Addiction Medicine

Drug overdose deaths in pregnant and postpartum women rose by about 81% from 2017 to 2020, researchers report in a JAMA research letter published online Dec. 6.

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths were highest in 2020 as the COVID pandemic began, according to the researchers, Emilie Bruzelius, MPH, and Silvia S. Martins, MD, PHD, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

The deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) pregnancy-related codes and death certificate pregnancy checkbox status.

The checkbox, part of all states’ death certificates, asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death (early postpartum) or within 43-365 days of death (late postpartum).
 

Sharp increase at start of COVID pandemic

The authors note that pregnancy-related overdose deaths have been climbing from 2007 to 2019, but increased sharply in 2020.

“Pregnant and postpartum persons are known to face barriers to accessing drug treatment and harm-reduction services, which when compounded by pandemic-associated stressors, health care shutdowns, and increasingly volatile unregulated drug supply may have increased fatal overdose risk,” the authors write.

Of the 7,642 pregnancy-related deaths in the study period, 1,249 were overdose-related, leading to a cumulative overdose death rate of 8.35 per 100,000. From 2017 to 2020, pregnancy-related overdose deaths rose from 6.56 to 11.85 per 100,000. That translates to an absolute change rate of 5.30 per 100,000 and a relative increase of 81%.

The trend mirrors a pattern in people of reproductive age overall, the authors write.

Overdose mortality among reproductive age women similarly increased from 14.37 to 19.76 per 100,000 (absolute change rate, 5.39 [95% confidence interval, 4.94-5.85] per 100,000; relative increase of 38%).
 

Fentanyl deaths increase

The researchers found large increases in deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetics and psychostimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine, for example).

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, heroin, and prescription opioids, however, were mostly stable from 2017 to 2020.

Numbers of late postpartum overdose deaths were notable in the paper.

In that group, there were 3.95 deaths per 100,000, compared with those pregnant at the time of death (2.99 per 100,000 or those identified as early postpartum (1.39 per 100 000).

Davida Schiff, MD, director of the Perinatal and Family-based Substance Use Disorder Care Massachusetts General Hospital substance use disorders initiative in Boston, told this publication it’s important to realize from this study that late postpartum period is the highest-risk period and also the time “when many states that have not expanded Medicaid cut off insurance needed to access life-saving health care services.”“Pregnancy is an important touch point of increased health care access, yet pregnant and parenting people face unique social and legal consequences from their substance use,” Dr. Schiff said.

She added, “I’m left wondering how many of the deaths reported could have been avoided if fear of a punitive response when engaging with our health care system had not prevented them from seeking out the care they needed.”

Dr. Schiff said the study highlights the importance of the pregnancy-checkbox addition to death records to better characterize pregnancy-associated deaths that previously were likely undercounted.

The authors and Dr. Schiff declare no relevant financial relationships.

Drug overdose deaths in pregnant and postpartum women rose by about 81% from 2017 to 2020, researchers report in a JAMA research letter published online Dec. 6.

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths were highest in 2020 as the COVID pandemic began, according to the researchers, Emilie Bruzelius, MPH, and Silvia S. Martins, MD, PHD, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

The deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) pregnancy-related codes and death certificate pregnancy checkbox status.

The checkbox, part of all states’ death certificates, asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death (early postpartum) or within 43-365 days of death (late postpartum).
 

Sharp increase at start of COVID pandemic

The authors note that pregnancy-related overdose deaths have been climbing from 2007 to 2019, but increased sharply in 2020.

“Pregnant and postpartum persons are known to face barriers to accessing drug treatment and harm-reduction services, which when compounded by pandemic-associated stressors, health care shutdowns, and increasingly volatile unregulated drug supply may have increased fatal overdose risk,” the authors write.

Of the 7,642 pregnancy-related deaths in the study period, 1,249 were overdose-related, leading to a cumulative overdose death rate of 8.35 per 100,000. From 2017 to 2020, pregnancy-related overdose deaths rose from 6.56 to 11.85 per 100,000. That translates to an absolute change rate of 5.30 per 100,000 and a relative increase of 81%.

The trend mirrors a pattern in people of reproductive age overall, the authors write.

Overdose mortality among reproductive age women similarly increased from 14.37 to 19.76 per 100,000 (absolute change rate, 5.39 [95% confidence interval, 4.94-5.85] per 100,000; relative increase of 38%).
 

Fentanyl deaths increase

The researchers found large increases in deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetics and psychostimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine, for example).

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, heroin, and prescription opioids, however, were mostly stable from 2017 to 2020.

Numbers of late postpartum overdose deaths were notable in the paper.

In that group, there were 3.95 deaths per 100,000, compared with those pregnant at the time of death (2.99 per 100,000 or those identified as early postpartum (1.39 per 100 000).

Davida Schiff, MD, director of the Perinatal and Family-based Substance Use Disorder Care Massachusetts General Hospital substance use disorders initiative in Boston, told this publication it’s important to realize from this study that late postpartum period is the highest-risk period and also the time “when many states that have not expanded Medicaid cut off insurance needed to access life-saving health care services.”“Pregnancy is an important touch point of increased health care access, yet pregnant and parenting people face unique social and legal consequences from their substance use,” Dr. Schiff said.

She added, “I’m left wondering how many of the deaths reported could have been avoided if fear of a punitive response when engaging with our health care system had not prevented them from seeking out the care they needed.”

Dr. Schiff said the study highlights the importance of the pregnancy-checkbox addition to death records to better characterize pregnancy-associated deaths that previously were likely undercounted.

The authors and Dr. Schiff declare no relevant financial relationships.

Drug overdose deaths in pregnant and postpartum women rose by about 81% from 2017 to 2020, researchers report in a JAMA research letter published online Dec. 6.

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths were highest in 2020 as the COVID pandemic began, according to the researchers, Emilie Bruzelius, MPH, and Silvia S. Martins, MD, PHD, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

The deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) pregnancy-related codes and death certificate pregnancy checkbox status.

The checkbox, part of all states’ death certificates, asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death (early postpartum) or within 43-365 days of death (late postpartum).
 

Sharp increase at start of COVID pandemic

The authors note that pregnancy-related overdose deaths have been climbing from 2007 to 2019, but increased sharply in 2020.

“Pregnant and postpartum persons are known to face barriers to accessing drug treatment and harm-reduction services, which when compounded by pandemic-associated stressors, health care shutdowns, and increasingly volatile unregulated drug supply may have increased fatal overdose risk,” the authors write.

Of the 7,642 pregnancy-related deaths in the study period, 1,249 were overdose-related, leading to a cumulative overdose death rate of 8.35 per 100,000. From 2017 to 2020, pregnancy-related overdose deaths rose from 6.56 to 11.85 per 100,000. That translates to an absolute change rate of 5.30 per 100,000 and a relative increase of 81%.

The trend mirrors a pattern in people of reproductive age overall, the authors write.

Overdose mortality among reproductive age women similarly increased from 14.37 to 19.76 per 100,000 (absolute change rate, 5.39 [95% confidence interval, 4.94-5.85] per 100,000; relative increase of 38%).
 

Fentanyl deaths increase

The researchers found large increases in deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetics and psychostimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine, for example).

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, heroin, and prescription opioids, however, were mostly stable from 2017 to 2020.

Numbers of late postpartum overdose deaths were notable in the paper.

In that group, there were 3.95 deaths per 100,000, compared with those pregnant at the time of death (2.99 per 100,000 or those identified as early postpartum (1.39 per 100 000).

Davida Schiff, MD, director of the Perinatal and Family-based Substance Use Disorder Care Massachusetts General Hospital substance use disorders initiative in Boston, told this publication it’s important to realize from this study that late postpartum period is the highest-risk period and also the time “when many states that have not expanded Medicaid cut off insurance needed to access life-saving health care services.”“Pregnancy is an important touch point of increased health care access, yet pregnant and parenting people face unique social and legal consequences from their substance use,” Dr. Schiff said.

She added, “I’m left wondering how many of the deaths reported could have been avoided if fear of a punitive response when engaging with our health care system had not prevented them from seeking out the care they needed.”

Dr. Schiff said the study highlights the importance of the pregnancy-checkbox addition to death records to better characterize pregnancy-associated deaths that previously were likely undercounted.

The authors and Dr. Schiff declare no relevant financial relationships.

As fentanyl-related overdose deaths continue to increase, clinicians should take note of important differences that set the drug apart from the other drugs of misuse – and the troubling reality that fentanyl now contaminates most of them.

“It would be fair to tell patients, if you’re buying any illicit drugs – pills, powder, liquid, whatever it is, you’ve got to assume it’s either contaminated with or replaced by fentanyl,” said Edwin Salsitz, MD, an associate clinical professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, during a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

In many if not most cases, he noted, patients become addicted to fentanyl unknowingly. They assume they are ingesting oxycodone, cocaine, or another drug, and have no realization that they are even exposed to fentanyl until they test positive for it – or overdose.

Meanwhile, the high potency of fentanyl can overcome the opioid blockade of addiction treatment therapies – methadone and buprenorphine – that take away the high that users get from less potent drugs such as heroin.

“Fentanyl is overcoming this blockade that methadone and buprenorphine used to provide,” Dr. Salsitz said. “With fentanyl having such a higher potency, patients are saying ‘no, I still feel the fentanyl effects,’ and they continue feeling it even with 200 milligrams of methadone or 24 milligrams of buprenorphine.”
 

‘Wooden chest syndrome’

Among the lesser-known dangers of fentanyl is the possibility that some overdose deaths may occur as the result of a syndrome previously reported as a rare complication following the medical use of fentanyl in critically ill patients – fentanyl-induced chest-wall rigidity, or “wooden chest syndrome,” Dr. Salsitz explained.

In such cases, the muscles of respiration become rigid and paralyzed, causing suffocation within a matter of minutes – too soon to benefit from the overdose rescue medication naloxone.

In one recent study published in Clinical Toxicology , nearly half of fentanyl overdose deaths were found to have occurred even before the body had a chance to produce norfentanyl, a metabolite of fentanyl that takes only about 2-3 minutes to appear in the system, suggesting the deaths occurred rapidly.

In the study of 48 fentanyl deaths, no appreciable concentrations of norfentanyl could be detected in 20 of the 48 overdose deaths (42%), and concentrations were less than 1 ng/mL in 25 cases (52%).

“The lack of any measurable norfentanyl in half of our cases suggests a very rapid death, consistent with acute chest rigidity,” the authors reported.

“In several cases fentanyl concentrations were strikingly high (22 ng/mL and 20 ng/mL) with no norfentanyl detected,” they said.

Dr. Salsitz noted that the syndrome is not well known among the addiction treatment community.

“This is different than the usual respiratory opioid overdose where there’s a gradual decrease in the breathing rate and a gradual decrease in how much air is going in and out of the lungs,” Dr. Salsitz explained.

“With those cases, some may survive for an hour or longer, allowing time for someone to administer naloxone or to get the patient to the emergency room,” he said. “But with this, breathing stops and people can die within minutes.

“I think that this is one of the reasons that fentanyl deaths keep going up despite more and more naloxone availability out there,” he said.
 

Clearance may take longer

In toxicology testing for fentanyl, clinicians should also note the important difference between fentanyl and other opioids – that fentanyl, because of its high lipophilicity, may be detected in urine toxicology testing up to 3 weeks after last use. This is much longer than the 2- to 4-day clearance observed with other opioids, possibly causing patients to continue to test positive for the drug weeks after cessation.

This effect was observed in one recent study of 12 opioid use disorder patients in a residential treatment program who had previously been exposed to daily fentanyl.

The study showed the mean amount of time of fentanyl clearance was 2 weeks, with a range of 4-26 days after last use.

The authors pointed out that the findings “might explain recent reports of difficulty in buprenorphine inductions for persons who use fentanyl, and point to a need to better understand the pharmacokinetics of fentanyl in the context of opioid withdrawal in persons who regularly use fentanyl.”

Though the study was small, Dr. Salsitz said “that’s not a stumbling block to the important finding that, with regular use of fentanyl, the drug may stay in the urine for a long time.”

Dr. Salsitz noted that similar observations have been made at his center, with clinicians logically assuming that patients were still somehow getting fentanyl.

“When we initially found this in patients, we thought that they were using on the unit, perhaps that they brought in the fentanyl, because otherwise how could it stay in the urine that long,” he noted. “But fentanyl appears to be more lipophilic and gets into the fat; it’s then excreted very slowly and then stays in the urine.”

Dr. Salsitz said most practitioners think of fentanyl as a short-acting drug, so “it’s important to realize that people may continue to test positive and it should be thought of as a long-acting opioid.”
 

Opiate screening tests don’t work

Dr. Salsitz warned of another misconception in fentanyl testing – the common mistake of assuming that fentanyl should show up in a test for opiates – when in fact fentanyl is not, technically, an opiate.

