016, and at the study’s conclusion.

Participants (n = 29,072; mean [SD] age, 72.23 [6.61] years; 48.54% women; 20.43% APOE4 carriers) were required to have normal cognitive function at baseline. Data on those whose condition progressed to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia during the follow-up period were excluded after their diagnosis.

The Mini–Mental State Examination was used to assess global cognitive function. Memory function was assessed using the World Health Organization/University of California, Los Angeles Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

“Lifestyle” consisted of six modifiable factors: physical exercise (weekly frequency and total time), smoking (current, former, or never-smokers), alcohol consumption (never drank, drank occasionally, low to excess drinking, and heavy drinking), diet (daily intake of 12 food items: fruits, vegetables, fish, meat, dairy products, salt, oil, eggs, cereals, legumes, nuts, tea), cognitive activity (writing, reading, playing cards, mahjong, other games), and social contact (participating in meetings, attending parties, visiting friends/relatives, traveling, chatting online).

Participants’ lifestyles were scored on the basis of the number of healthy factors they engaged in.

Important for public health

During the 10-year period, 7,164 participants died, and 3,567 stopped participating.

Participants in the favorable and average groups showed slower memory decline per increased year of age (0.007 [0.005-0.009], P < .001; and 0.002 [0 .000-0.003], P = .033 points higher, respectively), compared with those in the unfavorable group.

Healthy diet had the strongest protective effect on memory.

‘Important, encouraging’ research

In a comment, Severine Sabia, PhD, a senior researcher at the Université Paris Cité, INSERM Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Medicalé, France, called the findings “important and encouraging.”

However, said Dr. Sabia, who was not involved with the study, “there remain important research questions that need to be investigated in order to identify key behaviors: which combination, the cutoff of risk, and when to intervene.”

Future research on prevention “should examine a wider range of possible risk factors” and should also “identify specific exposures associated with the greatest risk, while also considering the risk threshold and age at exposure for each one.”

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Sabia and co-author Archana Singh-Manoux, PhD, note that the risk of cognitive decline and dementia are probably determined by multiple factors.

They liken it to the “multifactorial risk paradigm introduced by the Framingham study,” which has “led to a substantial reduction in cardiovascular disease.” A similar approach could be used with dementia prevention, they suggest.

The authors received support from the Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University for the submitted work. One of the authors received a grant from the French National Research Agency. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sabia received grant funding from the French National Research Agency. Dr. Singh-Manoux received grants from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.

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

Adhering to six healthy lifestyle behaviors is linked to slower memory decline in older adults, a large population-based study suggests.

Investigators found that a healthy diet, cognitive activity, regular physical exercise, not smoking, and abstaining from alcohol were significantly linked to slowed cognitive decline irrespective of APOE4 status.

After adjusting for health and socioeconomic factors, investigators found that each individual healthy behavior was associated with a slower-than-average decline in memory over a decade. A healthy diet emerged as the strongest deterrent, followed by cognitive activity and physical exercise.

“A healthy lifestyle is associated with slower memory decline, even in the presence of the APOE4 allele,” study investigators led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, of the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders and the department of neurology, Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, write.

“This study might offer important information to protect older adults against memory decline,” they add.

The study was published online in the BMJ.
 

Preventing memory decline

Memory “continuously declines as people age,” but age-related memory decline is not necessarily a prodrome of dementia and can “merely be senescent forgetfulness,” the investigators note. This can be “reversed or [can] become stable,” instead of progressing to a pathologic state.

Factors affecting memory include aging, APOE4 genotype, chronic diseases, and lifestyle patterns, with lifestyle “receiving increasing attention as a modifiable behavior.”

Nevertheless, few studies have focused on the impact of lifestyle on memory, and those that have are mostly cross-sectional and also “did not consider the interaction between a healthy lifestyle and genetic risk,” the researchers note.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study, known as the China Cognition and Aging Study, that considered genetic risk as well as lifestyle factors.

