Addiction Medicine

When left untreated, opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and potentially lethal illness. Despite the availability of safe and effective medications for OUD, the prevalence of opioid use and overdose deaths has been increasing every year.¹ An additional challenge in OUD treatment is the high prevalence of comorbid alcohol use disorder (AUD).^2-6 A Clinical Trials Network survey from the National Institute on Drug Abuse found 38% of persons seeking treatment for OUD also had AUD.⁷ Other analyses have found alcohol was involved in approximately one-fifth of opioid-related deaths.⁸ Research also reveals that comorbid OUD and AUD contributes to poor treatment outcomes, more medical comorbidities, and a high risk of death (including overdose death).^4,9 There is no standard of care for this particular patient population.³ This article reviews the evidence and summarizes practical considerations regarding the clinical management of patients with comorbid OUD and AUD.

To illustrate the various decision points, we will follow 2 hypothetical patients through various stages of treatment (Figure), from their presentation in the emergency department (ED) or outpatient clinic, through their hospital admission (if needed), and into their outpatient follow-up treatment.

CASE REPORTS

Ms. A and Ms. B present to the ED for evaluation of nausea, vomiting, sweating, anxiety, and tremor. Both patients describe their most recent use of both alcohol and opioids approximately 12 hours ago, and each has been attempting to stop using both substances at home.

Decision-making in the emergency setting

In the ED, a few important decisions need to be made regarding treatment:

• Are the presenting symptoms primarily due to alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS), or both?
• Does the patient require inpatient medical withdrawal management (detoxification) based on the history and severity of the withdrawal symptoms?
• What are the patient’s treatment goals for their AUD and OUD?
• Is maintenance medication for OUD indicated? If so, which medication is most appropriate?

In the ED, the presentation of individuals affected by both OUD and AUD can be challenging because OWS shares overlapping features with AWS, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sweating, anxiety, and tremor. However, although acute OWS is typically very uncomfortable, it is rarely lethal. On the other hand, severe AWS may result in delirium, seizures, and death,¹⁰ which makes it essential to recognize and treat appropriately.

Both Ms. A and Ms. B should be medically evaluated and treated by an emergency medicine physician in conjunction with psychiatric (or addiction medicine) consultation. The ED assessment of a patient presenting with both AUD and OUD should include vital signs monitoring; physical examination; blood work including comprehensive metabolic panel, serum magnesium, and phosphorus; complete blood count; pregnancy test for women of reproductive age; urine drug screen (UDS); urinalysis; and serum ethanol level. Of note, sympathetic hyperactivity is found in both alcohol and opioid withdrawal, and patients with alcohol withdrawal may also have hypokalemia, a condition associated with an increased risk of arrhythmia. Furthermore, a prolonged QTc would affect clinical decision-making about medications for OUD (ie, methadone) and withdrawal management (ie, ondansetron, trazodone, and hydroxyzine). Therefore, an electrocardiogram should be conducted, where appropriate.

Initial treatment of AWS includes vitamin supplementation (thiamine, folic acid, and multivitamins) and benzodiazepine administration (symptom-triggered and/or scheduled taper). It may also include IV fluid resuscitation, analgesics for pain, ondansetron for nausea and vomiting, and other electrolyte repletion as indicated by the laboratory results.¹¹ Additional measures for patients in opioid withdrawal should include alpha-2 agonists such as clonidine or lofexidine for adrenergic symptoms, antiemetics, antidiarrheals, muscle relaxants, anxiolytics such as hydroxyzine, and sleep medications such as trazodone.¹²

Continue to: The next decision...

The next decision is whether the patient needs to be admitted for inpatient treatment. This decision is based primarily on the risk assessment and severity of AWS, including a compelling history of complicated AWS such as seizures or delirium tremens as well as consideration of the complexity and severity of any comorbid medical or psychiatric conditions. Other indications for medical withdrawal management include a history of unsuccessful ambulatory withdrawal management and pregnancy. For severe AWS, a scheduled benzodiazepine taper in addition to the symptom-triggered protocol should be considered.^13-15 A psychiatric evaluation may be obtained in the ED, as long as the patient is sober enough to meaningfully participate in the psychiatric interview. Wherever possible, psychiatric interviews should be supplemented by collateral information.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

Ms. A admits to a 5-year history of alcohol and opioid use that meets the criteria for severe AUD and severe OUD. She has previously required inpatient treatment for seizures related to AWS. Laboratory results are notable for a serum ethanol level of 380 mg/dL, UDS positive for opioids, and a negative pregnancy test.

Disposition of patients in alcohol and opioid withdrawal

Given Ms. A’s history of seizures while withdrawing from alcohol, she is appropriate for hospital admission for medically managed withdrawal observation. As previously mentioned, there is clinical overlap between AWS and OWS, and differentiating between the 2 syndromes is essential and may be lifesaving. Whereas anxiety, agitation, diaphoresis, tachycardia, hypertension, and insomnia can be seen in both opioid and alcohol withdrawal, OWS-specific symptoms include mydriasis, lacrimation, rhinorrhea, bone or joint aches, yawning, and piloerection. AWS may present with visual or tactile hallucinations, delirium, and grand mal seizures.¹⁵

The details of inpatient management are beyond the scope of this article; however, both patients should be started on thiamine, folic acid, and a multivitamin. For patients in alcohol withdrawal with a history of poor diet who appear malnourished or have a history of malabsorption (such as gastric bypass surgery), thiamine 100 mg/d IV should be given for 3 to 5 days to prevent Wernicke encephalopathy.¹⁶ Where there is any concern the patient may be exhibiting signs of Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome (impaired cognition, evident malnourishment, ataxia, or eye movement abnormalities), high-dose thiamine IV should be given presumptively as follows: 500 mg IV 3 times a day for 3 days, 250 mg/d IV for 5 days, and then oral supplementation 100 mg/d for at least 30 days.¹⁷

In summary, on presentation to the ED, both patients should be medically stabilized and started on benzodiazepines for alcohol withdrawal. The risk assessment and the severity of the AWS often determines the level of care.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

On hospital Day 2, Ms. A tells the consulting psychiatrist she would like to start medications to treat her substance use disorders. She has a long history of failed attempts to achieve abstinence from opioids, so she and the psychiatrist agree to initiate a trial of buprenorphine/naloxone for her OUD, 4 mg/1 mg to 8 mg/2 mg for Day 1. Although buprenorphine/naloxone seems to help her alcohol cravings somewhat, she requests additional help. She experiences migraine headaches, which is in part why she began using opioid medications. Via joint decision making with her psychiatrist, she agrees to a trial of topiramate, with a slow titration schedule starting at 25 mg/d.

Continue to: Management decisions

The next issue is to determine the appropriate treatment for the patient’s OUD. Although treating OWS is important in improving the patient’s health, decreasing their discomfort, and facilitating their participation in a psychosocial treatment program,¹⁸ current evidence suggests that opioid withdrawal management alone without medication for OUD rarely leads to long-term recovery.^19,20 Some research suggests that the risk of accidental opioid overdose immediately following acute withdrawal management may actually be increased due to decreased tolerance in these patients.^12,21,22

Three medications have the most evidence for OUD treatment: buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone.¹⁵ The decision to use buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone depends on a variety of factors, including the severity of the OUD, patient history of prior treatment successes and failures, comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions, and patient preference.⁴ Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone is preferred over naltrexone for patients who do not want to or cannot tolerate the physical and emotional discomfort of the opioid withdrawal process, who experience moderate to severe OUD, who have a history of failed abstinence-based treatment, or who have more severe physiological tolerance/dependence.¹² Buprenorphine is a mu opioid receptor partial agonist that has been shown to reduce opioid cravings,²³ provide moderate pain relief,²⁴ and ameliorate OWS.¹² It does not typically result in significant respiratory depression, which is the biggest safety concern for opioid use.¹² Buprenorphine may also treat comorbid AUD at higher doses; however, the data are inconclusive.^25,26 Buprenorphine should be prescribed with caution to patients with comorbid, uncontrolled AUD, due to the risk of respiratory depression when combined with alcohol. Patients who continue to drink alcohol but are able to abstain from opioids may consider starting an AUD-specific medication. Pharmacologic options are discussed in more detail in the next section.

For patients who have higher physiological dependence or more severe OUD, methadone may be a reasonable alternative to buprenorphine. Methadone, a mu-opioid receptor agonist, ameliorates OWS, reduces opioid cravings, and reduces the euphoric effects of opioid ingestion if the patient relapses. However, methadone can only be dispensed for the treatment of OUD by a federally-certified treatment program governed by restrictive and federally mandated guidelines. Compared to buprenorphine, methadone is more dangerous in overdose, has more drug interactions, and is more commonly diverted for recreational use.²⁷ Furthermore, methadone should be prescribed with caution to patients with comorbid, uncontrolled AUD, because both alcohol and methadone can result in respiratory depression.

By contrast, the first-line treatment for individuals experiencing moderateto severe AUD is typically naltrexone.²⁸ Naltrexone is contraindicated in Ms. A because she has a severe OUD and is unlikely to tolerate the opioid withdrawal process. Research suggests that the use of naltrexone for OUD should be limited to patients who have a mild disorder or who show low physiological dependence.²⁹ Alternatively, acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, or gabapentin should be considered for Ms. A.^4,28,30 Because each of these medications have specific strengths and weaknesses, medication selection should be based on individual patient factors such as comorbid psychiatric and medical conditions and/or patient preference.²⁸

Management decisions: AUD augmentation strategies

Naltrexone is contraindicated for patients who are receiving opioids, including opioid agonist therapy for OUD. Therefore, clinicians need to consider other options for these individuals. There are several medications with good evidence, including acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, and gabapentin. Acamprosate and disulfiram are FDA-approved for AUD; the latter 2 have been used off-label.

Continue to: Acamprosate is a glutamate receptor modulator...

Acamprosate is a glutamate receptor modulator that reduces alcohol cravings and is recommended for patients who have achieved and wish to maintain abstinence. It can be used in patients with liver disease, because it is not hepatically metabolized.³⁰ Topiramate is also used to reduce alcohol cravings. It antagonizes glutamate at alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionate (AMPA) and kainite receptors, facilitates gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) function, and reduces the extracellular release of dopamine in the mesocorticolimbic regions of the brain.³⁰ Topiramate is a reasonable option for patients with a seizure disorder, a history of migraine headaches,³⁰ or who are overweight or obese and wish to lose weight.³¹ In a nonrandomized study, topiramate reduced alcohol intake and cravings more than naltrexone.³²

Disulfiram is another second-line therapy for AUD. It is best used under close supervision because it does not reduce alcohol cravings but makes ingesting alcohol extremely aversive by preventing the breakdown of the alcohol metabolite acetaldehyde, and in doing so causes a cluster of unpleasant symptoms, including sweating, palpitations, flushing, nausea/vomiting, and increased sympathetic tone.²⁸ Disulfiram only works if it is taken daily, and it requires a high degree of motivation and/or daily supervision at home or in the clinic.³³ It is not recommended to be used as a first-line treatment based on its potential toxicity, adverse effects, and mixed findings on its efficacy. In addition, it should not be given to medically vulnerable/fragile individuals.

Lastly, gabapentin, a voltage-gated calcium channel modulator, may also be used as a second-line agent for AUD. Patients who have started alcohol withdrawal management with gabapentin may wish to continue treatment to assist with craving suppression.³⁰ It is also a good choice for patients who have comorbid diabetic neuropathy or other neuro­pathic pain conditions, anxiety, or insomnia.^30,34 Of note, there have been reports of gabapentin misuse.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

Ms. B presents to the ED with a 5-year history of moderate AUD and a 2-year history of mild OUD. She denies a history of severe or complicated AWS. Her laboratory results are significant for a serum ethanol level of 250 mg/dL, UDS positive for opioids, and a negative pregnancy test.

Management decisions: Naltrexone for OUD

In contrast to Ms. A, Ms. B is likely able to complete the opioid withdrawal management process. It is reasonable to treat her uncomplicated, moderate alcohol withdrawal as an outpatient with gabapentin or a benzodiazepine taper. Had her AUD been as severe as Ms. A’s, or if she were unsuccessful with ambulatory withdrawal treatment attempts, Ms. B would also be a candidate for inpatient medical treatment for alcohol withdrawal regardless of the severity of her OUD. Ongoing pharmacotherapy for her AUD after withdrawal management is the same as previously outlined. After Ms. B completes the taper (typically 1 week after the ED visit), she should follow up for initiation of pharmacotherapy for AUD. Ms. B is an ideal candidate for naltrexone, which targets both AUD and OUD.

Continue to: Naltrexone is a semi-synthetic...

Naltrexone is a semi-synthetic competitive antagonist at mu-opioid receptors and a partial agonist at kappa receptors; it has little to no activity at delta receptors. Naltrexone has been shown to reduce alcohol cravings and diminish the euphoric effects of alcohol by reducing endogenous opioid release and receptor activation.³⁵ Thus, even when patients do use alcohol while taking naltrexone, the amount of alcohol they use is typically substantially reduced.³⁶ In fact, at a standard dose of 50 mg/d, 95% of mu-opioid receptors are occupied and are shown to yield approximately 40% alcohol abstinence rates at 1 year.³⁶

Once Ms. B has completed withdrawal management from both alcohol and opioids, she should have a trial period of oral naltrexone to prove tolerability, and then transition to the long-acting injectable (LAI) formulation. Patients able to complete withdrawal management from opioids and transition to LAI naltrexone have been shown to have equivalent rates of successful abstinence from opioids compared to buprenorphine.³⁷ Though Ms. B could opt to try buprenorphine to treat her mild OUD, naltrexone would be the preferred option because it has 3 advantages:

• it blocks the mu-opioid receptor, which prevents euphoria if an illicit substance is used
• it does not cause physiologic dependence or withdrawal syndrome if/when stopped
• if it is not effective, it is easy to switch to buprenorphine.