“The word opiate only refers to morphine, codeine, heroin and sometimes hydrocodone,” he explained. “Other opioids are classified as semisynthetic, such as oxycodone, or synthetics, such as fentanyl and methadone, buprenorphine.”

“In order to detect the synthetics, you must have a separate strip for each one of those drugs. They will not show up positive on a screen for opiates,” he noted.

The belief that fentanyl and other synthetic and semisynthetic opioids will show positive on an opiate screen is a common misconception, he said. “The misunderstanding in toxicology interpretation is a problem for many practitioners, [but] it’s essential to understand because otherwise false assumptions about the patient will be considered.”

Another important testing misreading can occur with the antidepressant drug trazodone, which Dr. Salsitz cautioned may falsely test as positive for fentanyl on immunoassays.

“Trazodone is very commonly used in addiction treatment centers, but it can give a false positive on the fentanyl immunoassay and we’ve had a number of those cases,” he said.

Dr. Salsitz had no disclosures to report.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

As fentanyl-related overdose deaths continue to increase, clinicians should take note of important differences that set the drug apart from the other drugs of misuse – and the troubling reality that fentanyl now contaminates most of them.

“It would be fair to tell patients, if you’re buying any illicit drugs – pills, powder, liquid, whatever it is, you’ve got to assume it’s either contaminated with or replaced by fentanyl,” said Edwin Salsitz, MD, an associate clinical professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, during a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

In many if not most cases, he noted, patients become addicted to fentanyl unknowingly. They assume they are ingesting oxycodone, cocaine, or another drug, and have no realization that they are even exposed to fentanyl until they test positive for it – or overdose.

Meanwhile, the high potency of fentanyl can overcome the opioid blockade of addiction treatment therapies – methadone and buprenorphine – that take away the high that users get from less potent drugs such as heroin.

“Fentanyl is overcoming this blockade that methadone and buprenorphine used to provide,” Dr. Salsitz said. “With fentanyl having such a higher potency, patients are saying ‘no, I still feel the fentanyl effects,’ and they continue feeling it even with 200 milligrams of methadone or 24 milligrams of buprenorphine.”
 

‘Wooden chest syndrome’

Among the lesser-known dangers of fentanyl is the possibility that some overdose deaths may occur as the result of a syndrome previously reported as a rare complication following the medical use of fentanyl in critically ill patients – fentanyl-induced chest-wall rigidity, or “wooden chest syndrome,” Dr. Salsitz explained.

In such cases, the muscles of respiration become rigid and paralyzed, causing suffocation within a matter of minutes – too soon to benefit from the overdose rescue medication naloxone.

In one recent study published in Clinical Toxicology , nearly half of fentanyl overdose deaths were found to have occurred even before the body had a chance to produce norfentanyl, a metabolite of fentanyl that takes only about 2-3 minutes to appear in the system, suggesting the deaths occurred rapidly.

In the study of 48 fentanyl deaths, no appreciable concentrations of norfentanyl could be detected in 20 of the 48 overdose deaths (42%), and concentrations were less than 1 ng/mL in 25 cases (52%).

“The lack of any measurable norfentanyl in half of our cases suggests a very rapid death, consistent with acute chest rigidity,” the authors reported.

“In several cases fentanyl concentrations were strikingly high (22 ng/mL and 20 ng/mL) with no norfentanyl detected,” they said.

Dr. Salsitz noted that the syndrome is not well known among the addiction treatment community.

“This is different than the usual respiratory opioid overdose where there’s a gradual decrease in the breathing rate and a gradual decrease in how much air is going in and out of the lungs,” Dr. Salsitz explained.

“With those cases, some may survive for an hour or longer, allowing time for someone to administer naloxone or to get the patient to the emergency room,” he said. “But with this, breathing stops and people can die within minutes.

“I think that this is one of the reasons that fentanyl deaths keep going up despite more and more naloxone availability out there,” he said.
 

Clearance may take longer

In toxicology testing for fentanyl, clinicians should also note the important difference between fentanyl and other opioids – that fentanyl, because of its high lipophilicity, may be detected in urine toxicology testing up to 3 weeks after last use. This is much longer than the 2- to 4-day clearance observed with other opioids, possibly causing patients to continue to test positive for the drug weeks after cessation.

This effect was observed in one recent study of 12 opioid use disorder patients in a residential treatment program who had previously been exposed to daily fentanyl.

The study showed the mean amount of time of fentanyl clearance was 2 weeks, with a range of 4-26 days after last use.

The authors pointed out that the findings “might explain recent reports of difficulty in buprenorphine inductions for persons who use fentanyl, and point to a need to better understand the pharmacokinetics of fentanyl in the context of opioid withdrawal in persons who regularly use fentanyl.”

Though the study was small, Dr. Salsitz said “that’s not a stumbling block to the important finding that, with regular use of fentanyl, the drug may stay in the urine for a long time.”

Dr. Salsitz noted that similar observations have been made at his center, with clinicians logically assuming that patients were still somehow getting fentanyl.

“When we initially found this in patients, we thought that they were using on the unit, perhaps that they brought in the fentanyl, because otherwise how could it stay in the urine that long,” he noted. “But fentanyl appears to be more lipophilic and gets into the fat; it’s then excreted very slowly and then stays in the urine.”

Dr. Salsitz said most practitioners think of fentanyl as a short-acting drug, so “it’s important to realize that people may continue to test positive and it should be thought of as a long-acting opioid.”
 

Opiate screening tests don’t work

Dr. Salsitz warned of another misconception in fentanyl testing – the common mistake of assuming that fentanyl should show up in a test for opiates – when in fact fentanyl is not, technically, an opiate.

“The word opiate only refers to morphine, codeine, heroin and sometimes hydrocodone,” he explained. “Other opioids are classified as semisynthetic, such as oxycodone, or synthetics, such as fentanyl and methadone, buprenorphine.”

“In order to detect the synthetics, you must have a separate strip for each one of those drugs. They will not show up positive on a screen for opiates,” he noted.

The belief that fentanyl and other synthetic and semisynthetic opioids will show positive on an opiate screen is a common misconception, he said. “The misunderstanding in toxicology interpretation is a problem for many practitioners, [but] it’s essential to understand because otherwise false assumptions about the patient will be considered.”

Another important testing misreading can occur with the antidepressant drug trazodone, which Dr. Salsitz cautioned may falsely test as positive for fentanyl on immunoassays.

“Trazodone is very commonly used in addiction treatment centers, but it can give a false positive on the fentanyl immunoassay and we’ve had a number of those cases,” he said.

Dr. Salsitz had no disclosures to report.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

As fentanyl-related overdose deaths continue to increase, clinicians should take note of important differences that set the drug apart from the other drugs of misuse – and the troubling reality that fentanyl now contaminates most of them.

“It would be fair to tell patients, if you’re buying any illicit drugs – pills, powder, liquid, whatever it is, you’ve got to assume it’s either contaminated with or replaced by fentanyl,” said Edwin Salsitz, MD, an associate clinical professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, during a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

In many if not most cases, he noted, patients become addicted to fentanyl unknowingly. They assume they are ingesting oxycodone, cocaine, or another drug, and have no realization that they are even exposed to fentanyl until they test positive for it – or overdose.

Meanwhile, the high potency of fentanyl can overcome the opioid blockade of addiction treatment therapies – methadone and buprenorphine – that take away the high that users get from less potent drugs such as heroin.

“Fentanyl is overcoming this blockade that methadone and buprenorphine used to provide,” Dr. Salsitz said. “With fentanyl having such a higher potency, patients are saying ‘no, I still feel the fentanyl effects,’ and they continue feeling it even with 200 milligrams of methadone or 24 milligrams of buprenorphine.”
 

‘Wooden chest syndrome’

Among the lesser-known dangers of fentanyl is the possibility that some overdose deaths may occur as the result of a syndrome previously reported as a rare complication following the medical use of fentanyl in critically ill patients – fentanyl-induced chest-wall rigidity, or “wooden chest syndrome,” Dr. Salsitz explained.

In such cases, the muscles of respiration become rigid and paralyzed, causing suffocation within a matter of minutes – too soon to benefit from the overdose rescue medication naloxone.

In one recent study published in Clinical Toxicology , nearly half of fentanyl overdose deaths were found to have occurred even before the body had a chance to produce norfentanyl, a metabolite of fentanyl that takes only about 2-3 minutes to appear in the system, suggesting the deaths occurred rapidly.

In the study of 48 fentanyl deaths, no appreciable concentrations of norfentanyl could be detected in 20 of the 48 overdose deaths (42%), and concentrations were less than 1 ng/mL in 25 cases (52%).

“The lack of any measurable norfentanyl in half of our cases suggests a very rapid death, consistent with acute chest rigidity,” the authors reported.

“In several cases fentanyl concentrations were strikingly high (22 ng/mL and 20 ng/mL) with no norfentanyl detected,” they said.

Dr. Salsitz noted that the syndrome is not well known among the addiction treatment community.

“This is different than the usual respiratory opioid overdose where there’s a gradual decrease in the breathing rate and a gradual decrease in how much air is going in and out of the lungs,” Dr. Salsitz explained.

“With those cases, some may survive for an hour or longer, allowing time for someone to administer naloxone or to get the patient to the emergency room,” he said. “But with this, breathing stops and people can die within minutes.

“I think that this is one of the reasons that fentanyl deaths keep going up despite more and more naloxone availability out there,” he said.
 

Clearance may take longer

In toxicology testing for fentanyl, clinicians should also note the important difference between fentanyl and other opioids – that fentanyl, because of its high lipophilicity, may be detected in urine toxicology testing up to 3 weeks after last use. This is much longer than the 2- to 4-day clearance observed with other opioids, possibly causing patients to continue to test positive for the drug weeks after cessation.

This effect was observed in one recent study of 12 opioid use disorder patients in a residential treatment program who had previously been exposed to daily fentanyl.

The study showed the mean amount of time of fentanyl clearance was 2 weeks, with a range of 4-26 days after last use.

The authors pointed out that the findings “might explain recent reports of difficulty in buprenorphine inductions for persons who use fentanyl, and point to a need to better understand the pharmacokinetics of fentanyl in the context of opioid withdrawal in persons who regularly use fentanyl.”

Though the study was small, Dr. Salsitz said “that’s not a stumbling block to the important finding that, with regular use of fentanyl, the drug may stay in the urine for a long time.”

Dr. Salsitz noted that similar observations have been made at his center, with clinicians logically assuming that patients were still somehow getting fentanyl.

“When we initially found this in patients, we thought that they were using on the unit, perhaps that they brought in the fentanyl, because otherwise how could it stay in the urine that long,” he noted. “But fentanyl appears to be more lipophilic and gets into the fat; it’s then excreted very slowly and then stays in the urine.”

Dr. Salsitz said most practitioners think of fentanyl as a short-acting drug, so “it’s important to realize that people may continue to test positive and it should be thought of as a long-acting opioid.”
 

Opiate screening tests don’t work

Dr. Salsitz warned of another misconception in fentanyl testing – the common mistake of assuming that fentanyl should show up in a test for opiates – when in fact fentanyl is not, technically, an opiate.

“The word opiate only refers to morphine, codeine, heroin and sometimes hydrocodone,” he explained. “Other opioids are classified as semisynthetic, such as oxycodone, or synthetics, such as fentanyl and methadone, buprenorphine.”

“In order to detect the synthetics, you must have a separate strip for each one of those drugs. They will not show up positive on a screen for opiates,” he noted.

The belief that fentanyl and other synthetic and semisynthetic opioids will show positive on an opiate screen is a common misconception, he said. “The misunderstanding in toxicology interpretation is a problem for many practitioners, [but] it’s essential to understand because otherwise false assumptions about the patient will be considered.”

Another important testing misreading can occur with the antidepressant drug trazodone, which Dr. Salsitz cautioned may falsely test as positive for fentanyl on immunoassays.

“Trazodone is very commonly used in addiction treatment centers, but it can give a false positive on the fentanyl immunoassay and we’ve had a number of those cases,” he said.

Dr. Salsitz had no disclosures to report.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Psychedelics are a class of substances known to produce alterations in consciousness and perception. In the last 2 decades, psychedelic research has garnered increasing attention from scientists, therapists, entrepreneurs, and the public. While many of these compounds remain illegal in the United States and in many parts of the world (Box¹), a recent resurrection of psychedelic research has motivated the FDA to designate multiple psychedelic compounds as “breakthrough therapies,” thereby expediting the investigation, development, and review of psychedelic treatments.