The study began in 2009 and concluded in 2019. Participants were evaluated and underwent neuropsychological testing in 2012, 2014, 2016, and at the study’s conclusion.

Participants (n = 29,072; mean [SD] age, 72.23 [6.61] years; 48.54% women; 20.43% APOE4 carriers) were required to have normal cognitive function at baseline. Data on those whose condition progressed to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia during the follow-up period were excluded after their diagnosis.

The Mini–Mental State Examination was used to assess global cognitive function. Memory function was assessed using the World Health Organization/University of California, Los Angeles Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

“Lifestyle” consisted of six modifiable factors: physical exercise (weekly frequency and total time), smoking (current, former, or never-smokers), alcohol consumption (never drank, drank occasionally, low to excess drinking, and heavy drinking), diet (daily intake of 12 food items: fruits, vegetables, fish, meat, dairy products, salt, oil, eggs, cereals, legumes, nuts, tea), cognitive activity (writing, reading, playing cards, mahjong, other games), and social contact (participating in meetings, attending parties, visiting friends/relatives, traveling, chatting online).

Participants’ lifestyles were scored on the basis of the number of healthy factors they engaged in.

Important for public health

During the 10-year period, 7,164 participants died, and 3,567 stopped participating.

Participants in the favorable and average groups showed slower memory decline per increased year of age (0.007 [0.005-0.009], P < .001; and 0.002 [0 .000-0.003], P = .033 points higher, respectively), compared with those in the unfavorable group.

Healthy diet had the strongest protective effect on memory.

‘Important, encouraging’ research

In a comment, Severine Sabia, PhD, a senior researcher at the Université Paris Cité, INSERM Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Medicalé, France, called the findings “important and encouraging.”

However, said Dr. Sabia, who was not involved with the study, “there remain important research questions that need to be investigated in order to identify key behaviors: which combination, the cutoff of risk, and when to intervene.”

Future research on prevention “should examine a wider range of possible risk factors” and should also “identify specific exposures associated with the greatest risk, while also considering the risk threshold and age at exposure for each one.”

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Sabia and co-author Archana Singh-Manoux, PhD, note that the risk of cognitive decline and dementia are probably determined by multiple factors.

They liken it to the “multifactorial risk paradigm introduced by the Framingham study,” which has “led to a substantial reduction in cardiovascular disease.” A similar approach could be used with dementia prevention, they suggest.

The authors received support from the Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University for the submitted work. One of the authors received a grant from the French National Research Agency. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sabia received grant funding from the French National Research Agency. Dr. Singh-Manoux received grants from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.

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

Adhering to six healthy lifestyle behaviors is linked to slower memory decline in older adults, a large population-based study suggests.

Investigators found that a healthy diet, cognitive activity, regular physical exercise, not smoking, and abstaining from alcohol were significantly linked to slowed cognitive decline irrespective of APOE4 status.

After adjusting for health and socioeconomic factors, investigators found that each individual healthy behavior was associated with a slower-than-average decline in memory over a decade. A healthy diet emerged as the strongest deterrent, followed by cognitive activity and physical exercise.

“A healthy lifestyle is associated with slower memory decline, even in the presence of the APOE4 allele,” study investigators led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, of the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders and the department of neurology, Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, write.

“This study might offer important information to protect older adults against memory decline,” they add.

The study was published online in the BMJ.
 

Preventing memory decline

Memory “continuously declines as people age,” but age-related memory decline is not necessarily a prodrome of dementia and can “merely be senescent forgetfulness,” the investigators note. This can be “reversed or [can] become stable,” instead of progressing to a pathologic state.

Factors affecting memory include aging, APOE4 genotype, chronic diseases, and lifestyle patterns, with lifestyle “receiving increasing attention as a modifiable behavior.”

Nevertheless, few studies have focused on the impact of lifestyle on memory, and those that have are mostly cross-sectional and also “did not consider the interaction between a healthy lifestyle and genetic risk,” the researchers note.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study, known as the China Cognition and Aging Study, that considered genetic risk as well as lifestyle factors.