Lastly, all patients with OUD should be prescribed a rescue naloxone kit, in accordance with harm-reduction guidelines. Naloxone, a potent opioid receptor antagonist, is used to prevent or reverse respiratory depression in opioid overdose. Naloxone rescue kits include intranasal naloxone, which makes it easy for nonclinician bystanders to administer while waiting for emergency transport.³⁸ Most states allow naloxone kits to be prescribed to individuals who have a concern for overdose among friends, family, or others in the community. The wide distribution and easy availability of naloxone rescue kits have been essential in decreasing overdose deaths among patients who misuse opioids.³⁹

Take-home points

Patients with both OUD and AUD are relatively common and often pose significant management challenges when they present to the clinic or the ED in withdrawal. Because severe AWS can be life-threatening, hospitalization should be considered. OWS is often accompanied by intense cravings that can lead to relapse and the risk of accidental opioid overdose/death. As soon as patients are able to engage in a discussion about their treatment options, clinicians need to clarify the patient’s goals and priorities. In medications for OUD, the decision of whether to use buprenorphine, naltrexone, or methadone is guided by the severity of the OUD, the patient’s past treatment experience (illicit as well as prescribed), and patient preference. If the OUD is mild or if the patient prefers to avoid opioid agonist medications and can tolerate the opioid withdrawal process, both the AUD and OUD can be treated with naltrexone, preferably with the LAI formulation. Other AUD medications and outpatient psychotherapy may be used to augment treatment outcomes. For patients with a moderate to severe OUD, buprenorphine (preferably with immediate initiation) or methadone therapy should be offered. Patients with comorbid OUD and AUD who are treated with opioid agonists should be offered medication for AUD other than naltrexone, as outlined above. All patients with substance use disorders would benefit from psychosocial interventions, including group and individual therapy as well as community sober support groups.

Bottom Line

Patients with comorbid opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) often pose significant management challenges when they present in withdrawal. This article reviews the evidence and summarizes practical considerations regarding the clinical management of patients with comorbid OUD and AUD.

Related Resources

• Chaney L, Mathia C, Cole T. Transitioning patients with opioid use disorder from methadone to buprenorphine. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(12):23-24,28. doi:10.12788/ cp.0305
• Eatmon CV, Trent K. Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder in patients with hepatic impairment. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(12):25-28. doi:10.12788/cp.0068

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone, Zubsolv
Clonidine • Catapres
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Hydroxyzine • Vistaril
Lofexidine • Lucemyra
Methadone • Methadose, Dolophine
Naloxone • Narcan
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Ondansetron • Zofran
Topiramate • Topamax
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

When left untreated, opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and potentially lethal illness. Despite the availability of safe and effective medications for OUD, the prevalence of opioid use and overdose deaths has been increasing every year.¹ An additional challenge in OUD treatment is the high prevalence of comorbid alcohol use disorder (AUD).^2-6 A Clinical Trials Network survey from the National Institute on Drug Abuse found 38% of persons seeking treatment for OUD also had AUD.⁷ Other analyses have found alcohol was involved in approximately one-fifth of opioid-related deaths.⁸ Research also reveals that comorbid OUD and AUD contributes to poor treatment outcomes, more medical comorbidities, and a high risk of death (including overdose death).^4,9 There is no standard of care for this particular patient population.³ This article reviews the evidence and summarizes practical considerations regarding the clinical management of patients with comorbid OUD and AUD.

To illustrate the various decision points, we will follow 2 hypothetical patients through various stages of treatment (Figure), from their presentation in the emergency department (ED) or outpatient clinic, through their hospital admission (if needed), and into their outpatient follow-up treatment.

CASE REPORTS

Ms. A and Ms. B present to the ED for evaluation of nausea, vomiting, sweating, anxiety, and tremor. Both patients describe their most recent use of both alcohol and opioids approximately 12 hours ago, and each has been attempting to stop using both substances at home.

Decision-making in the emergency setting

In the ED, a few important decisions need to be made regarding treatment:

• Are the presenting symptoms primarily due to alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS), or both?
• Does the patient require inpatient medical withdrawal management (detoxification) based on the history and severity of the withdrawal symptoms?
• What are the patient’s treatment goals for their AUD and OUD?
• Is maintenance medication for OUD indicated? If so, which medication is most appropriate?

In the ED, the presentation of individuals affected by both OUD and AUD can be challenging because OWS shares overlapping features with AWS, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sweating, anxiety, and tremor. However, although acute OWS is typically very uncomfortable, it is rarely lethal. On the other hand, severe AWS may result in delirium, seizures, and death,¹⁰ which makes it essential to recognize and treat appropriately.

Both Ms. A and Ms. B should be medically evaluated and treated by an emergency medicine physician in conjunction with psychiatric (or addiction medicine) consultation. The ED assessment of a patient presenting with both AUD and OUD should include vital signs monitoring; physical examination; blood work including comprehensive metabolic panel, serum magnesium, and phosphorus; complete blood count; pregnancy test for women of reproductive age; urine drug screen (UDS); urinalysis; and serum ethanol level. Of note, sympathetic hyperactivity is found in both alcohol and opioid withdrawal, and patients with alcohol withdrawal may also have hypokalemia, a condition associated with an increased risk of arrhythmia. Furthermore, a prolonged QTc would affect clinical decision-making about medications for OUD (ie, methadone) and withdrawal management (ie, ondansetron, trazodone, and hydroxyzine). Therefore, an electrocardiogram should be conducted, where appropriate.

Initial treatment of AWS includes vitamin supplementation (thiamine, folic acid, and multivitamins) and benzodiazepine administration (symptom-triggered and/or scheduled taper). It may also include IV fluid resuscitation, analgesics for pain, ondansetron for nausea and vomiting, and other electrolyte repletion as indicated by the laboratory results.¹¹ Additional measures for patients in opioid withdrawal should include alpha-2 agonists such as clonidine or lofexidine for adrenergic symptoms, antiemetics, antidiarrheals, muscle relaxants, anxiolytics such as hydroxyzine, and sleep medications such as trazodone.¹²

Continue to: The next decision...

The next decision is whether the patient needs to be admitted for inpatient treatment. This decision is based primarily on the risk assessment and severity of AWS, including a compelling history of complicated AWS such as seizures or delirium tremens as well as consideration of the complexity and severity of any comorbid medical or psychiatric conditions. Other indications for medical withdrawal management include a history of unsuccessful ambulatory withdrawal management and pregnancy. For severe AWS, a scheduled benzodiazepine taper in addition to the symptom-triggered protocol should be considered.^13-15 A psychiatric evaluation may be obtained in the ED, as long as the patient is sober enough to meaningfully participate in the psychiatric interview. Wherever possible, psychiatric interviews should be supplemented by collateral information.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

Ms. A admits to a 5-year history of alcohol and opioid use that meets the criteria for severe AUD and severe OUD. She has previously required inpatient treatment for seizures related to AWS. Laboratory results are notable for a serum ethanol level of 380 mg/dL, UDS positive for opioids, and a negative pregnancy test.

Disposition of patients in alcohol and opioid withdrawal

Given Ms. A’s history of seizures while withdrawing from alcohol, she is appropriate for hospital admission for medically managed withdrawal observation. As previously mentioned, there is clinical overlap between AWS and OWS, and differentiating between the 2 syndromes is essential and may be lifesaving. Whereas anxiety, agitation, diaphoresis, tachycardia, hypertension, and insomnia can be seen in both opioid and alcohol withdrawal, OWS-specific symptoms include mydriasis, lacrimation, rhinorrhea, bone or joint aches, yawning, and piloerection. AWS may present with visual or tactile hallucinations, delirium, and grand mal seizures.¹⁵

The details of inpatient management are beyond the scope of this article; however, both patients should be started on thiamine, folic acid, and a multivitamin. For patients in alcohol withdrawal with a history of poor diet who appear malnourished or have a history of malabsorption (such as gastric bypass surgery), thiamine 100 mg/d IV should be given for 3 to 5 days to prevent Wernicke encephalopathy.¹⁶ Where there is any concern the patient may be exhibiting signs of Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome (impaired cognition, evident malnourishment, ataxia, or eye movement abnormalities), high-dose thiamine IV should be given presumptively as follows: 500 mg IV 3 times a day for 3 days, 250 mg/d IV for 5 days, and then oral supplementation 100 mg/d for at least 30 days.¹⁷

In summary, on presentation to the ED, both patients should be medically stabilized and started on benzodiazepines for alcohol withdrawal. The risk assessment and the severity of the AWS often determines the level of care.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

On hospital Day 2, Ms. A tells the consulting psychiatrist she would like to start medications to treat her substance use disorders. She has a long history of failed attempts to achieve abstinence from opioids, so she and the psychiatrist agree to initiate a trial of buprenorphine/naloxone for her OUD, 4 mg/1 mg to 8 mg/2 mg for Day 1. Although buprenorphine/naloxone seems to help her alcohol cravings somewhat, she requests additional help. She experiences migraine headaches, which is in part why she began using opioid medications. Via joint decision making with her psychiatrist, she agrees to a trial of topiramate, with a slow titration schedule starting at 25 mg/d.

Continue to: Management decisions

The next issue is to determine the appropriate treatment for the patient’s OUD. Although treating OWS is important in improving the patient’s health, decreasing their discomfort, and facilitating their participation in a psychosocial treatment program,¹⁸ current evidence suggests that opioid withdrawal management alone without medication for OUD rarely leads to long-term recovery.^19,20 Some research suggests that the risk of accidental opioid overdose immediately following acute withdrawal management may actually be increased due to decreased tolerance in these patients.^12,21,22

Three medications have the most evidence for OUD treatment: buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone.¹⁵ The decision to use buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone depends on a variety of factors, including the severity of the OUD, patient history of prior treatment successes and failures, comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions, and patient preference.⁴ Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone is preferred over naltrexone for patients who do not want to or cannot tolerate the physical and emotional discomfort of the opioid withdrawal process, who experience moderate to severe OUD, who have a history of failed abstinence-based treatment, or who have more severe physiological tolerance/dependence.¹² Buprenorphine is a mu opioid receptor partial agonist that has been shown to reduce opioid cravings,²³ provide moderate pain relief,²⁴ and ameliorate OWS.¹² It does not typically result in significant respiratory depression, which is the biggest safety concern for opioid use.¹² Buprenorphine may also treat comorbid AUD at higher doses; however, the data are inconclusive.^25,26 Buprenorphine should be prescribed with caution to patients with comorbid, uncontrolled AUD, due to the risk of respiratory depression when combined with alcohol. Patients who continue to drink alcohol but are able to abstain from opioids may consider starting an AUD-specific medication. Pharmacologic options are discussed in more detail in the next section.

For patients who have higher physiological dependence or more severe OUD, methadone may be a reasonable alternative to buprenorphine. Methadone, a mu-opioid receptor agonist, ameliorates OWS, reduces opioid cravings, and reduces the euphoric effects of opioid ingestion if the patient relapses. However, methadone can only be dispensed for the treatment of OUD by a federally-certified treatment program governed by restrictive and federally mandated guidelines. Compared to buprenorphine, methadone is more dangerous in overdose, has more drug interactions, and is more commonly diverted for recreational use.²⁷ Furthermore, methadone should be prescribed with caution to patients with comorbid, uncontrolled AUD, because both alcohol and methadone can result in respiratory depression.

By contrast, the first-line treatment for individuals experiencing moderateto severe AUD is typically naltrexone.²⁸ Naltrexone is contraindicated in Ms. A because she has a severe OUD and is unlikely to tolerate the opioid withdrawal process. Research suggests that the use of naltrexone for OUD should be limited to patients who have a mild disorder or who show low physiological dependence.²⁹ Alternatively, acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, or gabapentin should be considered for Ms. A.^4,28,30 Because each of these medications have specific strengths and weaknesses, medication selection should be based on individual patient factors such as comorbid psychiatric and medical conditions and/or patient preference.²⁸

Management decisions: AUD augmentation strategies

Naltrexone is contraindicated for patients who are receiving opioids, including opioid agonist therapy for OUD. Therefore, clinicians need to consider other options for these individuals. There are several medications with good evidence, including acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, and gabapentin. Acamprosate and disulfiram are FDA-approved for AUD; the latter 2 have been used off-label.

Continue to: Acamprosate is a glutamate receptor modulator...

Acamprosate is a glutamate receptor modulator that reduces alcohol cravings and is recommended for patients who have achieved and wish to maintain abstinence. It can be used in patients with liver disease, because it is not hepatically metabolized.³⁰ Topiramate is also used to reduce alcohol cravings. It antagonizes glutamate at alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionate (AMPA) and kainite receptors, facilitates gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) function, and reduces the extracellular release of dopamine in the mesocorticolimbic regions of the brain.³⁰ Topiramate is a reasonable option for patients with a seizure disorder, a history of migraine headaches,³⁰ or who are overweight or obese and wish to lose weight.³¹ In a nonrandomized study, topiramate reduced alcohol intake and cravings more than naltrexone.³²

Disulfiram is another second-line therapy for AUD. It is best used under close supervision because it does not reduce alcohol cravings but makes ingesting alcohol extremely aversive by preventing the breakdown of the alcohol metabolite acetaldehyde, and in doing so causes a cluster of unpleasant symptoms, including sweating, palpitations, flushing, nausea/vomiting, and increased sympathetic tone.²⁸ Disulfiram only works if it is taken daily, and it requires a high degree of motivation and/or daily supervision at home or in the clinic.³³ It is not recommended to be used as a first-line treatment based on its potential toxicity, adverse effects, and mixed findings on its efficacy. In addition, it should not be given to medically vulnerable/fragile individuals.