Box

There is growing evidence that psychedelics may be efficacious for treating a range of psychiatric disorders. Potential clinical indications for psychedelics include some forms of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders (Table 1^2,3). In most instances, the clinical use of psychedelics is being investigated and offered in the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, though ketamine is a prominent exception. Ketamine and esketamine are already being used to treat depression, and FDA approval is anticipated for other psychedelics. An examination of the safety considerations of psychedelics for the treatment of psychiatric disorders is therefore highly relevant and timely.

This article examines the adverse effect profile of classical (psilocybin [“mushrooms”], lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], and N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT]/ayahuasca) and nonclassical (the entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA, known as “ecstasy”] and the dissociative anesthetic ketamine) psychedelics.

Psilocybin

Psilocybin is typically administered as a single dose of 10 to 30 mg and used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy. Administration of psilocybin typically produces perceptual distortions and mind-altering effects, which are mediated through 5-HT2A brain receptor agonistic action.⁴ The acute effects last approximately 6 hours.⁵ While psilocybin has generated promising results in early clinical trials,³ the adverse effects of these agents have received less attention.

The adverse effect profile of psilocybin in adults appears promising but its powerful psychoactive effects necessitate cautious use.⁶ It has a very wide therapeutic index, and in a recent meta-analysis of psilocybin for depression, no serious adverse effects were reported in any of the 7 included studies.⁷ Common adverse effects in the context of clinical use include anxiety, dysphoria, confusion, and an increase in blood pressure and heart rate.⁶ Due to potential cardiac effects, psilocybin is contraindicated in individuals with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.⁸ In recreational/nonclinical use, reactions such as suicidality, violence, convulsions, panic attacks, paranoia, confusion, prolonged dissociation, and mania have been reported.^9,10 Animal and human studies indicate the risk of abuse and physical dependence is low. Major national surveys indicate low rates of abuse, treatment-seeking, and harm.¹¹ In a recent 6-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) of psilocybin vs escitalopram for depression,¹² no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events reported in the psilocybin group in this trial are listed in Table 2.¹²

A recent phase 2 double-blind trial of single-dose psilocybin (1 mg, 10 mg, and 25 mg) for treatment-resistant depression (N = 233) sheds more light on the risk of adverse effects.¹³ The percentage of individuals experiencing adverse effects on Day 1 of administration was high: 61% in the 25 mg psilocybin group. Headache, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness were the most common effects. The incidence of any adverse event in the 25 mg group was 56% from Day 2 to Week 3, and 29% from Week 3 to Week 12. Suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, or self-injury occurred in all 3 dose groups. Overall, 14% in the 25 mg group, 17% in the 10 mg group, and 9% in the 1 mg group showed worsening of suicidality from baseline to Week 3. Suicidal behavior was reported by 3 individuals in the 25 mg group after Week 3. The new-onset or worsening of preexisting suicidality with psilocybin reported in this study requires further investigation.

Lysergic acid diethylamide

LSD is similar to psilocybin in its agonistic action at the 5-HT2A brain receptors.⁴ It is typically administered as a single 100 to 200 μg dose and is used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy.¹⁴ Its acute effects last approximately 12 hours.¹⁵

Continue to: Like psilocybin...

Like psilocybin, LSD has a wide therapeutic index. Commonly reported adverse effects of LSD are increased anxiety, dysphoria, and confusion. LSD can also lead to physiological adverse effects, such as increased blood pressure and heart rate, and thus is contraindicated in patients with severe heart disease.⁶ In a systematic review of the therapeutic use of LSD that included 567 participants,¹⁶ 2 cases of serious adverse events were reported: a tonic-clonic seizure in a patient with a prior history of seizures, and a case of prolonged psychosis in a 21-year-old with a history of psychotic disorder.

Though few psychedelic studies have examined the adverse effects of these agents in older adults, a recent phase 1 study that recruited 48 healthy older adults (age 55 to 75) found that, compared to placebo, low doses (5 to 20 μg) of LSD 2 times a week for 3 weeks had similar adverse effects, cognitive impairment, or balance impairment.¹⁷ The only adverse effect noted to be different between the placebo group and active treatment groups was headache (50% for LSD 10 μg, 25% for LSD 20 μg, and 8% for placebo). Because the dose range (5 to 20 μg) used in this study was substantially lower than the typical therapeutic dose range of 100 to 200 μg, these results should not be interpreted as supporting the safety of LSD at higher doses in older adults.

DMT/ayahuasca

Ayahuasca is a plant-based psychedelic that contains an admixture of substances, including DMT, which acts as a 5-HT2A receptor agonist. In addition to DMT, ayahuasca also contains the alkaloid harmaline, which acts as a monoamine inhibitor. Use of ayahuasca can therefore pose a particular risk for individuals taking other serotonergic or noradrenergic medications or substances. The acute effects of DMT last approximately 4 hours,¹⁸ and acute administration of ayahuasca leads to a transient modified state of consciousness that is characterized by introspection, visions, enhanced emotions, and recall of personal memories.¹⁹ Research shows ayahuasca has been dosed at approximately 0.36 mg/kg of DMT for 1 dosing session alongside 6 2-hour therapy sessions.²⁰

A recent review by Orsolini et al²¹ consolidated 40 preclinical, observational, and experimental studies of ayahuasca, and this compound appeared to be safe and well-tolerated; the most common adverse effects were transient emesis and nausea. In an RCT by Palhano-Fontes et al,²⁰ nausea was observed in 71% of participants in the ayahuasca group (vs 26% placebo), vomiting in 57% of participants (vs 0% placebo), and restlessness in 50% of participants (vs 20% placebo). The authors noted that for some participants the ayahuasca session “was not necessarily a pleasant experience,” and was accompanied by psychological distress.²⁰ Vomiting is traditionally viewed as an expected part of the purging process of ayahuasca religious ceremonies. Another review found that there appears to be good long-term tolerability of ayahuasca consumption among individuals who use this compound in religious ceremonies.²²

MDMA

Entactogens (or empathogens) are a class of psychoactive substances that produce experiences of emotional openness and connection. MDMA is an entactogen known to release serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine by inhibiting reuptake.²³ This process leads to the stimulation of neurohormonal signaling of oxytocin, cortisol, and other signaling molecules such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor.²⁴ Memory reconsolidation and fear extinction may also play a therapeutic role, enabled by reduced activity in the amygdala and insula, and increased connectivity between the amygdala and hippocampus.²⁴ MDMA has been reported to enhance feelings of well-being and increase prosocial behavior.²⁵ In the therapeutic setting, MDMA has been generally dosed at 75 to 125 mg in 2 to 3 sessions alongside 10 therapy sessions. Administration of MDMA gives the user a subjective experience of energy and distortions in time and perception.²⁶ These acute effects last approximately 2 to 4 hours.²⁷

Continue to: A meta-analysis...

A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD in adults demonstrated that MDMA was well-tolerated, and few serious adverse events were reported.²⁸ Two trials from 2018 that were included in this meta-analysis—Mithoefer et al²⁹ and Ot’alora et al³⁰—illustrate the incidence of specific adverse effects. In a randomized, double-blind trial of 26 veterans and first responders with chronic PTSD, Mithoefer et al²⁹ found the most commonly reported reactions during experimental sessions with MDMA were anxiety (81%), headache (69%), fatigue (62%), muscle tension (62%), and jaw clenching or tight jaw (50%). The most commonly reported reactions during 7 days of contact were fatigue (88%), anxiety (73%), insomnia (69%), headache (46%), muscle tension (46%), and increased irritability (46%). One instance of suicidal ideation was severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization (this was the only instance of suicidal ideation among the 106 patients in the meta-analysis by Bahji et al²⁸); the patient subsequently completed the trial. Transient elevation in pulse, blood pressure, and body temperature were noted during sessions that did not require medical intervention.²⁹ Ot’alora et al³⁰ found similar common adverse reactions: anxiety, dizziness, fatigue, headache, jaw clenching, muscle tension, and irritability. There were no serious adverse effects.

While the use of MDMA in controlled interventional settings has resulted in relatively few adverse events, robust literature describes the risks associated with the nonclinical/recreational use of MDMA. In cases of MDMA toxicity, death has been reported.³¹ Acutely, MDMA may lead to sympathomimetic effects, including serotonin syndrome.³¹ Longer-term studies of MDMA users have found chronic recreational use to be associated with worse sleep, poor mood, anxiety disturbances, memory deficits, and attention problems.³² MDMA has also been found to have moderate potential for abuse.³³

Ketamine/esketamine

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic with some hallucinogenic effects. It is an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist frequently used in anesthesia, and it can induce a state of sedation, immobility, pain relief, and amnesia. In low doses, ketamine is used off-label to treat major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. Most clinical trials of ketamine for depression have dosed IV ketamine from 0.5 to 1 mg/kg 1 to 3 times a week. It can also be administered as an IM, intranasal, oral, subcutaneous, or sublingual formulation.³⁴

Esketamine, the S(+)-enantiomer of ketamine, is also an NDMA antagonist. It has been developed as an intranasal formulation, typically dosed between 56 and 84 mg 2 times a week for 1 month, once a week for the following month, and once every 1 to 2 weeks thereafter.³⁵ In most ketamine and esketamine trials, these compounds have been used without psychotherapy, although some interventions have integrated psychotherapy with ketamine treatment.³⁶

Bennett et al³⁷ elaborated on 3 paradigms for ketamine treatment: biochemical, psychotherapeutic, and psychedelic. The biochemical model examines the neuro­biological effects of the medication. The psychotherapeutic model views ketamine as a way of assisting the psychotherapy process. The psychedelic model utilizes ketamine’s dissociative and psychedelic properties to induce an altered state of consciousness for therapeutic purposes and psychospiritual exploration.

Continue to: A systematic review...

A systematic review of the common adverse effects associated with ketamine use in clinical trials for depression reported dissociation, sedation, perceptual disturbances, anxiety, agitation, euphoria, hypertension, tachycardia, headache, and dizziness.³⁸ Adverse effects experienced with esketamine in clinical trials include dissociation, dizziness, sedation, hypertension, hypoesthesia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and euphoric mood (Table 3³⁹). A recent systemic review found both ketamine and esketamine demonstrated higher adverse events than control conditions. IV ketamine also demonstrated lower dropouts and adverse events when compared to intranasal esketamine.⁴⁰

Nonclinical/recreational use of ketamine is notable for urinary toxicity; 20% to 30% of frequent users of ketamine experience urinary problems that can range from ketamine-induced cystitis to hydronephrosis and kidney failure.⁴¹ Liver toxicity has also been reported with chronic use of high-dose ketamine. Ketamine is liable to abuse, dependence, and tolerance. There is evidence that nonclinical use of ketamine may lead to morbidity; impairment of memory, cognition, and attention; and urinary, gastric, and hepatic pathology.⁴²

The FDA prescribing information for esketamine lists aneurysmal vascular disease, arteriovenous malformation, and intracerebral hemorrhage as contraindications.³⁹ Patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions and risk factors may be at increased risk of adverse effects due to an increase in blood pressure. Esketamine can impair attention, judgment, thinking, reaction speed, and motor skills. Other adverse effects of esketamine noted in the prescribing information include dissociation, dizziness, nausea, sedation, vertigo, hypoesthesia, anxiety, lethargy, vomiting, feeling drunk, and euphoric mood.³⁹A study of postmarketing safety concerns with esketamine using reports submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) revealed signals for suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 24.03; 95% CI, 18.72 to 30.84), and completed suicide (ROR 5.75; 95% CI, 3.18 to 10.41).⁴³ The signals for suicidal and self-injurious ideation remained significant when compared to venlafaxine in the FAERS database, while suicide attempts and fatal suicide attempts were no longer significant.⁴³ Concerns regarding acute ketamine withdrawal have also been described in case reports.⁴⁴

Other safety considerations of psychedelics

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a rare condition associated with hallucinogen use. It is characterized by the recurrence of perceptual disturbances that an individual experienced while using hallucinogenic substances that creates significant distress or impairment.⁴⁵ Because HPPD is a rare disorder, the exact prevalence is not well characterized, but DSM-5 suggests it is approximately 4.2%.⁴⁶ HPPD is associated with numerous psychoactive substances, including psilocybin, ayahuasca, MDMA, and ketamine, but is most associated with LSD.⁴⁵ HPPD is more likely to arise in individuals with histories of psychiatric illness or substance use disorders.⁴⁷

Serotonin toxicity and other serotonergic interactions

Serotonin toxicity is a risk of serotonergic psychedelics, particularly when such agents are used in combination with serotonergic psychotropic medications. The most severe manifestation of serotonin toxicity is serotonin syndrome, which manifests as a life-threatening condition characterized by myoclonus, rigidity, agitation, delirium, and unstable cardiovascular functioning. Many psychedelic compounds have transient serotonin-related adverse effects, but serotonin toxicity due to psychedelic use is rare.⁴⁸ Due to their mechanism of action, classical psychedelics are relatively safe in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. MDMA is a serotonin-releasing agent that has a higher risk of serotonin syndrome or hypertensive crisis when used in combination with MAOIs.⁴⁸

Boundary violations in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy

A key task facing psychedelic research is to establish parameters for the safe and ethical use of these agents. This is particularly relevant given the hype that surrounds the psychedelic resurgence and what we know about the controversial history of these substances. Anderson et al⁴⁹ argued that “psychedelics can have lingering effects that include increased suggestibility and affective instability, as well as altered ego structure, social behaviour, and philosophical worldview. Stated simply, psychedelics can induce a vulnerable state both during and after treatment sessions.”