The study began in 2009 and concluded in 2019. Participants were evaluated and underwent neuropsychological testing in 2012, 2014, 2016, and at the study’s conclusion.

Participants (n = 29,072; mean [SD] age, 72.23 [6.61] years; 48.54% women; 20.43% APOE4 carriers) were required to have normal cognitive function at baseline. Data on those whose condition progressed to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia during the follow-up period were excluded after their diagnosis.

The Mini–Mental State Examination was used to assess global cognitive function. Memory function was assessed using the World Health Organization/University of California, Los Angeles Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

“Lifestyle” consisted of six modifiable factors: physical exercise (weekly frequency and total time), smoking (current, former, or never-smokers), alcohol consumption (never drank, drank occasionally, low to excess drinking, and heavy drinking), diet (daily intake of 12 food items: fruits, vegetables, fish, meat, dairy products, salt, oil, eggs, cereals, legumes, nuts, tea), cognitive activity (writing, reading, playing cards, mahjong, other games), and social contact (participating in meetings, attending parties, visiting friends/relatives, traveling, chatting online).

Participants’ lifestyles were scored on the basis of the number of healthy factors they engaged in.

Important for public health

During the 10-year period, 7,164 participants died, and 3,567 stopped participating.

Participants in the favorable and average groups showed slower memory decline per increased year of age (0.007 [0.005-0.009], P < .001; and 0.002 [0 .000-0.003], P = .033 points higher, respectively), compared with those in the unfavorable group.

Healthy diet had the strongest protective effect on memory.

‘Important, encouraging’ research

In a comment, Severine Sabia, PhD, a senior researcher at the Université Paris Cité, INSERM Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Medicalé, France, called the findings “important and encouraging.”

However, said Dr. Sabia, who was not involved with the study, “there remain important research questions that need to be investigated in order to identify key behaviors: which combination, the cutoff of risk, and when to intervene.”

Future research on prevention “should examine a wider range of possible risk factors” and should also “identify specific exposures associated with the greatest risk, while also considering the risk threshold and age at exposure for each one.”

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Sabia and co-author Archana Singh-Manoux, PhD, note that the risk of cognitive decline and dementia are probably determined by multiple factors.

They liken it to the “multifactorial risk paradigm introduced by the Framingham study,” which has “led to a substantial reduction in cardiovascular disease.” A similar approach could be used with dementia prevention, they suggest.

The authors received support from the Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University for the submitted work. One of the authors received a grant from the French National Research Agency. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sabia received grant funding from the French National Research Agency. Dr. Singh-Manoux received grants from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.

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

The risk of health harms from alcohol is low for people who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week, but it’s higher with greater consumption, according to new guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).

Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:

• Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
• Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
• Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
• Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
• Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.

“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”

Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”

“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
 

Continuum of risk

The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.

That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.

Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).

Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:

• Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
• Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
• Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week

The guidance makes the following observations:

• Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
• When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
• When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
• Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
• Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
• Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
• Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
• Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.

Other national guidelines

“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”

“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.

“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”

Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”

Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.

Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”

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

The risk of health harms from alcohol is low for people who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week, but it’s higher with greater consumption, according to new guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).

Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:

• Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
• Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
• Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
• Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
• Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.

“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”

Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”

“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
 

Continuum of risk

The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.

That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.

Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).

Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:

• Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
• Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
• Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week

The guidance makes the following observations:

• Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
• When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
• When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
• Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
• Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
• Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
• Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
• Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.

Other national guidelines

“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”

“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.

“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”

Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”

Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.

Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”

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

The risk of health harms from alcohol is low for people who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week, but it’s higher with greater consumption, according to new guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).

Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:

• Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
• Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
• Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
• Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
• Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.

“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”

Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”

“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
 

Continuum of risk

The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.

That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.

Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).

Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:

• Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
• Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
• Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week

The guidance makes the following observations:

• Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
• When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
• When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
• Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
• Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
• Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
• Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
• Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.

Other national guidelines

“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”

“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.

“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”

Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”

Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.

Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”

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