Lastly, gabapentin, a voltage-gated calcium channel modulator, may also be used as a second-line agent for AUD. Patients who have started alcohol withdrawal management with gabapentin may wish to continue treatment to assist with craving suppression.³⁰ It is also a good choice for patients who have comorbid diabetic neuropathy or other neuro­pathic pain conditions, anxiety, or insomnia.^30,34 Of note, there have been reports of gabapentin misuse.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

Ms. B presents to the ED with a 5-year history of moderate AUD and a 2-year history of mild OUD. She denies a history of severe or complicated AWS. Her laboratory results are significant for a serum ethanol level of 250 mg/dL, UDS positive for opioids, and a negative pregnancy test.

Management decisions: Naltrexone for OUD

In contrast to Ms. A, Ms. B is likely able to complete the opioid withdrawal management process. It is reasonable to treat her uncomplicated, moderate alcohol withdrawal as an outpatient with gabapentin or a benzodiazepine taper. Had her AUD been as severe as Ms. A’s, or if she were unsuccessful with ambulatory withdrawal treatment attempts, Ms. B would also be a candidate for inpatient medical treatment for alcohol withdrawal regardless of the severity of her OUD. Ongoing pharmacotherapy for her AUD after withdrawal management is the same as previously outlined. After Ms. B completes the taper (typically 1 week after the ED visit), she should follow up for initiation of pharmacotherapy for AUD. Ms. B is an ideal candidate for naltrexone, which targets both AUD and OUD.

Continue to: Naltrexone is a semi-synthetic...

Naltrexone is a semi-synthetic competitive antagonist at mu-opioid receptors and a partial agonist at kappa receptors; it has little to no activity at delta receptors. Naltrexone has been shown to reduce alcohol cravings and diminish the euphoric effects of alcohol by reducing endogenous opioid release and receptor activation.³⁵ Thus, even when patients do use alcohol while taking naltrexone, the amount of alcohol they use is typically substantially reduced.³⁶ In fact, at a standard dose of 50 mg/d, 95% of mu-opioid receptors are occupied and are shown to yield approximately 40% alcohol abstinence rates at 1 year.³⁶

Once Ms. B has completed withdrawal management from both alcohol and opioids, she should have a trial period of oral naltrexone to prove tolerability, and then transition to the long-acting injectable (LAI) formulation. Patients able to complete withdrawal management from opioids and transition to LAI naltrexone have been shown to have equivalent rates of successful abstinence from opioids compared to buprenorphine.³⁷ Though Ms. B could opt to try buprenorphine to treat her mild OUD, naltrexone would be the preferred option because it has 3 advantages:

• it blocks the mu-opioid receptor, which prevents euphoria if an illicit substance is used
• it does not cause physiologic dependence or withdrawal syndrome if/when stopped
• if it is not effective, it is easy to switch to buprenorphine.

Lastly, all patients with OUD should be prescribed a rescue naloxone kit, in accordance with harm-reduction guidelines. Naloxone, a potent opioid receptor antagonist, is used to prevent or reverse respiratory depression in opioid overdose. Naloxone rescue kits include intranasal naloxone, which makes it easy for nonclinician bystanders to administer while waiting for emergency transport.³⁸ Most states allow naloxone kits to be prescribed to individuals who have a concern for overdose among friends, family, or others in the community. The wide distribution and easy availability of naloxone rescue kits have been essential in decreasing overdose deaths among patients who misuse opioids.³⁹

Take-home points

Patients with both OUD and AUD are relatively common and often pose significant management challenges when they present to the clinic or the ED in withdrawal. Because severe AWS can be life-threatening, hospitalization should be considered. OWS is often accompanied by intense cravings that can lead to relapse and the risk of accidental opioid overdose/death. As soon as patients are able to engage in a discussion about their treatment options, clinicians need to clarify the patient’s goals and priorities. In medications for OUD, the decision of whether to use buprenorphine, naltrexone, or methadone is guided by the severity of the OUD, the patient’s past treatment experience (illicit as well as prescribed), and patient preference. If the OUD is mild or if the patient prefers to avoid opioid agonist medications and can tolerate the opioid withdrawal process, both the AUD and OUD can be treated with naltrexone, preferably with the LAI formulation. Other AUD medications and outpatient psychotherapy may be used to augment treatment outcomes. For patients with a moderate to severe OUD, buprenorphine (preferably with immediate initiation) or methadone therapy should be offered. Patients with comorbid OUD and AUD who are treated with opioid agonists should be offered medication for AUD other than naltrexone, as outlined above. All patients with substance use disorders would benefit from psychosocial interventions, including group and individual therapy as well as community sober support groups.

Bottom Line

Patients with comorbid opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) often pose significant management challenges when they present in withdrawal. This article reviews the evidence and summarizes practical considerations regarding the clinical management of patients with comorbid OUD and AUD.

Related Resources

• Chaney L, Mathia C, Cole T. Transitioning patients with opioid use disorder from methadone to buprenorphine. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(12):23-24,28. doi:10.12788/ cp.0305
• Eatmon CV, Trent K. Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder in patients with hepatic impairment. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(12):25-28. doi:10.12788/cp.0068

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone, Zubsolv
Clonidine • Catapres
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Hydroxyzine • Vistaril
Lofexidine • Lucemyra
Methadone • Methadose, Dolophine
Naloxone • Narcan
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Ondansetron • Zofran
Topiramate • Topamax
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

When left untreated, opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and potentially lethal illness. Despite the availability of safe and effective medications for OUD, the prevalence of opioid use and overdose deaths has been increasing every year.¹ An additional challenge in OUD treatment is the high prevalence of comorbid alcohol use disorder (AUD).^2-6 A Clinical Trials Network survey from the National Institute on Drug Abuse found 38% of persons seeking treatment for OUD also had AUD.⁷ Other analyses have found alcohol was involved in approximately one-fifth of opioid-related deaths.⁸ Research also reveals that comorbid OUD and AUD contributes to poor treatment outcomes, more medical comorbidities, and a high risk of death (including overdose death).^4,9 There is no standard of care for this particular patient population.³ This article reviews the evidence and summarizes practical considerations regarding the clinical management of patients with comorbid OUD and AUD.

To illustrate the various decision points, we will follow 2 hypothetical patients through various stages of treatment (Figure), from their presentation in the emergency department (ED) or outpatient clinic, through their hospital admission (if needed), and into their outpatient follow-up treatment.

CASE REPORTS

Ms. A and Ms. B present to the ED for evaluation of nausea, vomiting, sweating, anxiety, and tremor. Both patients describe their most recent use of both alcohol and opioids approximately 12 hours ago, and each has been attempting to stop using both substances at home.

Decision-making in the emergency setting

In the ED, a few important decisions need to be made regarding treatment:

• Are the presenting symptoms primarily due to alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS), or both?
• Does the patient require inpatient medical withdrawal management (detoxification) based on the history and severity of the withdrawal symptoms?
• What are the patient’s treatment goals for their AUD and OUD?
• Is maintenance medication for OUD indicated? If so, which medication is most appropriate?

In the ED, the presentation of individuals affected by both OUD and AUD can be challenging because OWS shares overlapping features with AWS, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sweating, anxiety, and tremor. However, although acute OWS is typically very uncomfortable, it is rarely lethal. On the other hand, severe AWS may result in delirium, seizures, and death,¹⁰ which makes it essential to recognize and treat appropriately.

Both Ms. A and Ms. B should be medically evaluated and treated by an emergency medicine physician in conjunction with psychiatric (or addiction medicine) consultation. The ED assessment of a patient presenting with both AUD and OUD should include vital signs monitoring; physical examination; blood work including comprehensive metabolic panel, serum magnesium, and phosphorus; complete blood count; pregnancy test for women of reproductive age; urine drug screen (UDS); urinalysis; and serum ethanol level. Of note, sympathetic hyperactivity is found in both alcohol and opioid withdrawal, and patients with alcohol withdrawal may also have hypokalemia, a condition associated with an increased risk of arrhythmia. Furthermore, a prolonged QTc would affect clinical decision-making about medications for OUD (ie, methadone) and withdrawal management (ie, ondansetron, trazodone, and hydroxyzine). Therefore, an electrocardiogram should be conducted, where appropriate.

Initial treatment of AWS includes vitamin supplementation (thiamine, folic acid, and multivitamins) and benzodiazepine administration (symptom-triggered and/or scheduled taper). It may also include IV fluid resuscitation, analgesics for pain, ondansetron for nausea and vomiting, and other electrolyte repletion as indicated by the laboratory results.¹¹ Additional measures for patients in opioid withdrawal should include alpha-2 agonists such as clonidine or lofexidine for adrenergic symptoms, antiemetics, antidiarrheals, muscle relaxants, anxiolytics such as hydroxyzine, and sleep medications such as trazodone.¹²

Continue to: The next decision...

The next decision is whether the patient needs to be admitted for inpatient treatment. This decision is based primarily on the risk assessment and severity of AWS, including a compelling history of complicated AWS such as seizures or delirium tremens as well as consideration of the complexity and severity of any comorbid medical or psychiatric conditions. Other indications for medical withdrawal management include a history of unsuccessful ambulatory withdrawal management and pregnancy. For severe AWS, a scheduled benzodiazepine taper in addition to the symptom-triggered protocol should be considered.^13-15 A psychiatric evaluation may be obtained in the ED, as long as the patient is sober enough to meaningfully participate in the psychiatric interview. Wherever possible, psychiatric interviews should be supplemented by collateral information.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

Ms. A admits to a 5-year history of alcohol and opioid use that meets the criteria for severe AUD and severe OUD. She has previously required inpatient treatment for seizures related to AWS. Laboratory results are notable for a serum ethanol level of 380 mg/dL, UDS positive for opioids, and a negative pregnancy test.

Disposition of patients in alcohol and opioid withdrawal

Given Ms. A’s history of seizures while withdrawing from alcohol, she is appropriate for hospital admission for medically managed withdrawal observation. As previously mentioned, there is clinical overlap between AWS and OWS, and differentiating between the 2 syndromes is essential and may be lifesaving. Whereas anxiety, agitation, diaphoresis, tachycardia, hypertension, and insomnia can be seen in both opioid and alcohol withdrawal, OWS-specific symptoms include mydriasis, lacrimation, rhinorrhea, bone or joint aches, yawning, and piloerection. AWS may present with visual or tactile hallucinations, delirium, and grand mal seizures.¹⁵

The details of inpatient management are beyond the scope of this article; however, both patients should be started on thiamine, folic acid, and a multivitamin. For patients in alcohol withdrawal with a history of poor diet who appear malnourished or have a history of malabsorption (such as gastric bypass surgery), thiamine 100 mg/d IV should be given for 3 to 5 days to prevent Wernicke encephalopathy.¹⁶ Where there is any concern the patient may be exhibiting signs of Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome (impaired cognition, evident malnourishment, ataxia, or eye movement abnormalities), high-dose thiamine IV should be given presumptively as follows: 500 mg IV 3 times a day for 3 days, 250 mg/d IV for 5 days, and then oral supplementation 100 mg/d for at least 30 days.¹⁷

In summary, on presentation to the ED, both patients should be medically stabilized and started on benzodiazepines for alcohol withdrawal. The risk assessment and the severity of the AWS often determines the level of care.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

On hospital Day 2, Ms. A tells the consulting psychiatrist she would like to start medications to treat her substance use disorders. She has a long history of failed attempts to achieve abstinence from opioids, so she and the psychiatrist agree to initiate a trial of buprenorphine/naloxone for her OUD, 4 mg/1 mg to 8 mg/2 mg for Day 1. Although buprenorphine/naloxone seems to help her alcohol cravings somewhat, she requests additional help. She experiences migraine headaches, which is in part why she began using opioid medications. Via joint decision making with her psychiatrist, she agrees to a trial of topiramate, with a slow titration schedule starting at 25 mg/d.

Continue to: Management decisions

The next issue is to determine the appropriate treatment for the patient’s OUD. Although treating OWS is important in improving the patient’s health, decreasing their discomfort, and facilitating their participation in a psychosocial treatment program,¹⁸ current evidence suggests that opioid withdrawal management alone without medication for OUD rarely leads to long-term recovery.^19,20 Some research suggests that the risk of accidental opioid overdose immediately following acute withdrawal management may actually be increased due to decreased tolerance in these patients.^12,21,22

Three medications have the most evidence for OUD treatment: buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone.¹⁵ The decision to use buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone depends on a variety of factors, including the severity of the OUD, patient history of prior treatment successes and failures, comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions, and patient preference.⁴ Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone is preferred over naltrexone for patients who do not want to or cannot tolerate the physical and emotional discomfort of the opioid withdrawal process, who experience moderate to severe OUD, who have a history of failed abstinence-based treatment, or who have more severe physiological tolerance/dependence.¹² Buprenorphine is a mu opioid receptor partial agonist that has been shown to reduce opioid cravings,²³ provide moderate pain relief,²⁴ and ameliorate OWS.¹² It does not typically result in significant respiratory depression, which is the biggest safety concern for opioid use.¹² Buprenorphine may also treat comorbid AUD at higher doses; however, the data are inconclusive.^25,26 Buprenorphine should be prescribed with caution to patients with comorbid, uncontrolled AUD, due to the risk of respiratory depression when combined with alcohol. Patients who continue to drink alcohol but are able to abstain from opioids may consider starting an AUD-specific medication. Pharmacologic options are discussed in more detail in the next section.