Continue to: Psychedelic treatment...

Psychedelic treatments such as psilocybin and MDMA are typically offered within the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, and some researchers have raised concerns regarding boundary violations,⁵⁰ given the patients’ particularly vulnerable states. In addition to concerns about sexual harassment, the financial exploitation of older adults is also a possible risk.⁵¹

Caveats to consider

Novel psychedelics therapies have demonstrated promising preliminary results for a broad range of psychiatric indications, including depression, end-of-life distress, substance use disorders, PTSD, and improving well-being. To date, psychedelics are generally well-tolerated in adults in clinical trials.

However, when it comes to adverse effects, there are challenges in regards to interpreting the psychedelic state.⁵² Some consider any unpleasant or unsettling psychedelic experience as an adverse reaction, while others consider it part of the therapeutic process. This is exemplified by the case of vomiting during ayahuasca ceremonies, which is generally considered part of the ritual. In such instances, it is essential to obtain informed consent and ensure participants are aware of these aspects of the experience. Compared to substances such as alcohol, opioids, and cocaine, psychedelics are remarkably safe from a physiological perspective, especially with regards to the risks of toxicity, mortality, and dependence.⁵³ Their psychological safety is less established, and more caution and research is needed. The high incidence of adverse effects and suicidality noted in the recent phase 2 trial of psilocybin in treatment resistant depression are a reminder of this.¹³

There is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of risk in real-world clinical practice, particularly regarding addiction, suicidality, and precipitation or worsening of psychotic disorders. For example, note the extensive exclusion criteria used in the psilocybin vs escitalopram RCT by Carhart-Harris et al¹²: currently or previously diagnosed psychotic disorder, immediate family member with a diagnosed psychotic disorder, significant medical comorbidity (eg, diabetes, epilepsy, severe cardiovascular disease, hepatic or renal failure), history of suicide attempts requiring hospitalization, history of mania, pregnancy, and abnormal QT interval prolongation, among others. It would be prudent to keep these contraindications in mind regarding the clinical use of psychedelics in the future. This is particularly important in older adults because such patients often have substantial medical comorbidities and are at greater risk for adverse effects. For ketamine, research has implicated the role of mu opioid agonism in mediating ketamine’s antidepressant effects.⁵⁴ This raises concerns about abuse, dependence, and addiction, especially with long-term use. There are also concerns regarding protracted withdrawal symptoms and associated suicidality.⁵⁵

The therapeutic use of psychedelics is an exciting and promising avenue, with ongoing research and a rapidly evolving literature. An attitude of cautious optimism is warranted, but efficacy and safety should be demonstrated in well-designed and rigorous trials with adequate long-term follow-up before routine clinical use is recommended.

Bottom Line

In clinical trials for psychiatric disorders, psychedelics have been associated with a range of cognitive, psychiatric, and psychoactive adverse effects but generally have been well-tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse effects.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatric Association. Position Statement on the Use of Psychedelic and Empathogenic Agents for Mental Health Conditions. Updated July 2022. Accessed October 24, 2022. https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/d5c13619-ca1f-491f-a7a8-b7141c800904/Position-Use-of-Psychedelic-Empathogenic-Agents.pdf
• Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic & Consciousness Research. https://hopkinspsychedelic.org/
• Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). https://maps.org/

Drug Brand Names

Esketamine • Spravato
Ketamine • Ketalar
Venlafaxine • Effexor

Psychedelics are a class of substances known to produce alterations in consciousness and perception. In the last 2 decades, psychedelic research has garnered increasing attention from scientists, therapists, entrepreneurs, and the public. While many of these compounds remain illegal in the United States and in many parts of the world (Box¹), a recent resurrection of psychedelic research has motivated the FDA to designate multiple psychedelic compounds as “breakthrough therapies,” thereby expediting the investigation, development, and review of psychedelic treatments.

Box

There is growing evidence that psychedelics may be efficacious for treating a range of psychiatric disorders. Potential clinical indications for psychedelics include some forms of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders (Table 1^2,3). In most instances, the clinical use of psychedelics is being investigated and offered in the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, though ketamine is a prominent exception. Ketamine and esketamine are already being used to treat depression, and FDA approval is anticipated for other psychedelics. An examination of the safety considerations of psychedelics for the treatment of psychiatric disorders is therefore highly relevant and timely.

This article examines the adverse effect profile of classical (psilocybin [“mushrooms”], lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], and N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT]/ayahuasca) and nonclassical (the entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA, known as “ecstasy”] and the dissociative anesthetic ketamine) psychedelics.

Psilocybin

Psilocybin is typically administered as a single dose of 10 to 30 mg and used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy. Administration of psilocybin typically produces perceptual distortions and mind-altering effects, which are mediated through 5-HT2A brain receptor agonistic action.⁴ The acute effects last approximately 6 hours.⁵ While psilocybin has generated promising results in early clinical trials,³ the adverse effects of these agents have received less attention.

The adverse effect profile of psilocybin in adults appears promising but its powerful psychoactive effects necessitate cautious use.⁶ It has a very wide therapeutic index, and in a recent meta-analysis of psilocybin for depression, no serious adverse effects were reported in any of the 7 included studies.⁷ Common adverse effects in the context of clinical use include anxiety, dysphoria, confusion, and an increase in blood pressure and heart rate.⁶ Due to potential cardiac effects, psilocybin is contraindicated in individuals with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.⁸ In recreational/nonclinical use, reactions such as suicidality, violence, convulsions, panic attacks, paranoia, confusion, prolonged dissociation, and mania have been reported.^9,10 Animal and human studies indicate the risk of abuse and physical dependence is low. Major national surveys indicate low rates of abuse, treatment-seeking, and harm.¹¹ In a recent 6-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) of psilocybin vs escitalopram for depression,¹² no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events reported in the psilocybin group in this trial are listed in Table 2.¹²

A recent phase 2 double-blind trial of single-dose psilocybin (1 mg, 10 mg, and 25 mg) for treatment-resistant depression (N = 233) sheds more light on the risk of adverse effects.¹³ The percentage of individuals experiencing adverse effects on Day 1 of administration was high: 61% in the 25 mg psilocybin group. Headache, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness were the most common effects. The incidence of any adverse event in the 25 mg group was 56% from Day 2 to Week 3, and 29% from Week 3 to Week 12. Suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, or self-injury occurred in all 3 dose groups. Overall, 14% in the 25 mg group, 17% in the 10 mg group, and 9% in the 1 mg group showed worsening of suicidality from baseline to Week 3. Suicidal behavior was reported by 3 individuals in the 25 mg group after Week 3. The new-onset or worsening of preexisting suicidality with psilocybin reported in this study requires further investigation.

Lysergic acid diethylamide

LSD is similar to psilocybin in its agonistic action at the 5-HT2A brain receptors.⁴ It is typically administered as a single 100 to 200 μg dose and is used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy.¹⁴ Its acute effects last approximately 12 hours.¹⁵

Continue to: Like psilocybin...

Like psilocybin, LSD has a wide therapeutic index. Commonly reported adverse effects of LSD are increased anxiety, dysphoria, and confusion. LSD can also lead to physiological adverse effects, such as increased blood pressure and heart rate, and thus is contraindicated in patients with severe heart disease.⁶ In a systematic review of the therapeutic use of LSD that included 567 participants,¹⁶ 2 cases of serious adverse events were reported: a tonic-clonic seizure in a patient with a prior history of seizures, and a case of prolonged psychosis in a 21-year-old with a history of psychotic disorder.

Though few psychedelic studies have examined the adverse effects of these agents in older adults, a recent phase 1 study that recruited 48 healthy older adults (age 55 to 75) found that, compared to placebo, low doses (5 to 20 μg) of LSD 2 times a week for 3 weeks had similar adverse effects, cognitive impairment, or balance impairment.¹⁷ The only adverse effect noted to be different between the placebo group and active treatment groups was headache (50% for LSD 10 μg, 25% for LSD 20 μg, and 8% for placebo). Because the dose range (5 to 20 μg) used in this study was substantially lower than the typical therapeutic dose range of 100 to 200 μg, these results should not be interpreted as supporting the safety of LSD at higher doses in older adults.

DMT/ayahuasca

Ayahuasca is a plant-based psychedelic that contains an admixture of substances, including DMT, which acts as a 5-HT2A receptor agonist. In addition to DMT, ayahuasca also contains the alkaloid harmaline, which acts as a monoamine inhibitor. Use of ayahuasca can therefore pose a particular risk for individuals taking other serotonergic or noradrenergic medications or substances. The acute effects of DMT last approximately 4 hours,¹⁸ and acute administration of ayahuasca leads to a transient modified state of consciousness that is characterized by introspection, visions, enhanced emotions, and recall of personal memories.¹⁹ Research shows ayahuasca has been dosed at approximately 0.36 mg/kg of DMT for 1 dosing session alongside 6 2-hour therapy sessions.²⁰

A recent review by Orsolini et al²¹ consolidated 40 preclinical, observational, and experimental studies of ayahuasca, and this compound appeared to be safe and well-tolerated; the most common adverse effects were transient emesis and nausea. In an RCT by Palhano-Fontes et al,²⁰ nausea was observed in 71% of participants in the ayahuasca group (vs 26% placebo), vomiting in 57% of participants (vs 0% placebo), and restlessness in 50% of participants (vs 20% placebo). The authors noted that for some participants the ayahuasca session “was not necessarily a pleasant experience,” and was accompanied by psychological distress.²⁰ Vomiting is traditionally viewed as an expected part of the purging process of ayahuasca religious ceremonies. Another review found that there appears to be good long-term tolerability of ayahuasca consumption among individuals who use this compound in religious ceremonies.²²

MDMA

Entactogens (or empathogens) are a class of psychoactive substances that produce experiences of emotional openness and connection. MDMA is an entactogen known to release serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine by inhibiting reuptake.²³ This process leads to the stimulation of neurohormonal signaling of oxytocin, cortisol, and other signaling molecules such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor.²⁴ Memory reconsolidation and fear extinction may also play a therapeutic role, enabled by reduced activity in the amygdala and insula, and increased connectivity between the amygdala and hippocampus.²⁴ MDMA has been reported to enhance feelings of well-being and increase prosocial behavior.²⁵ In the therapeutic setting, MDMA has been generally dosed at 75 to 125 mg in 2 to 3 sessions alongside 10 therapy sessions. Administration of MDMA gives the user a subjective experience of energy and distortions in time and perception.²⁶ These acute effects last approximately 2 to 4 hours.²⁷

Continue to: A meta-analysis...

A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD in adults demonstrated that MDMA was well-tolerated, and few serious adverse events were reported.²⁸ Two trials from 2018 that were included in this meta-analysis—Mithoefer et al²⁹ and Ot’alora et al³⁰—illustrate the incidence of specific adverse effects. In a randomized, double-blind trial of 26 veterans and first responders with chronic PTSD, Mithoefer et al²⁹ found the most commonly reported reactions during experimental sessions with MDMA were anxiety (81%), headache (69%), fatigue (62%), muscle tension (62%), and jaw clenching or tight jaw (50%). The most commonly reported reactions during 7 days of contact were fatigue (88%), anxiety (73%), insomnia (69%), headache (46%), muscle tension (46%), and increased irritability (46%). One instance of suicidal ideation was severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization (this was the only instance of suicidal ideation among the 106 patients in the meta-analysis by Bahji et al²⁸); the patient subsequently completed the trial. Transient elevation in pulse, blood pressure, and body temperature were noted during sessions that did not require medical intervention.²⁹ Ot’alora et al³⁰ found similar common adverse reactions: anxiety, dizziness, fatigue, headache, jaw clenching, muscle tension, and irritability. There were no serious adverse effects.

While the use of MDMA in controlled interventional settings has resulted in relatively few adverse events, robust literature describes the risks associated with the nonclinical/recreational use of MDMA. In cases of MDMA toxicity, death has been reported.³¹ Acutely, MDMA may lead to sympathomimetic effects, including serotonin syndrome.³¹ Longer-term studies of MDMA users have found chronic recreational use to be associated with worse sleep, poor mood, anxiety disturbances, memory deficits, and attention problems.³² MDMA has also been found to have moderate potential for abuse.³³

Ketamine/esketamine

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic with some hallucinogenic effects. It is an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist frequently used in anesthesia, and it can induce a state of sedation, immobility, pain relief, and amnesia. In low doses, ketamine is used off-label to treat major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. Most clinical trials of ketamine for depression have dosed IV ketamine from 0.5 to 1 mg/kg 1 to 3 times a week. It can also be administered as an IM, intranasal, oral, subcutaneous, or sublingual formulation.³⁴

Esketamine, the S(+)-enantiomer of ketamine, is also an NDMA antagonist. It has been developed as an intranasal formulation, typically dosed between 56 and 84 mg 2 times a week for 1 month, once a week for the following month, and once every 1 to 2 weeks thereafter.³⁵ In most ketamine and esketamine trials, these compounds have been used without psychotherapy, although some interventions have integrated psychotherapy with ketamine treatment.³⁶

Bennett et al³⁷ elaborated on 3 paradigms for ketamine treatment: biochemical, psychotherapeutic, and psychedelic. The biochemical model examines the neuro­biological effects of the medication. The psychotherapeutic model views ketamine as a way of assisting the psychotherapy process. The psychedelic model utilizes ketamine’s dissociative and psychedelic properties to induce an altered state of consciousness for therapeutic purposes and psychospiritual exploration.

Continue to: A systematic review...

A systematic review of the common adverse effects associated with ketamine use in clinical trials for depression reported dissociation, sedation, perceptual disturbances, anxiety, agitation, euphoria, hypertension, tachycardia, headache, and dizziness.³⁸ Adverse effects experienced with esketamine in clinical trials include dissociation, dizziness, sedation, hypertension, hypoesthesia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and euphoric mood (Table 3³⁹). A recent systemic review found both ketamine and esketamine demonstrated higher adverse events than control conditions. IV ketamine also demonstrated lower dropouts and adverse events when compared to intranasal esketamine.⁴⁰

Nonclinical/recreational use of ketamine is notable for urinary toxicity; 20% to 30% of frequent users of ketamine experience urinary problems that can range from ketamine-induced cystitis to hydronephrosis and kidney failure.⁴¹ Liver toxicity has also been reported with chronic use of high-dose ketamine. Ketamine is liable to abuse, dependence, and tolerance. There is evidence that nonclinical use of ketamine may lead to morbidity; impairment of memory, cognition, and attention; and urinary, gastric, and hepatic pathology.⁴²

The FDA prescribing information for esketamine lists aneurysmal vascular disease, arteriovenous malformation, and intracerebral hemorrhage as contraindications.³⁹ Patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions and risk factors may be at increased risk of adverse effects due to an increase in blood pressure. Esketamine can impair attention, judgment, thinking, reaction speed, and motor skills. Other adverse effects of esketamine noted in the prescribing information include dissociation, dizziness, nausea, sedation, vertigo, hypoesthesia, anxiety, lethargy, vomiting, feeling drunk, and euphoric mood.³⁹A study of postmarketing safety concerns with esketamine using reports submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) revealed signals for suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 24.03; 95% CI, 18.72 to 30.84), and completed suicide (ROR 5.75; 95% CI, 3.18 to 10.41).⁴³ The signals for suicidal and self-injurious ideation remained significant when compared to venlafaxine in the FAERS database, while suicide attempts and fatal suicide attempts were no longer significant.⁴³ Concerns regarding acute ketamine withdrawal have also been described in case reports.⁴⁴

Other safety considerations of psychedelics

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a rare condition associated with hallucinogen use. It is characterized by the recurrence of perceptual disturbances that an individual experienced while using hallucinogenic substances that creates significant distress or impairment.⁴⁵ Because HPPD is a rare disorder, the exact prevalence is not well characterized, but DSM-5 suggests it is approximately 4.2%.⁴⁶ HPPD is associated with numerous psychoactive substances, including psilocybin, ayahuasca, MDMA, and ketamine, but is most associated with LSD.⁴⁵ HPPD is more likely to arise in individuals with histories of psychiatric illness or substance use disorders.⁴⁷

Serotonin toxicity and other serotonergic interactions

Serotonin toxicity is a risk of serotonergic psychedelics, particularly when such agents are used in combination with serotonergic psychotropic medications. The most severe manifestation of serotonin toxicity is serotonin syndrome, which manifests as a life-threatening condition characterized by myoclonus, rigidity, agitation, delirium, and unstable cardiovascular functioning. Many psychedelic compounds have transient serotonin-related adverse effects, but serotonin toxicity due to psychedelic use is rare.⁴⁸ Due to their mechanism of action, classical psychedelics are relatively safe in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. MDMA is a serotonin-releasing agent that has a higher risk of serotonin syndrome or hypertensive crisis when used in combination with MAOIs.⁴⁸

Boundary violations in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy

A key task facing psychedelic research is to establish parameters for the safe and ethical use of these agents. This is particularly relevant given the hype that surrounds the psychedelic resurgence and what we know about the controversial history of these substances. Anderson et al⁴⁹ argued that “psychedelics can have lingering effects that include increased suggestibility and affective instability, as well as altered ego structure, social behaviour, and philosophical worldview. Stated simply, psychedelics can induce a vulnerable state both during and after treatment sessions.”

Continue to: Psychedelic treatment...

Psychedelic treatments such as psilocybin and MDMA are typically offered within the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, and some researchers have raised concerns regarding boundary violations,⁵⁰ given the patients’ particularly vulnerable states. In addition to concerns about sexual harassment, the financial exploitation of older adults is also a possible risk.⁵¹

Caveats to consider

Novel psychedelics therapies have demonstrated promising preliminary results for a broad range of psychiatric indications, including depression, end-of-life distress, substance use disorders, PTSD, and improving well-being. To date, psychedelics are generally well-tolerated in adults in clinical trials.

However, when it comes to adverse effects, there are challenges in regards to interpreting the psychedelic state.⁵² Some consider any unpleasant or unsettling psychedelic experience as an adverse reaction, while others consider it part of the therapeutic process. This is exemplified by the case of vomiting during ayahuasca ceremonies, which is generally considered part of the ritual. In such instances, it is essential to obtain informed consent and ensure participants are aware of these aspects of the experience. Compared to substances such as alcohol, opioids, and cocaine, psychedelics are remarkably safe from a physiological perspective, especially with regards to the risks of toxicity, mortality, and dependence.⁵³ Their psychological safety is less established, and more caution and research is needed. The high incidence of adverse effects and suicidality noted in the recent phase 2 trial of psilocybin in treatment resistant depression are a reminder of this.¹³

There is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of risk in real-world clinical practice, particularly regarding addiction, suicidality, and precipitation or worsening of psychotic disorders. For example, note the extensive exclusion criteria used in the psilocybin vs escitalopram RCT by Carhart-Harris et al¹²: currently or previously diagnosed psychotic disorder, immediate family member with a diagnosed psychotic disorder, significant medical comorbidity (eg, diabetes, epilepsy, severe cardiovascular disease, hepatic or renal failure), history of suicide attempts requiring hospitalization, history of mania, pregnancy, and abnormal QT interval prolongation, among others. It would be prudent to keep these contraindications in mind regarding the clinical use of psychedelics in the future. This is particularly important in older adults because such patients often have substantial medical comorbidities and are at greater risk for adverse effects. For ketamine, research has implicated the role of mu opioid agonism in mediating ketamine’s antidepressant effects.⁵⁴ This raises concerns about abuse, dependence, and addiction, especially with long-term use. There are also concerns regarding protracted withdrawal symptoms and associated suicidality.⁵⁵

The therapeutic use of psychedelics is an exciting and promising avenue, with ongoing research and a rapidly evolving literature. An attitude of cautious optimism is warranted, but efficacy and safety should be demonstrated in well-designed and rigorous trials with adequate long-term follow-up before routine clinical use is recommended.

Bottom Line

In clinical trials for psychiatric disorders, psychedelics have been associated with a range of cognitive, psychiatric, and psychoactive adverse effects but generally have been well-tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse effects.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatric Association. Position Statement on the Use of Psychedelic and Empathogenic Agents for Mental Health Conditions. Updated July 2022. Accessed October 24, 2022. https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/d5c13619-ca1f-491f-a7a8-b7141c800904/Position-Use-of-Psychedelic-Empathogenic-Agents.pdf
• Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic & Consciousness Research. https://hopkinspsychedelic.org/
• Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). https://maps.org/

Drug Brand Names

Esketamine • Spravato
Ketamine • Ketalar
Venlafaxine • Effexor

Psychedelics are a class of substances known to produce alterations in consciousness and perception. In the last 2 decades, psychedelic research has garnered increasing attention from scientists, therapists, entrepreneurs, and the public. While many of these compounds remain illegal in the United States and in many parts of the world (Box¹), a recent resurrection of psychedelic research has motivated the FDA to designate multiple psychedelic compounds as “breakthrough therapies,” thereby expediting the investigation, development, and review of psychedelic treatments.

Box

There is growing evidence that psychedelics may be efficacious for treating a range of psychiatric disorders. Potential clinical indications for psychedelics include some forms of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders (Table 1^2,3). In most instances, the clinical use of psychedelics is being investigated and offered in the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, though ketamine is a prominent exception. Ketamine and esketamine are already being used to treat depression, and FDA approval is anticipated for other psychedelics. An examination of the safety considerations of psychedelics for the treatment of psychiatric disorders is therefore highly relevant and timely.

This article examines the adverse effect profile of classical (psilocybin [“mushrooms”], lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], and N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT]/ayahuasca) and nonclassical (the entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA, known as “ecstasy”] and the dissociative anesthetic ketamine) psychedelics.

Psilocybin

Psilocybin is typically administered as a single dose of 10 to 30 mg and used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy. Administration of psilocybin typically produces perceptual distortions and mind-altering effects, which are mediated through 5-HT2A brain receptor agonistic action.⁴ The acute effects last approximately 6 hours.⁵ While psilocybin has generated promising results in early clinical trials,³ the adverse effects of these agents have received less attention.

The adverse effect profile of psilocybin in adults appears promising but its powerful psychoactive effects necessitate cautious use.⁶ It has a very wide therapeutic index, and in a recent meta-analysis of psilocybin for depression, no serious adverse effects were reported in any of the 7 included studies.⁷ Common adverse effects in the context of clinical use include anxiety, dysphoria, confusion, and an increase in blood pressure and heart rate.⁶ Due to potential cardiac effects, psilocybin is contraindicated in individuals with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.⁸ In recreational/nonclinical use, reactions such as suicidality, violence, convulsions, panic attacks, paranoia, confusion, prolonged dissociation, and mania have been reported.^9,10 Animal and human studies indicate the risk of abuse and physical dependence is low. Major national surveys indicate low rates of abuse, treatment-seeking, and harm.¹¹ In a recent 6-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) of psilocybin vs escitalopram for depression,¹² no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events reported in the psilocybin group in this trial are listed in Table 2.¹²

A recent phase 2 double-blind trial of single-dose psilocybin (1 mg, 10 mg, and 25 mg) for treatment-resistant depression (N = 233) sheds more light on the risk of adverse effects.¹³ The percentage of individuals experiencing adverse effects on Day 1 of administration was high: 61% in the 25 mg psilocybin group. Headache, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness were the most common effects. The incidence of any adverse event in the 25 mg group was 56% from Day 2 to Week 3, and 29% from Week 3 to Week 12. Suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, or self-injury occurred in all 3 dose groups. Overall, 14% in the 25 mg group, 17% in the 10 mg group, and 9% in the 1 mg group showed worsening of suicidality from baseline to Week 3. Suicidal behavior was reported by 3 individuals in the 25 mg group after Week 3. The new-onset or worsening of preexisting suicidality with psilocybin reported in this study requires further investigation.

Lysergic acid diethylamide

LSD is similar to psilocybin in its agonistic action at the 5-HT2A brain receptors.⁴ It is typically administered as a single 100 to 200 μg dose and is used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy.¹⁴ Its acute effects last approximately 12 hours.¹⁵

Continue to: Like psilocybin...

Like psilocybin, LSD has a wide therapeutic index. Commonly reported adverse effects of LSD are increased anxiety, dysphoria, and confusion. LSD can also lead to physiological adverse effects, such as increased blood pressure and heart rate, and thus is contraindicated in patients with severe heart disease.⁶ In a systematic review of the therapeutic use of LSD that included 567 participants,¹⁶ 2 cases of serious adverse events were reported: a tonic-clonic seizure in a patient with a prior history of seizures, and a case of prolonged psychosis in a 21-year-old with a history of psychotic disorder.