For patients who have higher physiological dependence or more severe OUD, methadone may be a reasonable alternative to buprenorphine. Methadone, a mu-opioid receptor agonist, ameliorates OWS, reduces opioid cravings, and reduces the euphoric effects of opioid ingestion if the patient relapses. However, methadone can only be dispensed for the treatment of OUD by a federally-certified treatment program governed by restrictive and federally mandated guidelines. Compared to buprenorphine, methadone is more dangerous in overdose, has more drug interactions, and is more commonly diverted for recreational use.²⁷ Furthermore, methadone should be prescribed with caution to patients with comorbid, uncontrolled AUD, because both alcohol and methadone can result in respiratory depression.

By contrast, the first-line treatment for individuals experiencing moderateto severe AUD is typically naltrexone.²⁸ Naltrexone is contraindicated in Ms. A because she has a severe OUD and is unlikely to tolerate the opioid withdrawal process. Research suggests that the use of naltrexone for OUD should be limited to patients who have a mild disorder or who show low physiological dependence.²⁹ Alternatively, acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, or gabapentin should be considered for Ms. A.^4,28,30 Because each of these medications have specific strengths and weaknesses, medication selection should be based on individual patient factors such as comorbid psychiatric and medical conditions and/or patient preference.²⁸

Management decisions: AUD augmentation strategies

Naltrexone is contraindicated for patients who are receiving opioids, including opioid agonist therapy for OUD. Therefore, clinicians need to consider other options for these individuals. There are several medications with good evidence, including acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, and gabapentin. Acamprosate and disulfiram are FDA-approved for AUD; the latter 2 have been used off-label.

Continue to: Acamprosate is a glutamate receptor modulator...

Acamprosate is a glutamate receptor modulator that reduces alcohol cravings and is recommended for patients who have achieved and wish to maintain abstinence. It can be used in patients with liver disease, because it is not hepatically metabolized.³⁰ Topiramate is also used to reduce alcohol cravings. It antagonizes glutamate at alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionate (AMPA) and kainite receptors, facilitates gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) function, and reduces the extracellular release of dopamine in the mesocorticolimbic regions of the brain.³⁰ Topiramate is a reasonable option for patients with a seizure disorder, a history of migraine headaches,³⁰ or who are overweight or obese and wish to lose weight.³¹ In a nonrandomized study, topiramate reduced alcohol intake and cravings more than naltrexone.³²

Disulfiram is another second-line therapy for AUD. It is best used under close supervision because it does not reduce alcohol cravings but makes ingesting alcohol extremely aversive by preventing the breakdown of the alcohol metabolite acetaldehyde, and in doing so causes a cluster of unpleasant symptoms, including sweating, palpitations, flushing, nausea/vomiting, and increased sympathetic tone.²⁸ Disulfiram only works if it is taken daily, and it requires a high degree of motivation and/or daily supervision at home or in the clinic.³³ It is not recommended to be used as a first-line treatment based on its potential toxicity, adverse effects, and mixed findings on its efficacy. In addition, it should not be given to medically vulnerable/fragile individuals.

Lastly, gabapentin, a voltage-gated calcium channel modulator, may also be used as a second-line agent for AUD. Patients who have started alcohol withdrawal management with gabapentin may wish to continue treatment to assist with craving suppression.³⁰ It is also a good choice for patients who have comorbid diabetic neuropathy or other neuro­pathic pain conditions, anxiety, or insomnia.^30,34 Of note, there have been reports of gabapentin misuse.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

Ms. B presents to the ED with a 5-year history of moderate AUD and a 2-year history of mild OUD. She denies a history of severe or complicated AWS. Her laboratory results are significant for a serum ethanol level of 250 mg/dL, UDS positive for opioids, and a negative pregnancy test.

Management decisions: Naltrexone for OUD

In contrast to Ms. A, Ms. B is likely able to complete the opioid withdrawal management process. It is reasonable to treat her uncomplicated, moderate alcohol withdrawal as an outpatient with gabapentin or a benzodiazepine taper. Had her AUD been as severe as Ms. A’s, or if she were unsuccessful with ambulatory withdrawal treatment attempts, Ms. B would also be a candidate for inpatient medical treatment for alcohol withdrawal regardless of the severity of her OUD. Ongoing pharmacotherapy for her AUD after withdrawal management is the same as previously outlined. After Ms. B completes the taper (typically 1 week after the ED visit), she should follow up for initiation of pharmacotherapy for AUD. Ms. B is an ideal candidate for naltrexone, which targets both AUD and OUD.

Continue to: Naltrexone is a semi-synthetic...

Naltrexone is a semi-synthetic competitive antagonist at mu-opioid receptors and a partial agonist at kappa receptors; it has little to no activity at delta receptors. Naltrexone has been shown to reduce alcohol cravings and diminish the euphoric effects of alcohol by reducing endogenous opioid release and receptor activation.³⁵ Thus, even when patients do use alcohol while taking naltrexone, the amount of alcohol they use is typically substantially reduced.³⁶ In fact, at a standard dose of 50 mg/d, 95% of mu-opioid receptors are occupied and are shown to yield approximately 40% alcohol abstinence rates at 1 year.³⁶

Once Ms. B has completed withdrawal management from both alcohol and opioids, she should have a trial period of oral naltrexone to prove tolerability, and then transition to the long-acting injectable (LAI) formulation. Patients able to complete withdrawal management from opioids and transition to LAI naltrexone have been shown to have equivalent rates of successful abstinence from opioids compared to buprenorphine.³⁷ Though Ms. B could opt to try buprenorphine to treat her mild OUD, naltrexone would be the preferred option because it has 3 advantages:

• it blocks the mu-opioid receptor, which prevents euphoria if an illicit substance is used
• it does not cause physiologic dependence or withdrawal syndrome if/when stopped
• if it is not effective, it is easy to switch to buprenorphine.

Lastly, all patients with OUD should be prescribed a rescue naloxone kit, in accordance with harm-reduction guidelines. Naloxone, a potent opioid receptor antagonist, is used to prevent or reverse respiratory depression in opioid overdose. Naloxone rescue kits include intranasal naloxone, which makes it easy for nonclinician bystanders to administer while waiting for emergency transport.³⁸ Most states allow naloxone kits to be prescribed to individuals who have a concern for overdose among friends, family, or others in the community. The wide distribution and easy availability of naloxone rescue kits have been essential in decreasing overdose deaths among patients who misuse opioids.³⁹

Take-home points

Patients with both OUD and AUD are relatively common and often pose significant management challenges when they present to the clinic or the ED in withdrawal. Because severe AWS can be life-threatening, hospitalization should be considered. OWS is often accompanied by intense cravings that can lead to relapse and the risk of accidental opioid overdose/death. As soon as patients are able to engage in a discussion about their treatment options, clinicians need to clarify the patient’s goals and priorities. In medications for OUD, the decision of whether to use buprenorphine, naltrexone, or methadone is guided by the severity of the OUD, the patient’s past treatment experience (illicit as well as prescribed), and patient preference. If the OUD is mild or if the patient prefers to avoid opioid agonist medications and can tolerate the opioid withdrawal process, both the AUD and OUD can be treated with naltrexone, preferably with the LAI formulation. Other AUD medications and outpatient psychotherapy may be used to augment treatment outcomes. For patients with a moderate to severe OUD, buprenorphine (preferably with immediate initiation) or methadone therapy should be offered. Patients with comorbid OUD and AUD who are treated with opioid agonists should be offered medication for AUD other than naltrexone, as outlined above. All patients with substance use disorders would benefit from psychosocial interventions, including group and individual therapy as well as community sober support groups.

Bottom Line

Patients with comorbid opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) often pose significant management challenges when they present in withdrawal. This article reviews the evidence and summarizes practical considerations regarding the clinical management of patients with comorbid OUD and AUD.

Related Resources

• Chaney L, Mathia C, Cole T. Transitioning patients with opioid use disorder from methadone to buprenorphine. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(12):23-24,28. doi:10.12788/ cp.0305
• Eatmon CV, Trent K. Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder in patients with hepatic impairment. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(12):25-28. doi:10.12788/cp.0068

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone, Zubsolv
Clonidine • Catapres
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Hydroxyzine • Vistaril
Lofexidine • Lucemyra
Methadone • Methadose, Dolophine
Naloxone • Narcan
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Ondansetron • Zofran
Topiramate • Topamax
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

Ketamine poisonings in the United States increased 81% between 2019 and 2021, according to a new analysis of calls to poison control centers.

Although the overall ketamine exposures were low, researchers say the findings add to a growing body of research that suggests recreational ketamine use may be on the rise.

“Ketamine is by no means the most dangerous drug, but it could be dangerous if combined with drugs such as alcohol or if used in potentially hazardous situations – physically hazardous or socially hazardous,” lead author Joseph Palamar, PhD, associate professor and epidemiologist at New York University Langone Health, New York, told this news organization.

“People who decide to use ketamine recreationally need to be educated about potential risks,” Dr. Palamar said.

The findings were recently published online in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
 

More widespread use

Researchers noted that ketamine use has become more widespread in the United States due in part to increasing availability of ketamine in both clinical and nonclinical settings.

Previous work by Dr. Palamar documented an increase in recreational use of ketamine at dance clubs and an increase in ketamine seizures by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

In the current study, investigators analyzed data from the National Poison Control database and included cases reported by 51 of the 55 poison control centers in the United States.

They identified 758 cases involving ketamine exposure between the first quarter of 2019 and the last quarter of 2021 in individuals aged 13 and older, more than half of whom were men.

The number of ketamine exposures increased 81.1% during the study period, rising from 37 to 67 (P = .018).

Nearly 40% of callers reported intentional misuse or abuse of ketamine, while 19.7% involved a suspected suicide or suicide attempt. The ketamine exposure was unintended in 18.9% of cases, and 10.6% of calls involved an adverse drug reaction.

Onep-third of cases involved co-use of other substances, most commonly benzodiazepines, opioids, or alcohol.

The route of administration was ingestion for 44.3%, injection for 18.8%, and inhalation for 17.6%. Another 19.3% involved another route or a combination of routes.

Nearly 20% of cases reported a major adverse effect or death, 42.8% reported a moderate effect, 25.8% a minor effect, and 11.8% no effect. There were seven deaths reported in ketamine-related calls, although Dr. Palamar noted it is unlikely those deaths were due solely to ketamine use.

Researchers didn’t analyze specific harms reported in the calls, but chronic and heavy ketamine use has been previously associated with cognitive impairment, urinary cystitis and other urinary tract issues, and upper gastrointestinal problems.

In addition, using ketamine with gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) or opioids was associated with a significantly higher risk for major adverse effects (P < .001 for both). Injecting ketamine was also linked to a higher prevalence of major adverse effects, although the association did not quite reach significance (P < .05).
 

Cause for concern

Commenting on the findings, Timothy Wiegand, MD, director of Addiction Toxicology and Toxicology Consult Service and associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, New York, noted the data on co-use of ketamine with other drugs were cause for concern.

“I think the co-occurring behaviors are critical here with concomitant use of opioids and GHB, intravenous drug use, or that it is used in an attempt to harm one’s self because it allows for identification of these behaviors or use patterns,” said Dr. Wiegand, who was not involved with the research.

He added that it is important for “addiction providers and others in medicine or in the addiction field to be aware of trends” associated with ketamine.

“At the same time, a focus on general prevention, and access to care and treatment, and understanding how to implement harm reduction strategies remain high priorities,” Dr. Wiegand said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Palamar has reported consulting for Alkermes. Dr. Wiegand has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ketamine poisonings in the United States increased 81% between 2019 and 2021, according to a new analysis of calls to poison control centers.

Although the overall ketamine exposures were low, researchers say the findings add to a growing body of research that suggests recreational ketamine use may be on the rise.

“Ketamine is by no means the most dangerous drug, but it could be dangerous if combined with drugs such as alcohol or if used in potentially hazardous situations – physically hazardous or socially hazardous,” lead author Joseph Palamar, PhD, associate professor and epidemiologist at New York University Langone Health, New York, told this news organization.

“People who decide to use ketamine recreationally need to be educated about potential risks,” Dr. Palamar said.

The findings were recently published online in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
 

More widespread use

Researchers noted that ketamine use has become more widespread in the United States due in part to increasing availability of ketamine in both clinical and nonclinical settings.

Previous work by Dr. Palamar documented an increase in recreational use of ketamine at dance clubs and an increase in ketamine seizures by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

In the current study, investigators analyzed data from the National Poison Control database and included cases reported by 51 of the 55 poison control centers in the United States.

They identified 758 cases involving ketamine exposure between the first quarter of 2019 and the last quarter of 2021 in individuals aged 13 and older, more than half of whom were men.

The number of ketamine exposures increased 81.1% during the study period, rising from 37 to 67 (P = .018).

Nearly 40% of callers reported intentional misuse or abuse of ketamine, while 19.7% involved a suspected suicide or suicide attempt. The ketamine exposure was unintended in 18.9% of cases, and 10.6% of calls involved an adverse drug reaction.

Onep-third of cases involved co-use of other substances, most commonly benzodiazepines, opioids, or alcohol.

The route of administration was ingestion for 44.3%, injection for 18.8%, and inhalation for 17.6%. Another 19.3% involved another route or a combination of routes.

Nearly 20% of cases reported a major adverse effect or death, 42.8% reported a moderate effect, 25.8% a minor effect, and 11.8% no effect. There were seven deaths reported in ketamine-related calls, although Dr. Palamar noted it is unlikely those deaths were due solely to ketamine use.

Researchers didn’t analyze specific harms reported in the calls, but chronic and heavy ketamine use has been previously associated with cognitive impairment, urinary cystitis and other urinary tract issues, and upper gastrointestinal problems.

In addition, using ketamine with gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) or opioids was associated with a significantly higher risk for major adverse effects (P < .001 for both). Injecting ketamine was also linked to a higher prevalence of major adverse effects, although the association did not quite reach significance (P < .05).
 

Cause for concern

Commenting on the findings, Timothy Wiegand, MD, director of Addiction Toxicology and Toxicology Consult Service and associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, New York, noted the data on co-use of ketamine with other drugs were cause for concern.

“I think the co-occurring behaviors are critical here with concomitant use of opioids and GHB, intravenous drug use, or that it is used in an attempt to harm one’s self because it allows for identification of these behaviors or use patterns,” said Dr. Wiegand, who was not involved with the research.

He added that it is important for “addiction providers and others in medicine or in the addiction field to be aware of trends” associated with ketamine.

“At the same time, a focus on general prevention, and access to care and treatment, and understanding how to implement harm reduction strategies remain high priorities,” Dr. Wiegand said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Palamar has reported consulting for Alkermes. Dr. Wiegand has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ketamine poisonings in the United States increased 81% between 2019 and 2021, according to a new analysis of calls to poison control centers.

Although the overall ketamine exposures were low, researchers say the findings add to a growing body of research that suggests recreational ketamine use may be on the rise.

“Ketamine is by no means the most dangerous drug, but it could be dangerous if combined with drugs such as alcohol or if used in potentially hazardous situations – physically hazardous or socially hazardous,” lead author Joseph Palamar, PhD, associate professor and epidemiologist at New York University Langone Health, New York, told this news organization.

“People who decide to use ketamine recreationally need to be educated about potential risks,” Dr. Palamar said.

The findings were recently published online in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
 

More widespread use

Researchers noted that ketamine use has become more widespread in the United States due in part to increasing availability of ketamine in both clinical and nonclinical settings.

Previous work by Dr. Palamar documented an increase in recreational use of ketamine at dance clubs and an increase in ketamine seizures by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

In the current study, investigators analyzed data from the National Poison Control database and included cases reported by 51 of the 55 poison control centers in the United States.

They identified 758 cases involving ketamine exposure between the first quarter of 2019 and the last quarter of 2021 in individuals aged 13 and older, more than half of whom were men.

The number of ketamine exposures increased 81.1% during the study period, rising from 37 to 67 (P = .018).

Nearly 40% of callers reported intentional misuse or abuse of ketamine, while 19.7% involved a suspected suicide or suicide attempt. The ketamine exposure was unintended in 18.9% of cases, and 10.6% of calls involved an adverse drug reaction.

Onep-third of cases involved co-use of other substances, most commonly benzodiazepines, opioids, or alcohol.

The route of administration was ingestion for 44.3%, injection for 18.8%, and inhalation for 17.6%. Another 19.3% involved another route or a combination of routes.

Nearly 20% of cases reported a major adverse effect or death, 42.8% reported a moderate effect, 25.8% a minor effect, and 11.8% no effect. There were seven deaths reported in ketamine-related calls, although Dr. Palamar noted it is unlikely those deaths were due solely to ketamine use.

Researchers didn’t analyze specific harms reported in the calls, but chronic and heavy ketamine use has been previously associated with cognitive impairment, urinary cystitis and other urinary tract issues, and upper gastrointestinal problems.

In addition, using ketamine with gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) or opioids was associated with a significantly higher risk for major adverse effects (P < .001 for both). Injecting ketamine was also linked to a higher prevalence of major adverse effects, although the association did not quite reach significance (P < .05).
 

Cause for concern

Commenting on the findings, Timothy Wiegand, MD, director of Addiction Toxicology and Toxicology Consult Service and associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, New York, noted the data on co-use of ketamine with other drugs were cause for concern.

“I think the co-occurring behaviors are critical here with concomitant use of opioids and GHB, intravenous drug use, or that it is used in an attempt to harm one’s self because it allows for identification of these behaviors or use patterns,” said Dr. Wiegand, who was not involved with the research.

He added that it is important for “addiction providers and others in medicine or in the addiction field to be aware of trends” associated with ketamine.

“At the same time, a focus on general prevention, and access to care and treatment, and understanding how to implement harm reduction strategies remain high priorities,” Dr. Wiegand said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Palamar has reported consulting for Alkermes. Dr. Wiegand has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

Food and Drug Administration officials are concerned about the safety of legal cannabis-infused foods and supplements and may recommend regulating the products later in 2023, according to a new report.

The products can have drug-like effects on the body and contain CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Both CBD and THC can be derived from hemp, which was legalized by Congress in 2018. 

“Given what we know about the safety of CBD so far, it raises concerns for FDA about whether these existing regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are appropriate for this substance,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, told The Wall Street Journal. 

A 2021 FDA report valued the CBD market at $4.6 billion and projected it to quadruple by 2026. The only FDA-approved CBD product is an oil called Epidiolex, which can be prescribed for the seizure-associated disease epilepsy. Research on CBD to treat other diseases is ongoing.

Food, beverage, and beauty products containing CBD are sold in stores and online in many forms, including oils, vaporized liquids, and oil-based capsules, but “research supporting the drug’s benefits is still limited,” the Mayo Clinic said.

Recently, investigations have found that many CBD products also contain THC, which can be derived from legal hemp in a form that is referred to as Delta 8 and produces a psychoactive high. The CDC warned in 2022 that people “mistook” THC products for CBD products, which are often sold at the same stores, and experienced “adverse events.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA warn that much is unknown about CBD and delta-8 products. The CDC says known CBD risks include liver damage; interference with other drugs you are taking, which may lead to injury or serious side effects; drowsiness or sleepiness; diarrhea or changes in appetite; changes in mood, such as crankiness; potential negative effects on fetuses during pregnancy or on babies during breastfeeding; or unintentional poisoning of children when mistaking THC products for CBD products or due to containing other ingredients such as THC or pesticides.

“I don’t think that we can have the perfect be the enemy of the good when we’re looking at such a vast market that is so available and utilized,” Norman Birenbaum, a senior FDA adviser who is working on the regulatory issue, told the Journal. “You’ve got a widely unregulated market.”

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

Food and Drug Administration officials are concerned about the safety of legal cannabis-infused foods and supplements and may recommend regulating the products later in 2023, according to a new report.

The products can have drug-like effects on the body and contain CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Both CBD and THC can be derived from hemp, which was legalized by Congress in 2018. 

“Given what we know about the safety of CBD so far, it raises concerns for FDA about whether these existing regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are appropriate for this substance,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, told The Wall Street Journal. 

A 2021 FDA report valued the CBD market at $4.6 billion and projected it to quadruple by 2026. The only FDA-approved CBD product is an oil called Epidiolex, which can be prescribed for the seizure-associated disease epilepsy. Research on CBD to treat other diseases is ongoing.

Food, beverage, and beauty products containing CBD are sold in stores and online in many forms, including oils, vaporized liquids, and oil-based capsules, but “research supporting the drug’s benefits is still limited,” the Mayo Clinic said.

Recently, investigations have found that many CBD products also contain THC, which can be derived from legal hemp in a form that is referred to as Delta 8 and produces a psychoactive high. The CDC warned in 2022 that people “mistook” THC products for CBD products, which are often sold at the same stores, and experienced “adverse events.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA warn that much is unknown about CBD and delta-8 products. The CDC says known CBD risks include liver damage; interference with other drugs you are taking, which may lead to injury or serious side effects; drowsiness or sleepiness; diarrhea or changes in appetite; changes in mood, such as crankiness; potential negative effects on fetuses during pregnancy or on babies during breastfeeding; or unintentional poisoning of children when mistaking THC products for CBD products or due to containing other ingredients such as THC or pesticides.

“I don’t think that we can have the perfect be the enemy of the good when we’re looking at such a vast market that is so available and utilized,” Norman Birenbaum, a senior FDA adviser who is working on the regulatory issue, told the Journal. “You’ve got a widely unregulated market.”

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

Food and Drug Administration officials are concerned about the safety of legal cannabis-infused foods and supplements and may recommend regulating the products later in 2023, according to a new report.

The products can have drug-like effects on the body and contain CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Both CBD and THC can be derived from hemp, which was legalized by Congress in 2018. 

“Given what we know about the safety of CBD so far, it raises concerns for FDA about whether these existing regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are appropriate for this substance,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, told The Wall Street Journal. 

A 2021 FDA report valued the CBD market at $4.6 billion and projected it to quadruple by 2026. The only FDA-approved CBD product is an oil called Epidiolex, which can be prescribed for the seizure-associated disease epilepsy. Research on CBD to treat other diseases is ongoing.

Food, beverage, and beauty products containing CBD are sold in stores and online in many forms, including oils, vaporized liquids, and oil-based capsules, but “research supporting the drug’s benefits is still limited,” the Mayo Clinic said.

Recently, investigations have found that many CBD products also contain THC, which can be derived from legal hemp in a form that is referred to as Delta 8 and produces a psychoactive high. The CDC warned in 2022 that people “mistook” THC products for CBD products, which are often sold at the same stores, and experienced “adverse events.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA warn that much is unknown about CBD and delta-8 products. The CDC says known CBD risks include liver damage; interference with other drugs you are taking, which may lead to injury or serious side effects; drowsiness or sleepiness; diarrhea or changes in appetite; changes in mood, such as crankiness; potential negative effects on fetuses during pregnancy or on babies during breastfeeding; or unintentional poisoning of children when mistaking THC products for CBD products or due to containing other ingredients such as THC or pesticides.

“I don’t think that we can have the perfect be the enemy of the good when we’re looking at such a vast market that is so available and utilized,” Norman Birenbaum, a senior FDA adviser who is working on the regulatory issue, told the Journal. “You’ve got a widely unregulated market.”

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

Problematic alcohol use by physicians appears to be increasing, new research shows. However, good data on exactly how common this is and on salient risk factors are lacking.
 

In a systematic literature review, investigators found the prevalence of self-reported problematic alcohol use varied widely, but could affect up to one third of physicians.

However, all studies were survey-based and self-reported, and definitions of problematic alcohol use were mixed, with inconsistent reporting on differences across sex, age, physician specialty, and career stage.

“Key epidemiologic information of the prevalence of problematic alcohol use in physicians and associated risk factors are unknown, hampering the ability to identify high-risk individuals for targeted interventions,” Manish Sood, MD, University of Ottawa, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Serious concern

The researchers noted that physicians are at a higher risk for burnout and mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, than the general population, which could contribute to problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking among physicians poses a “serious concern” to their health and ability to provide care, the investigators wrote. Understanding the extent and characteristics of the issue is important to guide interventions.

To better characterize problematic drinking among physicians, the investigators reviewed 31 studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 51,680 residents, fellows, or staff physicians in 17 countries.

In the studies, problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT Version C (AUDIT-C), or the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire.

“Problematic alcohol use” included hazardous, potentially hazardous, risky, at-risk, harmful, problematic, or heavy drinking or alcohol use, as well as alcohol misuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol use more than low-risk guidelines and alcohol use disorder.

Results showed problematic alcohol use “varied widely” regardless of measurement method used. The rate was 0%-34% with AUDIT, 9%-35% with AUDIT-C, and 4%-22% with CAGE.

The data also showed an increase in reported problematic alcohol use over time, rising from 16.3% between 2006 and 2010 to 26.8% between 2017 and 2020.
 

True prevalence unknown

“It remains unknown whether this increase is indeed accurate or whether it is due to increased transparency by physicians in self-reporting problematic alcohol use because of a changing culture of medicine,” the investigators wrote.

The data suggest that problematic alcohol use is more common in male than female physicians; but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage, the researchers noted.

True prevalence of problematic alcohol use among physicians remains unknown – and identifying this type of behavior is difficult, they pointed out.

They added that physicians with problematic use may be “high functioning,” making identifying potential impairment a challenge. Also, societal stigma and fear of reprisal from professional colleges for reporting or seeking care for problematic alcohol use may encourage physicians with alcohol problems to keep their problems hidden.

The researchers noted that future population-based studies with longitudinal designs or using health administrative data could help identify the prevalence of and salient risk factors for problematic alcohol use in physicians.

The study was supported by the Canadian Medical Association. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Problematic alcohol use by physicians appears to be increasing, new research shows. However, good data on exactly how common this is and on salient risk factors are lacking.
 

In a systematic literature review, investigators found the prevalence of self-reported problematic alcohol use varied widely, but could affect up to one third of physicians.

However, all studies were survey-based and self-reported, and definitions of problematic alcohol use were mixed, with inconsistent reporting on differences across sex, age, physician specialty, and career stage.

“Key epidemiologic information of the prevalence of problematic alcohol use in physicians and associated risk factors are unknown, hampering the ability to identify high-risk individuals for targeted interventions,” Manish Sood, MD, University of Ottawa, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Serious concern

The researchers noted that physicians are at a higher risk for burnout and mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, than the general population, which could contribute to problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking among physicians poses a “serious concern” to their health and ability to provide care, the investigators wrote. Understanding the extent and characteristics of the issue is important to guide interventions.

To better characterize problematic drinking among physicians, the investigators reviewed 31 studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 51,680 residents, fellows, or staff physicians in 17 countries.

In the studies, problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT Version C (AUDIT-C), or the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire.

“Problematic alcohol use” included hazardous, potentially hazardous, risky, at-risk, harmful, problematic, or heavy drinking or alcohol use, as well as alcohol misuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol use more than low-risk guidelines and alcohol use disorder.

Results showed problematic alcohol use “varied widely” regardless of measurement method used. The rate was 0%-34% with AUDIT, 9%-35% with AUDIT-C, and 4%-22% with CAGE.

The data also showed an increase in reported problematic alcohol use over time, rising from 16.3% between 2006 and 2010 to 26.8% between 2017 and 2020.
 