Though few psychedelic studies have examined the adverse effects of these agents in older adults, a recent phase 1 study that recruited 48 healthy older adults (age 55 to 75) found that, compared to placebo, low doses (5 to 20 μg) of LSD 2 times a week for 3 weeks had similar adverse effects, cognitive impairment, or balance impairment.¹⁷ The only adverse effect noted to be different between the placebo group and active treatment groups was headache (50% for LSD 10 μg, 25% for LSD 20 μg, and 8% for placebo). Because the dose range (5 to 20 μg) used in this study was substantially lower than the typical therapeutic dose range of 100 to 200 μg, these results should not be interpreted as supporting the safety of LSD at higher doses in older adults.

DMT/ayahuasca

Ayahuasca is a plant-based psychedelic that contains an admixture of substances, including DMT, which acts as a 5-HT2A receptor agonist. In addition to DMT, ayahuasca also contains the alkaloid harmaline, which acts as a monoamine inhibitor. Use of ayahuasca can therefore pose a particular risk for individuals taking other serotonergic or noradrenergic medications or substances. The acute effects of DMT last approximately 4 hours,¹⁸ and acute administration of ayahuasca leads to a transient modified state of consciousness that is characterized by introspection, visions, enhanced emotions, and recall of personal memories.¹⁹ Research shows ayahuasca has been dosed at approximately 0.36 mg/kg of DMT for 1 dosing session alongside 6 2-hour therapy sessions.²⁰

A recent review by Orsolini et al²¹ consolidated 40 preclinical, observational, and experimental studies of ayahuasca, and this compound appeared to be safe and well-tolerated; the most common adverse effects were transient emesis and nausea. In an RCT by Palhano-Fontes et al,²⁰ nausea was observed in 71% of participants in the ayahuasca group (vs 26% placebo), vomiting in 57% of participants (vs 0% placebo), and restlessness in 50% of participants (vs 20% placebo). The authors noted that for some participants the ayahuasca session “was not necessarily a pleasant experience,” and was accompanied by psychological distress.²⁰ Vomiting is traditionally viewed as an expected part of the purging process of ayahuasca religious ceremonies. Another review found that there appears to be good long-term tolerability of ayahuasca consumption among individuals who use this compound in religious ceremonies.²²

MDMA

Entactogens (or empathogens) are a class of psychoactive substances that produce experiences of emotional openness and connection. MDMA is an entactogen known to release serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine by inhibiting reuptake.²³ This process leads to the stimulation of neurohormonal signaling of oxytocin, cortisol, and other signaling molecules such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor.²⁴ Memory reconsolidation and fear extinction may also play a therapeutic role, enabled by reduced activity in the amygdala and insula, and increased connectivity between the amygdala and hippocampus.²⁴ MDMA has been reported to enhance feelings of well-being and increase prosocial behavior.²⁵ In the therapeutic setting, MDMA has been generally dosed at 75 to 125 mg in 2 to 3 sessions alongside 10 therapy sessions. Administration of MDMA gives the user a subjective experience of energy and distortions in time and perception.²⁶ These acute effects last approximately 2 to 4 hours.²⁷

Continue to: A meta-analysis...

A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD in adults demonstrated that MDMA was well-tolerated, and few serious adverse events were reported.²⁸ Two trials from 2018 that were included in this meta-analysis—Mithoefer et al²⁹ and Ot’alora et al³⁰—illustrate the incidence of specific adverse effects. In a randomized, double-blind trial of 26 veterans and first responders with chronic PTSD, Mithoefer et al²⁹ found the most commonly reported reactions during experimental sessions with MDMA were anxiety (81%), headache (69%), fatigue (62%), muscle tension (62%), and jaw clenching or tight jaw (50%). The most commonly reported reactions during 7 days of contact were fatigue (88%), anxiety (73%), insomnia (69%), headache (46%), muscle tension (46%), and increased irritability (46%). One instance of suicidal ideation was severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization (this was the only instance of suicidal ideation among the 106 patients in the meta-analysis by Bahji et al²⁸); the patient subsequently completed the trial. Transient elevation in pulse, blood pressure, and body temperature were noted during sessions that did not require medical intervention.²⁹ Ot’alora et al³⁰ found similar common adverse reactions: anxiety, dizziness, fatigue, headache, jaw clenching, muscle tension, and irritability. There were no serious adverse effects.

While the use of MDMA in controlled interventional settings has resulted in relatively few adverse events, robust literature describes the risks associated with the nonclinical/recreational use of MDMA. In cases of MDMA toxicity, death has been reported.³¹ Acutely, MDMA may lead to sympathomimetic effects, including serotonin syndrome.³¹ Longer-term studies of MDMA users have found chronic recreational use to be associated with worse sleep, poor mood, anxiety disturbances, memory deficits, and attention problems.³² MDMA has also been found to have moderate potential for abuse.³³

Ketamine/esketamine

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic with some hallucinogenic effects. It is an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist frequently used in anesthesia, and it can induce a state of sedation, immobility, pain relief, and amnesia. In low doses, ketamine is used off-label to treat major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. Most clinical trials of ketamine for depression have dosed IV ketamine from 0.5 to 1 mg/kg 1 to 3 times a week. It can also be administered as an IM, intranasal, oral, subcutaneous, or sublingual formulation.³⁴

Esketamine, the S(+)-enantiomer of ketamine, is also an NDMA antagonist. It has been developed as an intranasal formulation, typically dosed between 56 and 84 mg 2 times a week for 1 month, once a week for the following month, and once every 1 to 2 weeks thereafter.³⁵ In most ketamine and esketamine trials, these compounds have been used without psychotherapy, although some interventions have integrated psychotherapy with ketamine treatment.³⁶

Bennett et al³⁷ elaborated on 3 paradigms for ketamine treatment: biochemical, psychotherapeutic, and psychedelic. The biochemical model examines the neuro­biological effects of the medication. The psychotherapeutic model views ketamine as a way of assisting the psychotherapy process. The psychedelic model utilizes ketamine’s dissociative and psychedelic properties to induce an altered state of consciousness for therapeutic purposes and psychospiritual exploration.

Continue to: A systematic review...

A systematic review of the common adverse effects associated with ketamine use in clinical trials for depression reported dissociation, sedation, perceptual disturbances, anxiety, agitation, euphoria, hypertension, tachycardia, headache, and dizziness.³⁸ Adverse effects experienced with esketamine in clinical trials include dissociation, dizziness, sedation, hypertension, hypoesthesia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and euphoric mood (Table 3³⁹). A recent systemic review found both ketamine and esketamine demonstrated higher adverse events than control conditions. IV ketamine also demonstrated lower dropouts and adverse events when compared to intranasal esketamine.⁴⁰

Nonclinical/recreational use of ketamine is notable for urinary toxicity; 20% to 30% of frequent users of ketamine experience urinary problems that can range from ketamine-induced cystitis to hydronephrosis and kidney failure.⁴¹ Liver toxicity has also been reported with chronic use of high-dose ketamine. Ketamine is liable to abuse, dependence, and tolerance. There is evidence that nonclinical use of ketamine may lead to morbidity; impairment of memory, cognition, and attention; and urinary, gastric, and hepatic pathology.⁴²

The FDA prescribing information for esketamine lists aneurysmal vascular disease, arteriovenous malformation, and intracerebral hemorrhage as contraindications.³⁹ Patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions and risk factors may be at increased risk of adverse effects due to an increase in blood pressure. Esketamine can impair attention, judgment, thinking, reaction speed, and motor skills. Other adverse effects of esketamine noted in the prescribing information include dissociation, dizziness, nausea, sedation, vertigo, hypoesthesia, anxiety, lethargy, vomiting, feeling drunk, and euphoric mood.³⁹A study of postmarketing safety concerns with esketamine using reports submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) revealed signals for suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 24.03; 95% CI, 18.72 to 30.84), and completed suicide (ROR 5.75; 95% CI, 3.18 to 10.41).⁴³ The signals for suicidal and self-injurious ideation remained significant when compared to venlafaxine in the FAERS database, while suicide attempts and fatal suicide attempts were no longer significant.⁴³ Concerns regarding acute ketamine withdrawal have also been described in case reports.⁴⁴

Other safety considerations of psychedelics

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a rare condition associated with hallucinogen use. It is characterized by the recurrence of perceptual disturbances that an individual experienced while using hallucinogenic substances that creates significant distress or impairment.⁴⁵ Because HPPD is a rare disorder, the exact prevalence is not well characterized, but DSM-5 suggests it is approximately 4.2%.⁴⁶ HPPD is associated with numerous psychoactive substances, including psilocybin, ayahuasca, MDMA, and ketamine, but is most associated with LSD.⁴⁵ HPPD is more likely to arise in individuals with histories of psychiatric illness or substance use disorders.⁴⁷

Serotonin toxicity and other serotonergic interactions

Serotonin toxicity is a risk of serotonergic psychedelics, particularly when such agents are used in combination with serotonergic psychotropic medications. The most severe manifestation of serotonin toxicity is serotonin syndrome, which manifests as a life-threatening condition characterized by myoclonus, rigidity, agitation, delirium, and unstable cardiovascular functioning. Many psychedelic compounds have transient serotonin-related adverse effects, but serotonin toxicity due to psychedelic use is rare.⁴⁸ Due to their mechanism of action, classical psychedelics are relatively safe in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. MDMA is a serotonin-releasing agent that has a higher risk of serotonin syndrome or hypertensive crisis when used in combination with MAOIs.⁴⁸

Boundary violations in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy

A key task facing psychedelic research is to establish parameters for the safe and ethical use of these agents. This is particularly relevant given the hype that surrounds the psychedelic resurgence and what we know about the controversial history of these substances. Anderson et al⁴⁹ argued that “psychedelics can have lingering effects that include increased suggestibility and affective instability, as well as altered ego structure, social behaviour, and philosophical worldview. Stated simply, psychedelics can induce a vulnerable state both during and after treatment sessions.”

Continue to: Psychedelic treatment...

Psychedelic treatments such as psilocybin and MDMA are typically offered within the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, and some researchers have raised concerns regarding boundary violations,⁵⁰ given the patients’ particularly vulnerable states. In addition to concerns about sexual harassment, the financial exploitation of older adults is also a possible risk.⁵¹

Caveats to consider

Novel psychedelics therapies have demonstrated promising preliminary results for a broad range of psychiatric indications, including depression, end-of-life distress, substance use disorders, PTSD, and improving well-being. To date, psychedelics are generally well-tolerated in adults in clinical trials.

However, when it comes to adverse effects, there are challenges in regards to interpreting the psychedelic state.⁵² Some consider any unpleasant or unsettling psychedelic experience as an adverse reaction, while others consider it part of the therapeutic process. This is exemplified by the case of vomiting during ayahuasca ceremonies, which is generally considered part of the ritual. In such instances, it is essential to obtain informed consent and ensure participants are aware of these aspects of the experience. Compared to substances such as alcohol, opioids, and cocaine, psychedelics are remarkably safe from a physiological perspective, especially with regards to the risks of toxicity, mortality, and dependence.⁵³ Their psychological safety is less established, and more caution and research is needed. The high incidence of adverse effects and suicidality noted in the recent phase 2 trial of psilocybin in treatment resistant depression are a reminder of this.¹³

There is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of risk in real-world clinical practice, particularly regarding addiction, suicidality, and precipitation or worsening of psychotic disorders. For example, note the extensive exclusion criteria used in the psilocybin vs escitalopram RCT by Carhart-Harris et al¹²: currently or previously diagnosed psychotic disorder, immediate family member with a diagnosed psychotic disorder, significant medical comorbidity (eg, diabetes, epilepsy, severe cardiovascular disease, hepatic or renal failure), history of suicide attempts requiring hospitalization, history of mania, pregnancy, and abnormal QT interval prolongation, among others. It would be prudent to keep these contraindications in mind regarding the clinical use of psychedelics in the future. This is particularly important in older adults because such patients often have substantial medical comorbidities and are at greater risk for adverse effects. For ketamine, research has implicated the role of mu opioid agonism in mediating ketamine’s antidepressant effects.⁵⁴ This raises concerns about abuse, dependence, and addiction, especially with long-term use. There are also concerns regarding protracted withdrawal symptoms and associated suicidality.⁵⁵

The therapeutic use of psychedelics is an exciting and promising avenue, with ongoing research and a rapidly evolving literature. An attitude of cautious optimism is warranted, but efficacy and safety should be demonstrated in well-designed and rigorous trials with adequate long-term follow-up before routine clinical use is recommended.