True prevalence unknown

“It remains unknown whether this increase is indeed accurate or whether it is due to increased transparency by physicians in self-reporting problematic alcohol use because of a changing culture of medicine,” the investigators wrote.

The data suggest that problematic alcohol use is more common in male than female physicians; but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage, the researchers noted.

True prevalence of problematic alcohol use among physicians remains unknown – and identifying this type of behavior is difficult, they pointed out.

They added that physicians with problematic use may be “high functioning,” making identifying potential impairment a challenge. Also, societal stigma and fear of reprisal from professional colleges for reporting or seeking care for problematic alcohol use may encourage physicians with alcohol problems to keep their problems hidden.

The researchers noted that future population-based studies with longitudinal designs or using health administrative data could help identify the prevalence of and salient risk factors for problematic alcohol use in physicians.

The study was supported by the Canadian Medical Association. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Problematic alcohol use by physicians appears to be increasing, new research shows. However, good data on exactly how common this is and on salient risk factors are lacking.
 

In a systematic literature review, investigators found the prevalence of self-reported problematic alcohol use varied widely, but could affect up to one third of physicians.

However, all studies were survey-based and self-reported, and definitions of problematic alcohol use were mixed, with inconsistent reporting on differences across sex, age, physician specialty, and career stage.

“Key epidemiologic information of the prevalence of problematic alcohol use in physicians and associated risk factors are unknown, hampering the ability to identify high-risk individuals for targeted interventions,” Manish Sood, MD, University of Ottawa, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Serious concern

The researchers noted that physicians are at a higher risk for burnout and mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, than the general population, which could contribute to problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking among physicians poses a “serious concern” to their health and ability to provide care, the investigators wrote. Understanding the extent and characteristics of the issue is important to guide interventions.

To better characterize problematic drinking among physicians, the investigators reviewed 31 studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 51,680 residents, fellows, or staff physicians in 17 countries.

In the studies, problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT Version C (AUDIT-C), or the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire.

“Problematic alcohol use” included hazardous, potentially hazardous, risky, at-risk, harmful, problematic, or heavy drinking or alcohol use, as well as alcohol misuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol use more than low-risk guidelines and alcohol use disorder.

Results showed problematic alcohol use “varied widely” regardless of measurement method used. The rate was 0%-34% with AUDIT, 9%-35% with AUDIT-C, and 4%-22% with CAGE.

The data also showed an increase in reported problematic alcohol use over time, rising from 16.3% between 2006 and 2010 to 26.8% between 2017 and 2020.
 

True prevalence unknown

“It remains unknown whether this increase is indeed accurate or whether it is due to increased transparency by physicians in self-reporting problematic alcohol use because of a changing culture of medicine,” the investigators wrote.

The data suggest that problematic alcohol use is more common in male than female physicians; but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage, the researchers noted.

True prevalence of problematic alcohol use among physicians remains unknown – and identifying this type of behavior is difficult, they pointed out.

They added that physicians with problematic use may be “high functioning,” making identifying potential impairment a challenge. Also, societal stigma and fear of reprisal from professional colleges for reporting or seeking care for problematic alcohol use may encourage physicians with alcohol problems to keep their problems hidden.

The researchers noted that future population-based studies with longitudinal designs or using health administrative data could help identify the prevalence of and salient risk factors for problematic alcohol use in physicians.

The study was supported by the Canadian Medical Association. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Outpatient behavioral health treatment (OPBHT) for patients newly diagnosed with depression, substance use disorder, or other behavioral health condition (BHC) is cost-effective.

Results of a large retrospective study showed that patients newly diagnosed with a BHC who receive OPBHT following diagnosis incur lower medical and pharmacy costs over roughly the next 1 to 2 years, compared with peers who don’t receive OPBHT.

“Our findings suggest that promoting OPBHT as part of a population health strategy is associated with improved overall medical spending, particularly among adults,” the investigators write.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Common, undertreated

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have a BHC, and they incur greater medical costs than those without a BHC. However, diagnosis of a BHC is often delayed, and most affected individuals receive little to no treatment.

In their cost analysis, Johanna Bellon, PhD, and colleagues with Evernorth Health, St. Louis, analyzed commercial insurance claims data for 203,401 U.S. individuals newly diagnosed with one or more BHCs between 2017 and 2018.

About half of participants had depression and/or anxiety, 11% had substance use or alcohol use disorder, and 6% had a higher-acuity diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder, severe depression, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, or autism spectrum disorder.

About 1 in 5 (22%) had at least one chronic medical condition along with their BHC.

The researchers found that having at least one OPBHT visit was associated with lower medical and pharmacy costs during 15- and 27-month follow-up periods.

Over 15 months, the adjusted mean per member per month (PMPM) medical/pharmacy cost was $686 with no OPBHT visit, compared with $571 with one or more OPBHT visits.

Over 27 months, the adjusted mean PMPM was $464 with no OPBHT, versus $391 with one or more OPBHT visits.
 

Dose-response effect

In addition, there was a “dose-response” relationship between OPBHT and medical/pharmacy costs, such that estimated cost savings were significantly lower in the treated versus the untreated groups at almost every level of treatment.

“Our findings were also largely age independent, especially over 15 months, suggesting that OPBHT has favorable effects among children, young adults, and adults,” the researchers report.

“This is promising given that disease etiology and progression, treatment paradigms, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and overall medical and pharmacy costs differ among the three groups,” they say.

Notably, the dataset largely encompassed in-person OPBHT, because the study period preceded the transition into virtual care that occurred in 2020.

However, overall use of OPBHT was low – older adults, adults with lower income, individuals with comorbid medical conditions, and persons of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OPBHT, they found.

“These findings support the cost-effectiveness of practitioner- and insurance-based interventions to increase OPBHT utilization, which is a critical resource as new BHC diagnoses continue to increase,” the researchers say.

“Future research should validate these findings in other populations, including government-insured individuals, and explore data by chronic disease category, over longer time horizons, by type and quality of OPBHT, by type of medical spending, within subpopulations with BHCs, and including virtual and digital behavioral health services,” they suggest.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outpatient behavioral health treatment (OPBHT) for patients newly diagnosed with depression, substance use disorder, or other behavioral health condition (BHC) is cost-effective.

Results of a large retrospective study showed that patients newly diagnosed with a BHC who receive OPBHT following diagnosis incur lower medical and pharmacy costs over roughly the next 1 to 2 years, compared with peers who don’t receive OPBHT.

“Our findings suggest that promoting OPBHT as part of a population health strategy is associated with improved overall medical spending, particularly among adults,” the investigators write.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Common, undertreated

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have a BHC, and they incur greater medical costs than those without a BHC. However, diagnosis of a BHC is often delayed, and most affected individuals receive little to no treatment.

In their cost analysis, Johanna Bellon, PhD, and colleagues with Evernorth Health, St. Louis, analyzed commercial insurance claims data for 203,401 U.S. individuals newly diagnosed with one or more BHCs between 2017 and 2018.

About half of participants had depression and/or anxiety, 11% had substance use or alcohol use disorder, and 6% had a higher-acuity diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder, severe depression, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, or autism spectrum disorder.

About 1 in 5 (22%) had at least one chronic medical condition along with their BHC.

The researchers found that having at least one OPBHT visit was associated with lower medical and pharmacy costs during 15- and 27-month follow-up periods.

Over 15 months, the adjusted mean per member per month (PMPM) medical/pharmacy cost was $686 with no OPBHT visit, compared with $571 with one or more OPBHT visits.

Over 27 months, the adjusted mean PMPM was $464 with no OPBHT, versus $391 with one or more OPBHT visits.
 

Dose-response effect

In addition, there was a “dose-response” relationship between OPBHT and medical/pharmacy costs, such that estimated cost savings were significantly lower in the treated versus the untreated groups at almost every level of treatment.

“Our findings were also largely age independent, especially over 15 months, suggesting that OPBHT has favorable effects among children, young adults, and adults,” the researchers report.

“This is promising given that disease etiology and progression, treatment paradigms, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and overall medical and pharmacy costs differ among the three groups,” they say.

Notably, the dataset largely encompassed in-person OPBHT, because the study period preceded the transition into virtual care that occurred in 2020.

However, overall use of OPBHT was low – older adults, adults with lower income, individuals with comorbid medical conditions, and persons of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OPBHT, they found.

“These findings support the cost-effectiveness of practitioner- and insurance-based interventions to increase OPBHT utilization, which is a critical resource as new BHC diagnoses continue to increase,” the researchers say.

“Future research should validate these findings in other populations, including government-insured individuals, and explore data by chronic disease category, over longer time horizons, by type and quality of OPBHT, by type of medical spending, within subpopulations with BHCs, and including virtual and digital behavioral health services,” they suggest.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outpatient behavioral health treatment (OPBHT) for patients newly diagnosed with depression, substance use disorder, or other behavioral health condition (BHC) is cost-effective.

Results of a large retrospective study showed that patients newly diagnosed with a BHC who receive OPBHT following diagnosis incur lower medical and pharmacy costs over roughly the next 1 to 2 years, compared with peers who don’t receive OPBHT.

“Our findings suggest that promoting OPBHT as part of a population health strategy is associated with improved overall medical spending, particularly among adults,” the investigators write.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Common, undertreated

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have a BHC, and they incur greater medical costs than those without a BHC. However, diagnosis of a BHC is often delayed, and most affected individuals receive little to no treatment.

In their cost analysis, Johanna Bellon, PhD, and colleagues with Evernorth Health, St. Louis, analyzed commercial insurance claims data for 203,401 U.S. individuals newly diagnosed with one or more BHCs between 2017 and 2018.

About half of participants had depression and/or anxiety, 11% had substance use or alcohol use disorder, and 6% had a higher-acuity diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder, severe depression, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, or autism spectrum disorder.

About 1 in 5 (22%) had at least one chronic medical condition along with their BHC.

The researchers found that having at least one OPBHT visit was associated with lower medical and pharmacy costs during 15- and 27-month follow-up periods.

Over 15 months, the adjusted mean per member per month (PMPM) medical/pharmacy cost was $686 with no OPBHT visit, compared with $571 with one or more OPBHT visits.

Over 27 months, the adjusted mean PMPM was $464 with no OPBHT, versus $391 with one or more OPBHT visits.
 

Dose-response effect

In addition, there was a “dose-response” relationship between OPBHT and medical/pharmacy costs, such that estimated cost savings were significantly lower in the treated versus the untreated groups at almost every level of treatment.

“Our findings were also largely age independent, especially over 15 months, suggesting that OPBHT has favorable effects among children, young adults, and adults,” the researchers report.

“This is promising given that disease etiology and progression, treatment paradigms, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and overall medical and pharmacy costs differ among the three groups,” they say.

Notably, the dataset largely encompassed in-person OPBHT, because the study period preceded the transition into virtual care that occurred in 2020.

However, overall use of OPBHT was low – older adults, adults with lower income, individuals with comorbid medical conditions, and persons of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OPBHT, they found.

“These findings support the cost-effectiveness of practitioner- and insurance-based interventions to increase OPBHT utilization, which is a critical resource as new BHC diagnoses continue to increase,” the researchers say.

“Future research should validate these findings in other populations, including government-insured individuals, and explore data by chronic disease category, over longer time horizons, by type and quality of OPBHT, by type of medical spending, within subpopulations with BHCs, and including virtual and digital behavioral health services,” they suggest.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m the director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.

New York City is on the cutting edge with a very controversial program. It has two centers operating as overdose prevention centers, where individuals can come who are using drugs and take heroin or other drugs under the supervision of a health care professional or trained person. One is up in Washington Heights in Manhattan; the other, I believe, is over in Harlem.

These two centers will supervise people taking drugs. They have available all of the anti-overdose medications, such as Narcan. If you overdose, they will help you and try to counsel you to get off drugs, but they don’t insist that you do so. You can go there, even if you’re an addict, and continue to take drugs under supervision. This is called a risk-reduction strategy.

Some people note that there are over 100 centers like this worldwide. They’re in Canada, Switzerland, and many other countries, and they seem to work. “Working” means more people seem to come off drugs slowly – not huge numbers, but some – than if you don’t do something like this, and death rates from overdose go way down.

By the way, having these centers in place has other benefits. They save money because when someone overdoses out in the community, you have to pay all the costs of the ambulances and emergency rooms, and there are risks to the first responders due to fentanyl or other things. There are fewer syringes littering parks and public places where people shoot up. You have everything controlled when they come into a center, so that’s less burden on the community.

It turns out that you have less crime because people just aren’t out there harming or robbing other people to get money to get their next fix. The drugs are provided for them. Crime rates in neighborhoods around the world where these centers operate seem to dip. There are many positives.

There are also some negatives. People say it shouldn’t be the job of the state to keep people addicted. It’s just not the right role. Everything should be aimed at getting people off drugs, maybe including criminal penalties if that’s what it takes to get them to stop using.

My own view is that hasn’t worked. Implementing tough prison sentences in trying to fight the war on drugs just doesn’t seem to work. We had 100,000 deaths last year from drug overdoses. That number has been climbing. We all know that we’ve got a terrible epidemic of deaths due to drug overdose.

It seems to me that these centers that are involved in risk reduction are a better option for now, until we figure out some interventions that can cut the desire or the drive to use drugs, or antidotes that are effective for months or years, to prevent people from getting high no matter what drugs they take.

I’m going to come out and say that I think the New York experiment has worked. I think it has saved upward of 600 lives, they estimate, in the past year that would have been overdoses. I think costwise, it’s effective. [Reductions in] related damages and injuries from syringes being scattered around, and robbery, and so forth, are all to the good. There are even a few people coming off drugs due to counseling, which is a better outcome than we get when they’re just out in the streets.

I think other cities want to try this. I know Philadelphia does. I know New York wants to expand its program. The federal government isn’t sure, but I think the time has come to try an expansion. I think we’ve got something that – although far from perfect and I wish we had other tools – may be the best we’ve got. In the war on drugs, little victories ought to be reinforced.

Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m the director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.

New York City is on the cutting edge with a very controversial program. It has two centers operating as overdose prevention centers, where individuals can come who are using drugs and take heroin or other drugs under the supervision of a health care professional or trained person. One is up in Washington Heights in Manhattan; the other, I believe, is over in Harlem.

These two centers will supervise people taking drugs. They have available all of the anti-overdose medications, such as Narcan. If you overdose, they will help you and try to counsel you to get off drugs, but they don’t insist that you do so. You can go there, even if you’re an addict, and continue to take drugs under supervision. This is called a risk-reduction strategy.

Some people note that there are over 100 centers like this worldwide. They’re in Canada, Switzerland, and many other countries, and they seem to work. “Working” means more people seem to come off drugs slowly – not huge numbers, but some – than if you don’t do something like this, and death rates from overdose go way down.

By the way, having these centers in place has other benefits. They save money because when someone overdoses out in the community, you have to pay all the costs of the ambulances and emergency rooms, and there are risks to the first responders due to fentanyl or other things. There are fewer syringes littering parks and public places where people shoot up. You have everything controlled when they come into a center, so that’s less burden on the community.

It turns out that you have less crime because people just aren’t out there harming or robbing other people to get money to get their next fix. The drugs are provided for them. Crime rates in neighborhoods around the world where these centers operate seem to dip. There are many positives.

There are also some negatives. People say it shouldn’t be the job of the state to keep people addicted. It’s just not the right role. Everything should be aimed at getting people off drugs, maybe including criminal penalties if that’s what it takes to get them to stop using.

My own view is that hasn’t worked. Implementing tough prison sentences in trying to fight the war on drugs just doesn’t seem to work. We had 100,000 deaths last year from drug overdoses. That number has been climbing. We all know that we’ve got a terrible epidemic of deaths due to drug overdose.

It seems to me that these centers that are involved in risk reduction are a better option for now, until we figure out some interventions that can cut the desire or the drive to use drugs, or antidotes that are effective for months or years, to prevent people from getting high no matter what drugs they take.

I’m going to come out and say that I think the New York experiment has worked. I think it has saved upward of 600 lives, they estimate, in the past year that would have been overdoses. I think costwise, it’s effective. [Reductions in] related damages and injuries from syringes being scattered around, and robbery, and so forth, are all to the good. There are even a few people coming off drugs due to counseling, which is a better outcome than we get when they’re just out in the streets.

I think other cities want to try this. I know Philadelphia does. I know New York wants to expand its program. The federal government isn’t sure, but I think the time has come to try an expansion. I think we’ve got something that – although far from perfect and I wish we had other tools – may be the best we’ve got. In the war on drugs, little victories ought to be reinforced.

Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m the director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.

New York City is on the cutting edge with a very controversial program. It has two centers operating as overdose prevention centers, where individuals can come who are using drugs and take heroin or other drugs under the supervision of a health care professional or trained person. One is up in Washington Heights in Manhattan; the other, I believe, is over in Harlem.

These two centers will supervise people taking drugs. They have available all of the anti-overdose medications, such as Narcan. If you overdose, they will help you and try to counsel you to get off drugs, but they don’t insist that you do so. You can go there, even if you’re an addict, and continue to take drugs under supervision. This is called a risk-reduction strategy.

Some people note that there are over 100 centers like this worldwide. They’re in Canada, Switzerland, and many other countries, and they seem to work. “Working” means more people seem to come off drugs slowly – not huge numbers, but some – than if you don’t do something like this, and death rates from overdose go way down.

By the way, having these centers in place has other benefits. They save money because when someone overdoses out in the community, you have to pay all the costs of the ambulances and emergency rooms, and there are risks to the first responders due to fentanyl or other things. There are fewer syringes littering parks and public places where people shoot up. You have everything controlled when they come into a center, so that’s less burden on the community.

It turns out that you have less crime because people just aren’t out there harming or robbing other people to get money to get their next fix. The drugs are provided for them. Crime rates in neighborhoods around the world where these centers operate seem to dip. There are many positives.

There are also some negatives. People say it shouldn’t be the job of the state to keep people addicted. It’s just not the right role. Everything should be aimed at getting people off drugs, maybe including criminal penalties if that’s what it takes to get them to stop using.

My own view is that hasn’t worked. Implementing tough prison sentences in trying to fight the war on drugs just doesn’t seem to work. We had 100,000 deaths last year from drug overdoses. That number has been climbing. We all know that we’ve got a terrible epidemic of deaths due to drug overdose.

It seems to me that these centers that are involved in risk reduction are a better option for now, until we figure out some interventions that can cut the desire or the drive to use drugs, or antidotes that are effective for months or years, to prevent people from getting high no matter what drugs they take.

I’m going to come out and say that I think the New York experiment has worked. I think it has saved upward of 600 lives, they estimate, in the past year that would have been overdoses. I think costwise, it’s effective. [Reductions in] related damages and injuries from syringes being scattered around, and robbery, and so forth, are all to the good. There are even a few people coming off drugs due to counseling, which is a better outcome than we get when they’re just out in the streets.

I think other cities want to try this. I know Philadelphia does. I know New York wants to expand its program. The federal government isn’t sure, but I think the time has come to try an expansion. I think we’ve got something that – although far from perfect and I wish we had other tools – may be the best we’ve got. In the war on drugs, little victories ought to be reinforced.

Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Poison control centers in the United States now receive more calls about adolescents abusing cannabis than alcohol or any other substance, according to a new study.

Many helpline calls about cannabis involve edible products, the researchers noted.

Over-the-counter medications – especially dextromethorphan-containing cough and cold medications and oral antihistamines, such as Benadryl – are other commonly abused substances.

But cannabis recently started topping the list.

“Since 2018, the most reported misused/abused substance involved exposure to marijuana,” according to the study, which was published online in Clinical Toxicology.  

Adrienne Hughes, MD, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues analyzed calls to United States poison control centers between 2000 and 2020. They focused on 338,000 calls about intentional substance abuse or misuse, including for the purpose of getting high, in individuals aged 6-18 years.

The calls were made to 55 certified helplines for health professionals, public health agencies, and members of the public seeking guidance about exposures to various substances.
 

Cannabis vs. alcohol

In 2000, alcohol was the substance involved in the largest number of cases (1,318, or 9.8% of all calls). Between 2000 and 2013, cases of alcohol abuse exceeded the number of cannabis cases each year.

But that changed in 2014, when cannabis overtook alcohol.

Over the 20-year study period, calls about exposure to cannabis increased 245%, from 510 in 2000 to 1,761 in 2020.

Edibles played a key role.

“Edible marijuana preparations accounted for the highest increase in call rates, compared with all other forms of marijuana,” the researchers reported.

Edible products are “often marketed in ways that are attractive to young people, and they are considered more discrete and convenient,” Dr. Hughes said. But they can have “unpredictable” effects.

“Compared to smoking cannabis, which typically results in an immediate high, intoxication from edible forms usually takes several hours, which may lead some individuals to consume greater amounts and experience unexpected and unpredictable highs,” she said. 

For example, prior research has shown that edible cannabis consumption may lead to more acute psychiatric symptoms and cardiovascular events than does inhaled cannabis.

Trends in alcohol use may have held relatively steady, despite some minor declines in the poison center data, Dr. Hughes said.

“Anecdotally, there hasn’t been an obvious notable reduction in alcohol cases in the emergency department,” she said. “However, I wouldn’t expect a huge change given our data only found a slow mild decline in alcohol cases over the study period.”

The increase in cannabis-related calls coincides with more states legalizing or decriminalizing the drug for medical or recreational purposes. Currently, 21 states have approved recreational cannabis for adults who are at least 21 years old.
 

What are the risks?

Parents typically call a poison center about cannabis exposure after they see or suspect that their child has ingested loose cannabis leaves or edibles containing the substance, Dr. Hughes said.

“The poison center provides guidance to parents about whether or not their child can be watched at home or requires referral to a health care facility,” she said. “While marijuana carries a low risk for severe toxicity, it can be inebriating to the point of poor judgment, risk of falls or other injury, and occasionally a panic reaction in the novice user and unsuspecting children who accidentally ingest these products.”

Intentional misuse or abuse tends to occur in older children and teens.

Nonprescription drugs have a high potential for abuse because they are legal and may be perceived as safe, Dr. Hughes said.

If a child has a history of misusing or abusing substances or if a parent is worried that their child is at high risk for this behavior, they should consider securing medicines in a lock box, she advised.

That applies to cannabis too.

“I would recommend that parents also consider locking up their cannabis products,” she said.

The National Poison Data System relies on voluntary reporting, and the data are not expected to represent the actual number of intentional misuse and abuse exposures, the researchers noted.

Poison control centers in the United States are available for consultation about patients with known or suspected cannabis ingestion or other suspected poisonings (1-800-222-1222).

The researchers had no disclosures.

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

Poison control centers in the United States now receive more calls about adolescents abusing cannabis than alcohol or any other substance, according to a new study.

Many helpline calls about cannabis involve edible products, the researchers noted.

Over-the-counter medications – especially dextromethorphan-containing cough and cold medications and oral antihistamines, such as Benadryl – are other commonly abused substances.

But cannabis recently started topping the list.

“Since 2018, the most reported misused/abused substance involved exposure to marijuana,” according to the study, which was published online in Clinical Toxicology.  

Adrienne Hughes, MD, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues analyzed calls to United States poison control centers between 2000 and 2020. They focused on 338,000 calls about intentional substance abuse or misuse, including for the purpose of getting high, in individuals aged 6-18 years.

The calls were made to 55 certified helplines for health professionals, public health agencies, and members of the public seeking guidance about exposures to various substances.
 

Cannabis vs. alcohol

In 2000, alcohol was the substance involved in the largest number of cases (1,318, or 9.8% of all calls). Between 2000 and 2013, cases of alcohol abuse exceeded the number of cannabis cases each year.

But that changed in 2014, when cannabis overtook alcohol.

Over the 20-year study period, calls about exposure to cannabis increased 245%, from 510 in 2000 to 1,761 in 2020.

Edibles played a key role.

“Edible marijuana preparations accounted for the highest increase in call rates, compared with all other forms of marijuana,” the researchers reported.

Edible products are “often marketed in ways that are attractive to young people, and they are considered more discrete and convenient,” Dr. Hughes said. But they can have “unpredictable” effects.

“Compared to smoking cannabis, which typically results in an immediate high, intoxication from edible forms usually takes several hours, which may lead some individuals to consume greater amounts and experience unexpected and unpredictable highs,” she said. 

For example, prior research has shown that edible cannabis consumption may lead to more acute psychiatric symptoms and cardiovascular events than does inhaled cannabis.

Trends in alcohol use may have held relatively steady, despite some minor declines in the poison center data, Dr. Hughes said.

“Anecdotally, there hasn’t been an obvious notable reduction in alcohol cases in the emergency department,” she said. “However, I wouldn’t expect a huge change given our data only found a slow mild decline in alcohol cases over the study period.”

The increase in cannabis-related calls coincides with more states legalizing or decriminalizing the drug for medical or recreational purposes. Currently, 21 states have approved recreational cannabis for adults who are at least 21 years old.
 

What are the risks?

Parents typically call a poison center about cannabis exposure after they see or suspect that their child has ingested loose cannabis leaves or edibles containing the substance, Dr. Hughes said.

“The poison center provides guidance to parents about whether or not their child can be watched at home or requires referral to a health care facility,” she said. “While marijuana carries a low risk for severe toxicity, it can be inebriating to the point of poor judgment, risk of falls or other injury, and occasionally a panic reaction in the novice user and unsuspecting children who accidentally ingest these products.”

Intentional misuse or abuse tends to occur in older children and teens.

Nonprescription drugs have a high potential for abuse because they are legal and may be perceived as safe, Dr. Hughes said.

If a child has a history of misusing or abusing substances or if a parent is worried that their child is at high risk for this behavior, they should consider securing medicines in a lock box, she advised.

That applies to cannabis too.

“I would recommend that parents also consider locking up their cannabis products,” she said.

The National Poison Data System relies on voluntary reporting, and the data are not expected to represent the actual number of intentional misuse and abuse exposures, the researchers noted.

Poison control centers in the United States are available for consultation about patients with known or suspected cannabis ingestion or other suspected poisonings (1-800-222-1222).

The researchers had no disclosures.

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

Poison control centers in the United States now receive more calls about adolescents abusing cannabis than alcohol or any other substance, according to a new study.

Many helpline calls about cannabis involve edible products, the researchers noted.

Over-the-counter medications – especially dextromethorphan-containing cough and cold medications and oral antihistamines, such as Benadryl – are other commonly abused substances.

But cannabis recently started topping the list.

“Since 2018, the most reported misused/abused substance involved exposure to marijuana,” according to the study, which was published online in Clinical Toxicology.  

Adrienne Hughes, MD, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues analyzed calls to United States poison control centers between 2000 and 2020. They focused on 338,000 calls about intentional substance abuse or misuse, including for the purpose of getting high, in individuals aged 6-18 years.

The calls were made to 55 certified helplines for health professionals, public health agencies, and members of the public seeking guidance about exposures to various substances.
 

Cannabis vs. alcohol

In 2000, alcohol was the substance involved in the largest number of cases (1,318, or 9.8% of all calls). Between 2000 and 2013, cases of alcohol abuse exceeded the number of cannabis cases each year.