Bottom Line

In clinical trials for psychiatric disorders, psychedelics have been associated with a range of cognitive, psychiatric, and psychoactive adverse effects but generally have been well-tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse effects.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatric Association. Position Statement on the Use of Psychedelic and Empathogenic Agents for Mental Health Conditions. Updated July 2022. Accessed October 24, 2022. https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/d5c13619-ca1f-491f-a7a8-b7141c800904/Position-Use-of-Psychedelic-Empathogenic-Agents.pdf
• Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic & Consciousness Research. https://hopkinspsychedelic.org/
• Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). https://maps.org/

Drug Brand Names

Esketamine • Spravato
Ketamine • Ketalar
Venlafaxine • Effexor

Mr. M, age 46, has opioid use disorder (OUD). He is currently stabilized on methadone 80 mg/d but presents to your hospital with uncontrolled atrial fibrillation. After Mr. M is admitted, the care team looks to start amiodarone; however, they receive notice of a drug-drug interaction that may cause QTc prolongation. Mr. M agrees to switch to another medication to treat his OUD because he is tired of the regulated process required to receive methadone. The care team would like to taper him to a different OUD medication but would like Mr. M to avoid cravings, symptoms of withdrawal, and potential relapse.

The opioid epidemic has devastated the United States, causing approximately 130 deaths per day.¹ The economic burden of this epidemic on medical, social welfare, and correctional services is approximately $1 trillion annually.² Research supports opioid replacement therapy for treating OUD.¹ Multiple types of opioid replacement therapies are available in multiple dosage forms; all act on the mu-opioid receptor. These include full agonist treatment (eg, methadone) and partial agonist treatment (eg, buprenorphine).³ Alternatively, opioid antagonist therapies (eg, naltrexone) have also been found to be effective for treating OUD.^1,2,4 This article focuses on partial agonist treatment for OUD, specifically using a buprenorphine microdosing strategy to transition a patient from methadone to buprenorphine.

Buprenorphine for OUD

Buprenorphine binds with high affinity to the mu-opioid receptor, resulting in partial agonism of the receptor.^1,2 Buprenorphine has a higher therapeutic index and lower intrinsic agonist activity than other opioids and a low incidence of adverse effects. Due to the partial agonism at the mu receptor, its analgesic effects plateau at higher doses and exhibit antagonist properties.^1,2 This distinct “ceiling” effect, combined with a lower risk of respiratory depression, makes buprenorphine significantly safer than methadone.⁴ Additionally, it has a lower potential for misuse when used with an abuse deterrent such as naloxone.

Common reasons for transitioning a patient from methadone to buprenorphine include intolerable adverse effects of methadone, variable duration of efficacy, drug-drug interactions, or limited access to an opioid treatment program. Traditional buprenorphine induction requires moderate withdrawal before initiating therapy. Due to buprenorphine’s high affinity and partial agonism at the mu receptor, it competes with other opioids (eg, heroin, methadone) and will abruptly displace the receptor’s full agonist with a lower affinity, resulting in precipitated withdrawal.^1,3,5 To avoid precipitated withdrawal, it is recommended to leave a sufficient amount of time between full opioid agonist treatment and buprenorphine treatment, a process called “opioid washout.”^1,5 Depending on the duration, amount, and specific opioid used, the amount of time between ending opioid agonist treatment and initiating buprenorphine treatment may vary. As a result, many patients who attempt to transition from methadone to buprenorphine remain on methadone due to their inability to tolerate withdrawal. Additionally, given the risk of precipitating withdrawal, initiating buprenorphine may negatively impact pain control.¹

Recently, buprenorphine “microdosing” inductions, which do not require patients to be in opioid withdrawal, have been used to overcome some of the challenges of transitioning patients from methadone to buprenorphine.²

Buprenorphine microdosing techniques

Multiple methods of microdosing buprenorphine have been used in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

Bernese method. In 1997, Mendelson et al⁶ completed a trial with 5 patients maintained on methadone. They found that IV buprenorphine 0.2 mg every 24 hours did not produce a withdrawal effect and was comparable to placebo.⁶ Haamig et al⁵ hypothesized that repetitive administration of buprenorphine at minute doses in adequate dosing intervals would not cause withdrawal. Additionally, because of its high receptor binding affinity, buprenorphine will accumulate over time at the mu receptor. Thus, eventually the full mu agonist (eg, methadone) will be replaced by buprenorphine at the mu receptor as the receptor becomes saturated.^4,5

Continue to: The goal is to taper...

The goal is to taper the opioid agonist therapy while titrating buprenorphine. This taper method is not described in current treatment guidelines, and as a result, there are differences in doses used in each taper because the amount of opioid agonist and type of opioid agonist therapy can vary. In most cases, buprenorphine is initiated at 0.25 mg/d to 0.5 mg/d and increased by 0.25 mg/d to 1 mg/d as tolerated.^4,5 The dose of the full opioid agonist is slowly decreased as the buprenorphine dose increases. The Bernese method does not require frequent dosing, so it is a favorable option for outpatient therapy.⁴ One limitation to this method is that it is necessary to divide tablets into small doses.⁴ Additionally, adherence issues may disrupt the tapering method; therefore, some patients may not be appropriate candidates.⁴

Transdermal patch method. This method aims to provide a consistent amount of buprenorphine—similar to dividing tablets into smaller doses as seen in the Bernese method—but with the goal of avoiding inconsistencies in dosing. Hess et al⁷ examined 22 patients with OUD who were maintained on methadone 60 mg/d to 100 mg/d. In the buprenorphine transdermal patch method, a 35 mcg/h buprenorphine patch was applied 12 hours after the patient’s final methadone dose.^1,7 This was intended to provide continuous delivery over 96 hours.¹ Additionally, small, incremental doses of sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BUP) were administered throughout the course of 5 days.¹ A potential strength of this method is that like the Bernese method, it may be completed in outpatient therapy.⁴ Potential limitations include time to initiation, off-label use, and related costs.

Rapid microdosing induction method. Contrary to typical microdosing, rapid microdosing induction requires buprenorphine to be administered every 3 to 4 hours.⁴ As with most buprenorphine microinduction protocols, this does not require a period of withdrawal prior to initiation and may be performed because of the 1-hour time to peak effect of buprenorphine.⁴ Due to the frequent dosing schedule, it is recommended to use this method in an inpatient setting.⁴ With rapid microdosing, an individual may receive SL-BUP 0.5 mg every 3 hours on Day 1, then 1 mg SL-BUP every 3 hours on Day 2. On Day 3, the individual may receive 12 mg SL-BUP with 2 mg as needed. A limitation of this method is that it must be performed in an inpatient setting.⁴

CASE CONTINUED

To ensure patient-inclusive care, clinicians should conduct a risk-benefit discussion with the patient regarding microdosing buprenorphine. Because Mr. M would like to be managed as an outpatient, rapid microdosing is not an option. Mr. M works with his care team to design a microdosing approach with the Bernese method. They initiate buprenorphine 0.5 mg/d and increase the dose by 0.5 mg to 1 mg from Day 2 to Day 8. The variance in buprenorphine titration occurs due to Mr. M’s tolerance and symptoms of withdrawal. The team decreases the methadone dose by 5 mg to 10 mg each day, depending on symptoms of withdrawal, and discontinues therapy on Day 8. Throughout the microdosing induction, Mr. M does not experience withdrawal symptoms and is now managed on buprenorphine 12 mg/d.

Related Resources

• Van Hale C, Gluck R, Tang Y. Laboratory monitoring for patients on buprenorphine: 10 questions. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(9):12-15,20-21,26.
• Moreno JL, Johnson JL, Peckham AM. Sublingual buprenorphine plus buprenorphine XR for opioid use disorder. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(6):39-42,49.

Drug Brand Names

Amiodarone • Cordarone
Buprenorphine • Subutex, Sublocade
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone, Zubsolv
Methadone • Dolophine, Methadose
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol

Mr. M, age 46, has opioid use disorder (OUD). He is currently stabilized on methadone 80 mg/d but presents to your hospital with uncontrolled atrial fibrillation. After Mr. M is admitted, the care team looks to start amiodarone; however, they receive notice of a drug-drug interaction that may cause QTc prolongation. Mr. M agrees to switch to another medication to treat his OUD because he is tired of the regulated process required to receive methadone. The care team would like to taper him to a different OUD medication but would like Mr. M to avoid cravings, symptoms of withdrawal, and potential relapse.

The opioid epidemic has devastated the United States, causing approximately 130 deaths per day.¹ The economic burden of this epidemic on medical, social welfare, and correctional services is approximately $1 trillion annually.² Research supports opioid replacement therapy for treating OUD.¹ Multiple types of opioid replacement therapies are available in multiple dosage forms; all act on the mu-opioid receptor. These include full agonist treatment (eg, methadone) and partial agonist treatment (eg, buprenorphine).³ Alternatively, opioid antagonist therapies (eg, naltrexone) have also been found to be effective for treating OUD.^1,2,4 This article focuses on partial agonist treatment for OUD, specifically using a buprenorphine microdosing strategy to transition a patient from methadone to buprenorphine.

Buprenorphine for OUD

Buprenorphine binds with high affinity to the mu-opioid receptor, resulting in partial agonism of the receptor.^1,2 Buprenorphine has a higher therapeutic index and lower intrinsic agonist activity than other opioids and a low incidence of adverse effects. Due to the partial agonism at the mu receptor, its analgesic effects plateau at higher doses and exhibit antagonist properties.^1,2 This distinct “ceiling” effect, combined with a lower risk of respiratory depression, makes buprenorphine significantly safer than methadone.⁴ Additionally, it has a lower potential for misuse when used with an abuse deterrent such as naloxone.

Common reasons for transitioning a patient from methadone to buprenorphine include intolerable adverse effects of methadone, variable duration of efficacy, drug-drug interactions, or limited access to an opioid treatment program. Traditional buprenorphine induction requires moderate withdrawal before initiating therapy. Due to buprenorphine’s high affinity and partial agonism at the mu receptor, it competes with other opioids (eg, heroin, methadone) and will abruptly displace the receptor’s full agonist with a lower affinity, resulting in precipitated withdrawal.^1,3,5 To avoid precipitated withdrawal, it is recommended to leave a sufficient amount of time between full opioid agonist treatment and buprenorphine treatment, a process called “opioid washout.”^1,5 Depending on the duration, amount, and specific opioid used, the amount of time between ending opioid agonist treatment and initiating buprenorphine treatment may vary. As a result, many patients who attempt to transition from methadone to buprenorphine remain on methadone due to their inability to tolerate withdrawal. Additionally, given the risk of precipitating withdrawal, initiating buprenorphine may negatively impact pain control.¹

Recently, buprenorphine “microdosing” inductions, which do not require patients to be in opioid withdrawal, have been used to overcome some of the challenges of transitioning patients from methadone to buprenorphine.²

Buprenorphine microdosing techniques

Multiple methods of microdosing buprenorphine have been used in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

Bernese method. In 1997, Mendelson et al⁶ completed a trial with 5 patients maintained on methadone. They found that IV buprenorphine 0.2 mg every 24 hours did not produce a withdrawal effect and was comparable to placebo.⁶ Haamig et al⁵ hypothesized that repetitive administration of buprenorphine at minute doses in adequate dosing intervals would not cause withdrawal. Additionally, because of its high receptor binding affinity, buprenorphine will accumulate over time at the mu receptor. Thus, eventually the full mu agonist (eg, methadone) will be replaced by buprenorphine at the mu receptor as the receptor becomes saturated.^4,5

Continue to: The goal is to taper...

The goal is to taper the opioid agonist therapy while titrating buprenorphine. This taper method is not described in current treatment guidelines, and as a result, there are differences in doses used in each taper because the amount of opioid agonist and type of opioid agonist therapy can vary. In most cases, buprenorphine is initiated at 0.25 mg/d to 0.5 mg/d and increased by 0.25 mg/d to 1 mg/d as tolerated.^4,5 The dose of the full opioid agonist is slowly decreased as the buprenorphine dose increases. The Bernese method does not require frequent dosing, so it is a favorable option for outpatient therapy.⁴ One limitation to this method is that it is necessary to divide tablets into small doses.⁴ Additionally, adherence issues may disrupt the tapering method; therefore, some patients may not be appropriate candidates.⁴

Transdermal patch method. This method aims to provide a consistent amount of buprenorphine—similar to dividing tablets into smaller doses as seen in the Bernese method—but with the goal of avoiding inconsistencies in dosing. Hess et al⁷ examined 22 patients with OUD who were maintained on methadone 60 mg/d to 100 mg/d. In the buprenorphine transdermal patch method, a 35 mcg/h buprenorphine patch was applied 12 hours after the patient’s final methadone dose.^1,7 This was intended to provide continuous delivery over 96 hours.¹ Additionally, small, incremental doses of sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BUP) were administered throughout the course of 5 days.¹ A potential strength of this method is that like the Bernese method, it may be completed in outpatient therapy.⁴ Potential limitations include time to initiation, off-label use, and related costs.