But that changed in 2014, when cannabis overtook alcohol.

Over the 20-year study period, calls about exposure to cannabis increased 245%, from 510 in 2000 to 1,761 in 2020.

Edibles played a key role.

“Edible marijuana preparations accounted for the highest increase in call rates, compared with all other forms of marijuana,” the researchers reported.

Edible products are “often marketed in ways that are attractive to young people, and they are considered more discrete and convenient,” Dr. Hughes said. But they can have “unpredictable” effects.

“Compared to smoking cannabis, which typically results in an immediate high, intoxication from edible forms usually takes several hours, which may lead some individuals to consume greater amounts and experience unexpected and unpredictable highs,” she said. 

For example, prior research has shown that edible cannabis consumption may lead to more acute psychiatric symptoms and cardiovascular events than does inhaled cannabis.

Trends in alcohol use may have held relatively steady, despite some minor declines in the poison center data, Dr. Hughes said.

“Anecdotally, there hasn’t been an obvious notable reduction in alcohol cases in the emergency department,” she said. “However, I wouldn’t expect a huge change given our data only found a slow mild decline in alcohol cases over the study period.”

The increase in cannabis-related calls coincides with more states legalizing or decriminalizing the drug for medical or recreational purposes. Currently, 21 states have approved recreational cannabis for adults who are at least 21 years old.
 

What are the risks?

Parents typically call a poison center about cannabis exposure after they see or suspect that their child has ingested loose cannabis leaves or edibles containing the substance, Dr. Hughes said.

“The poison center provides guidance to parents about whether or not their child can be watched at home or requires referral to a health care facility,” she said. “While marijuana carries a low risk for severe toxicity, it can be inebriating to the point of poor judgment, risk of falls or other injury, and occasionally a panic reaction in the novice user and unsuspecting children who accidentally ingest these products.”

Intentional misuse or abuse tends to occur in older children and teens.

Nonprescription drugs have a high potential for abuse because they are legal and may be perceived as safe, Dr. Hughes said.

If a child has a history of misusing or abusing substances or if a parent is worried that their child is at high risk for this behavior, they should consider securing medicines in a lock box, she advised.

That applies to cannabis too.

“I would recommend that parents also consider locking up their cannabis products,” she said.

The National Poison Data System relies on voluntary reporting, and the data are not expected to represent the actual number of intentional misuse and abuse exposures, the researchers noted.

Poison control centers in the United States are available for consultation about patients with known or suspected cannabis ingestion or other suspected poisonings (1-800-222-1222).

The researchers had no disclosures.

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

Heart failure associated with illicit use of the psychostimulant methamphetamine (methHF) is increasing in the United States and around the world across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, a literature review indicates.

MethHF is associated with increased severity for HF, longer inpatient stay, and more readmissions, compared with non-MethHF, the data show.

Clinicians “need to consider methamphetamine as a potential etiology for heart failure and include a substance use history when evaluating patients. Treating methamphetamine use disorder improves heart failure outcomes,” first author Veena Manja, MD, PhD, with Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the journal Heart.
 

Poor outcomes, ‘staggering’ costs

This “thoughtful” review is “important and necessary,” Jonathan Davis, MD, director of the heart failure program, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, wrote in an editorial in the journal.

Dr. Davis noted that patients with Meth HF are at increased risk for poor outcomes and death and the health care costs related to MethHF are “staggering.”

As an example, inpatient data for California show annual charges related to MethHF rose by 840% from 2008 to 2018, from $41.5 million to $390.2 million, compared with 82% for all HF, which rose from $3.5 billion to $6.8 billion.

Illicit use of methamphetamine – also known as “crystal meth,” “ice,” and “speed” – has been linked to hypertension, MI, stroke, aortic dissection, and sudden death. But until now, there was no comprehensive systematic review of published studies on MethHF.

“Our goal was to compile current knowledge on the topic, increase awareness of this condition and identify areas for future research,” Dr. Manja said.

The researchers reviewed 21 observational studies, mostly from the United States (14 from California), between 1997 and 2020. The mean age of adults with MethHF ranged in age from 35 to 60 and more than half were male (57%).

Illicit methamphetamine was inhaled, injected, swallowed, smoked, and snorted. The reported frequency ranged from daily to every other week, and the total monthly dose ranged from 0.35 g to 24.5 g.

The average duration of meth use before HF diagnosis was 5 years. However, 18% of users developed HF within 1 year of starting to use illicit methamphetamine. In some cases, HF was diagnosed after a single use.

The researchers also note that MethHF with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, seen in up to 44% of cases, is a distinct entity that may progress to reduced LVEF with continued use.

MethHF is also associated with a greater likelihood of other substance abuse, PTSD, depression, and other heart and kidney disease.

Factors associated with improved MethHF outcomes include female sex, meth abstinence, and adherence to guideline-directed HF therapy.

Improvement in MethHF outcomes is possible even if abstinence is not consistent, a finding that lends support to harm reduction principles of “meeting patients where they are instead of insisting on complete abstinence,” the researchers said.
 

Large gaps in knowledge

They were unable to combine the results into a meta-analysis because of heterogeneity in study design, population, comparator, and outcome assessment. Also, the overall risk of bias is moderate because of the presence of confounders, selection bias and poor matching, and the overall certainty in the evidence is very low,.

No study evaluated the incidence or prevalence of HF among methamphetamine users and inconsistent history taking and testing in patients with HF impeded accurate MethHF prevalence assessment.

Several studies, however, document an increasing incidence of MethHF, particularly over the past decade.

One study from California reported a 585% increase in MethHF hospital admissions between 2008 and 2018. An analysis of the National Inpatient Survey found a 12-fold increase in annual MethHF hospitalizations between 2002 and 2014.

“The results of this systematic review highlight large gaps in our knowledge” of MethHF, Dr. Manja said in an interview.

“We need to understand the epidemiology, prevalence, factors that confer susceptibility to cardiovascular outcomes, and need research into treatment targeted toward this disease,” Dr. Manja added. “We should consider options to integrate substance use treatment in HF/cardiology/primary care clinics and design a multidisciplinary patient-centered approach.”

Dr. Davis agreed. This work “highlights that the standard of care academically and clinically must be a broad team across the care spectrum to simultaneously address methamphetamine use, heart failure, and social determinants of health.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Manja and Dr. Davis reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Heart failure associated with illicit use of the psychostimulant methamphetamine (methHF) is increasing in the United States and around the world across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, a literature review indicates.

MethHF is associated with increased severity for HF, longer inpatient stay, and more readmissions, compared with non-MethHF, the data show.

Clinicians “need to consider methamphetamine as a potential etiology for heart failure and include a substance use history when evaluating patients. Treating methamphetamine use disorder improves heart failure outcomes,” first author Veena Manja, MD, PhD, with Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the journal Heart.
 

Poor outcomes, ‘staggering’ costs

This “thoughtful” review is “important and necessary,” Jonathan Davis, MD, director of the heart failure program, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, wrote in an editorial in the journal.

Dr. Davis noted that patients with Meth HF are at increased risk for poor outcomes and death and the health care costs related to MethHF are “staggering.”

As an example, inpatient data for California show annual charges related to MethHF rose by 840% from 2008 to 2018, from $41.5 million to $390.2 million, compared with 82% for all HF, which rose from $3.5 billion to $6.8 billion.

Illicit use of methamphetamine – also known as “crystal meth,” “ice,” and “speed” – has been linked to hypertension, MI, stroke, aortic dissection, and sudden death. But until now, there was no comprehensive systematic review of published studies on MethHF.

“Our goal was to compile current knowledge on the topic, increase awareness of this condition and identify areas for future research,” Dr. Manja said.

The researchers reviewed 21 observational studies, mostly from the United States (14 from California), between 1997 and 2020. The mean age of adults with MethHF ranged in age from 35 to 60 and more than half were male (57%).

Illicit methamphetamine was inhaled, injected, swallowed, smoked, and snorted. The reported frequency ranged from daily to every other week, and the total monthly dose ranged from 0.35 g to 24.5 g.

The average duration of meth use before HF diagnosis was 5 years. However, 18% of users developed HF within 1 year of starting to use illicit methamphetamine. In some cases, HF was diagnosed after a single use.

The researchers also note that MethHF with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, seen in up to 44% of cases, is a distinct entity that may progress to reduced LVEF with continued use.

MethHF is also associated with a greater likelihood of other substance abuse, PTSD, depression, and other heart and kidney disease.

Factors associated with improved MethHF outcomes include female sex, meth abstinence, and adherence to guideline-directed HF therapy.

Improvement in MethHF outcomes is possible even if abstinence is not consistent, a finding that lends support to harm reduction principles of “meeting patients where they are instead of insisting on complete abstinence,” the researchers said.
 

Large gaps in knowledge

They were unable to combine the results into a meta-analysis because of heterogeneity in study design, population, comparator, and outcome assessment. Also, the overall risk of bias is moderate because of the presence of confounders, selection bias and poor matching, and the overall certainty in the evidence is very low,.

No study evaluated the incidence or prevalence of HF among methamphetamine users and inconsistent history taking and testing in patients with HF impeded accurate MethHF prevalence assessment.

Several studies, however, document an increasing incidence of MethHF, particularly over the past decade.

One study from California reported a 585% increase in MethHF hospital admissions between 2008 and 2018. An analysis of the National Inpatient Survey found a 12-fold increase in annual MethHF hospitalizations between 2002 and 2014.

“The results of this systematic review highlight large gaps in our knowledge” of MethHF, Dr. Manja said in an interview.

“We need to understand the epidemiology, prevalence, factors that confer susceptibility to cardiovascular outcomes, and need research into treatment targeted toward this disease,” Dr. Manja added. “We should consider options to integrate substance use treatment in HF/cardiology/primary care clinics and design a multidisciplinary patient-centered approach.”

Dr. Davis agreed. This work “highlights that the standard of care academically and clinically must be a broad team across the care spectrum to simultaneously address methamphetamine use, heart failure, and social determinants of health.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Manja and Dr. Davis reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Heart failure associated with illicit use of the psychostimulant methamphetamine (methHF) is increasing in the United States and around the world across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, a literature review indicates.

MethHF is associated with increased severity for HF, longer inpatient stay, and more readmissions, compared with non-MethHF, the data show.

Clinicians “need to consider methamphetamine as a potential etiology for heart failure and include a substance use history when evaluating patients. Treating methamphetamine use disorder improves heart failure outcomes,” first author Veena Manja, MD, PhD, with Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the journal Heart.
 

Poor outcomes, ‘staggering’ costs

This “thoughtful” review is “important and necessary,” Jonathan Davis, MD, director of the heart failure program, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, wrote in an editorial in the journal.

Dr. Davis noted that patients with Meth HF are at increased risk for poor outcomes and death and the health care costs related to MethHF are “staggering.”

As an example, inpatient data for California show annual charges related to MethHF rose by 840% from 2008 to 2018, from $41.5 million to $390.2 million, compared with 82% for all HF, which rose from $3.5 billion to $6.8 billion.

Illicit use of methamphetamine – also known as “crystal meth,” “ice,” and “speed” – has been linked to hypertension, MI, stroke, aortic dissection, and sudden death. But until now, there was no comprehensive systematic review of published studies on MethHF.

“Our goal was to compile current knowledge on the topic, increase awareness of this condition and identify areas for future research,” Dr. Manja said.

The researchers reviewed 21 observational studies, mostly from the United States (14 from California), between 1997 and 2020. The mean age of adults with MethHF ranged in age from 35 to 60 and more than half were male (57%).

Illicit methamphetamine was inhaled, injected, swallowed, smoked, and snorted. The reported frequency ranged from daily to every other week, and the total monthly dose ranged from 0.35 g to 24.5 g.

The average duration of meth use before HF diagnosis was 5 years. However, 18% of users developed HF within 1 year of starting to use illicit methamphetamine. In some cases, HF was diagnosed after a single use.

The researchers also note that MethHF with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, seen in up to 44% of cases, is a distinct entity that may progress to reduced LVEF with continued use.

MethHF is also associated with a greater likelihood of other substance abuse, PTSD, depression, and other heart and kidney disease.

Factors associated with improved MethHF outcomes include female sex, meth abstinence, and adherence to guideline-directed HF therapy.

Improvement in MethHF outcomes is possible even if abstinence is not consistent, a finding that lends support to harm reduction principles of “meeting patients where they are instead of insisting on complete abstinence,” the researchers said.
 

Large gaps in knowledge

They were unable to combine the results into a meta-analysis because of heterogeneity in study design, population, comparator, and outcome assessment. Also, the overall risk of bias is moderate because of the presence of confounders, selection bias and poor matching, and the overall certainty in the evidence is very low,.

No study evaluated the incidence or prevalence of HF among methamphetamine users and inconsistent history taking and testing in patients with HF impeded accurate MethHF prevalence assessment.

Several studies, however, document an increasing incidence of MethHF, particularly over the past decade.

One study from California reported a 585% increase in MethHF hospital admissions between 2008 and 2018. An analysis of the National Inpatient Survey found a 12-fold increase in annual MethHF hospitalizations between 2002 and 2014.

“The results of this systematic review highlight large gaps in our knowledge” of MethHF, Dr. Manja said in an interview.

“We need to understand the epidemiology, prevalence, factors that confer susceptibility to cardiovascular outcomes, and need research into treatment targeted toward this disease,” Dr. Manja added. “We should consider options to integrate substance use treatment in HF/cardiology/primary care clinics and design a multidisciplinary patient-centered approach.”

Dr. Davis agreed. This work “highlights that the standard of care academically and clinically must be a broad team across the care spectrum to simultaneously address methamphetamine use, heart failure, and social determinants of health.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Manja and Dr. Davis reported no relevant disclosures.

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