Rapid microdosing induction method. Contrary to typical microdosing, rapid microdosing induction requires buprenorphine to be administered every 3 to 4 hours.⁴ As with most buprenorphine microinduction protocols, this does not require a period of withdrawal prior to initiation and may be performed because of the 1-hour time to peak effect of buprenorphine.⁴ Due to the frequent dosing schedule, it is recommended to use this method in an inpatient setting.⁴ With rapid microdosing, an individual may receive SL-BUP 0.5 mg every 3 hours on Day 1, then 1 mg SL-BUP every 3 hours on Day 2. On Day 3, the individual may receive 12 mg SL-BUP with 2 mg as needed. A limitation of this method is that it must be performed in an inpatient setting.⁴

CASE CONTINUED

To ensure patient-inclusive care, clinicians should conduct a risk-benefit discussion with the patient regarding microdosing buprenorphine. Because Mr. M would like to be managed as an outpatient, rapid microdosing is not an option. Mr. M works with his care team to design a microdosing approach with the Bernese method. They initiate buprenorphine 0.5 mg/d and increase the dose by 0.5 mg to 1 mg from Day 2 to Day 8. The variance in buprenorphine titration occurs due to Mr. M’s tolerance and symptoms of withdrawal. The team decreases the methadone dose by 5 mg to 10 mg each day, depending on symptoms of withdrawal, and discontinues therapy on Day 8. Throughout the microdosing induction, Mr. M does not experience withdrawal symptoms and is now managed on buprenorphine 12 mg/d.

Related Resources

• Van Hale C, Gluck R, Tang Y. Laboratory monitoring for patients on buprenorphine: 10 questions. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(9):12-15,20-21,26.
• Moreno JL, Johnson JL, Peckham AM. Sublingual buprenorphine plus buprenorphine XR for opioid use disorder. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(6):39-42,49.

Drug Brand Names

Amiodarone • Cordarone
Buprenorphine • Subutex, Sublocade
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone, Zubsolv
Methadone • Dolophine, Methadose
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol

Mr. M, age 46, has opioid use disorder (OUD). He is currently stabilized on methadone 80 mg/d but presents to your hospital with uncontrolled atrial fibrillation. After Mr. M is admitted, the care team looks to start amiodarone; however, they receive notice of a drug-drug interaction that may cause QTc prolongation. Mr. M agrees to switch to another medication to treat his OUD because he is tired of the regulated process required to receive methadone. The care team would like to taper him to a different OUD medication but would like Mr. M to avoid cravings, symptoms of withdrawal, and potential relapse.

The opioid epidemic has devastated the United States, causing approximately 130 deaths per day.¹ The economic burden of this epidemic on medical, social welfare, and correctional services is approximately $1 trillion annually.² Research supports opioid replacement therapy for treating OUD.¹ Multiple types of opioid replacement therapies are available in multiple dosage forms; all act on the mu-opioid receptor. These include full agonist treatment (eg, methadone) and partial agonist treatment (eg, buprenorphine).³ Alternatively, opioid antagonist therapies (eg, naltrexone) have also been found to be effective for treating OUD.^1,2,4 This article focuses on partial agonist treatment for OUD, specifically using a buprenorphine microdosing strategy to transition a patient from methadone to buprenorphine.

Buprenorphine for OUD

Buprenorphine binds with high affinity to the mu-opioid receptor, resulting in partial agonism of the receptor.^1,2 Buprenorphine has a higher therapeutic index and lower intrinsic agonist activity than other opioids and a low incidence of adverse effects. Due to the partial agonism at the mu receptor, its analgesic effects plateau at higher doses and exhibit antagonist properties.^1,2 This distinct “ceiling” effect, combined with a lower risk of respiratory depression, makes buprenorphine significantly safer than methadone.⁴ Additionally, it has a lower potential for misuse when used with an abuse deterrent such as naloxone.

Common reasons for transitioning a patient from methadone to buprenorphine include intolerable adverse effects of methadone, variable duration of efficacy, drug-drug interactions, or limited access to an opioid treatment program. Traditional buprenorphine induction requires moderate withdrawal before initiating therapy. Due to buprenorphine’s high affinity and partial agonism at the mu receptor, it competes with other opioids (eg, heroin, methadone) and will abruptly displace the receptor’s full agonist with a lower affinity, resulting in precipitated withdrawal.^1,3,5 To avoid precipitated withdrawal, it is recommended to leave a sufficient amount of time between full opioid agonist treatment and buprenorphine treatment, a process called “opioid washout.”^1,5 Depending on the duration, amount, and specific opioid used, the amount of time between ending opioid agonist treatment and initiating buprenorphine treatment may vary. As a result, many patients who attempt to transition from methadone to buprenorphine remain on methadone due to their inability to tolerate withdrawal. Additionally, given the risk of precipitating withdrawal, initiating buprenorphine may negatively impact pain control.¹

Recently, buprenorphine “microdosing” inductions, which do not require patients to be in opioid withdrawal, have been used to overcome some of the challenges of transitioning patients from methadone to buprenorphine.²

Buprenorphine microdosing techniques

Multiple methods of microdosing buprenorphine have been used in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

Bernese method. In 1997, Mendelson et al⁶ completed a trial with 5 patients maintained on methadone. They found that IV buprenorphine 0.2 mg every 24 hours did not produce a withdrawal effect and was comparable to placebo.⁶ Haamig et al⁵ hypothesized that repetitive administration of buprenorphine at minute doses in adequate dosing intervals would not cause withdrawal. Additionally, because of its high receptor binding affinity, buprenorphine will accumulate over time at the mu receptor. Thus, eventually the full mu agonist (eg, methadone) will be replaced by buprenorphine at the mu receptor as the receptor becomes saturated.^4,5

Continue to: The goal is to taper...

The goal is to taper the opioid agonist therapy while titrating buprenorphine. This taper method is not described in current treatment guidelines, and as a result, there are differences in doses used in each taper because the amount of opioid agonist and type of opioid agonist therapy can vary. In most cases, buprenorphine is initiated at 0.25 mg/d to 0.5 mg/d and increased by 0.25 mg/d to 1 mg/d as tolerated.^4,5 The dose of the full opioid agonist is slowly decreased as the buprenorphine dose increases. The Bernese method does not require frequent dosing, so it is a favorable option for outpatient therapy.⁴ One limitation to this method is that it is necessary to divide tablets into small doses.⁴ Additionally, adherence issues may disrupt the tapering method; therefore, some patients may not be appropriate candidates.⁴

Transdermal patch method. This method aims to provide a consistent amount of buprenorphine—similar to dividing tablets into smaller doses as seen in the Bernese method—but with the goal of avoiding inconsistencies in dosing. Hess et al⁷ examined 22 patients with OUD who were maintained on methadone 60 mg/d to 100 mg/d. In the buprenorphine transdermal patch method, a 35 mcg/h buprenorphine patch was applied 12 hours after the patient’s final methadone dose.^1,7 This was intended to provide continuous delivery over 96 hours.¹ Additionally, small, incremental doses of sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BUP) were administered throughout the course of 5 days.¹ A potential strength of this method is that like the Bernese method, it may be completed in outpatient therapy.⁴ Potential limitations include time to initiation, off-label use, and related costs.

Rapid microdosing induction method. Contrary to typical microdosing, rapid microdosing induction requires buprenorphine to be administered every 3 to 4 hours.⁴ As with most buprenorphine microinduction protocols, this does not require a period of withdrawal prior to initiation and may be performed because of the 1-hour time to peak effect of buprenorphine.⁴ Due to the frequent dosing schedule, it is recommended to use this method in an inpatient setting.⁴ With rapid microdosing, an individual may receive SL-BUP 0.5 mg every 3 hours on Day 1, then 1 mg SL-BUP every 3 hours on Day 2. On Day 3, the individual may receive 12 mg SL-BUP with 2 mg as needed. A limitation of this method is that it must be performed in an inpatient setting.⁴

CASE CONTINUED

To ensure patient-inclusive care, clinicians should conduct a risk-benefit discussion with the patient regarding microdosing buprenorphine. Because Mr. M would like to be managed as an outpatient, rapid microdosing is not an option. Mr. M works with his care team to design a microdosing approach with the Bernese method. They initiate buprenorphine 0.5 mg/d and increase the dose by 0.5 mg to 1 mg from Day 2 to Day 8. The variance in buprenorphine titration occurs due to Mr. M’s tolerance and symptoms of withdrawal. The team decreases the methadone dose by 5 mg to 10 mg each day, depending on symptoms of withdrawal, and discontinues therapy on Day 8. Throughout the microdosing induction, Mr. M does not experience withdrawal symptoms and is now managed on buprenorphine 12 mg/d.

Related Resources

• Van Hale C, Gluck R, Tang Y. Laboratory monitoring for patients on buprenorphine: 10 questions. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(9):12-15,20-21,26.
• Moreno JL, Johnson JL, Peckham AM. Sublingual buprenorphine plus buprenorphine XR for opioid use disorder. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(6):39-42,49.

Drug Brand Names

Amiodarone • Cordarone
Buprenorphine • Subutex, Sublocade
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone, Zubsolv
Methadone • Dolophine, Methadose
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol

Using buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in pregnancy was linked with a lower risk of neonatal side effects than using methadone, but the risk of adverse maternal outcomes was similar between the two treatments, according to new research.

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Opioid use disorder in pregnant women has increased steadily in the United States since 2000, the authors write. As of 2017, about 8.2 per 1,000 deliveries were estimated to be affected by the disorder. The numbers were particularly high in people insured by Medicaid. In that group, an estimated 14.6 per 1,000 deliveries were affected.

Researchers studied pregnant women enrolled in public insurance programs in the United States from 2000 through 2018 in a dataset of 2,548,372 pregnancies that ended in live births. They analyzed outcomes in those who received buprenorphine as compared with those who received methadone.

They looked at different periods of exposure to the two medications: early pregnancy (through gestational week 19); late pregnancy (week 20 through the day before delivery); and the 30 days before delivery.

Highlighted differences in infants included:

• Neonatal abstinence syndrome in 52% of the infants who were exposed to buprenorphine in the 30 days before delivery as compared with 69.2% of those exposed to methadone (adjusted relative risk, 0.73).
• Preterm birth in 14.4% of infants exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and in 24.9% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 0.58).
• Small size for gestational age in 12.1% (buprenorphine) and 15.3% (methadone) (ARR, 0.72).
• Low birth weight in 8.3% (buprenorphine) and 14.9% (methadone) (ARR, 0.56).
• Delivery by cesarean section occurred in 33.6% of pregnant women exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and 33.1% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 1.02.).

Severe maternal complications developed in 3.3% of the women exposed to buprenorphine and 3.5% of those on methadone (ARR, 0.91.) Exposures in late pregnancy and early pregnancy yielded similar results, the authors say.

Michael Caucci, MD, of the department of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. who also runs the Women’s Mental Health Clinic at the university, said this paper supports preliminary findings from the Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research (MOTHER) study that suggested infants exposed to buprenorphine (compared with methadone) appeared to have lower rates of neonatal complications.

“It also supports buprenorphine as a relatively safe option for treatment of opioid use disorder during pregnancy,” said Dr. Caucci, who was not part of the study by Dr. Suarez and associates. “Reducing the fear of harming the fetus or neonate will help eliminate this barrier to perinatal substance use disorder treatment.”

But he cautions against concluding that, because buprenorphine has lower risks of fetal/neonatal complications, it is safer and therefore better than methadone in pregnancy. 

“Some women do not tolerate buprenorphine and do much better on methadone, Dr. Caucci said. “Current recommendations are that both buprenorphine and methadone are relatively safe options for treatment of OUD [opioid use disorder] in pregnancy.”

Among the differences between the treatments is that while methadone is administered daily during in-person visits to federally regulated opioid treatment programs, buprenorphine can be prescribed by approved providers, which allows patients to administer buprenorphine themselves.

Dr. Caucci said he was intrigued by the finding that there was no difference in pregnancy, neonatal, and maternal outcomes depending on the time of exposure to the agents.  

“I would have expected higher rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) or poor fetal growth in those exposed later in pregnancy vs. those with early exposure,” he said. 

The work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Caucci reports no relevant financial relationships. The authors’ disclosures are available with the full text.

Using buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in pregnancy was linked with a lower risk of neonatal side effects than using methadone, but the risk of adverse maternal outcomes was similar between the two treatments, according to new research.

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Opioid use disorder in pregnant women has increased steadily in the United States since 2000, the authors write. As of 2017, about 8.2 per 1,000 deliveries were estimated to be affected by the disorder. The numbers were particularly high in people insured by Medicaid. In that group, an estimated 14.6 per 1,000 deliveries were affected.

Researchers studied pregnant women enrolled in public insurance programs in the United States from 2000 through 2018 in a dataset of 2,548,372 pregnancies that ended in live births. They analyzed outcomes in those who received buprenorphine as compared with those who received methadone.

They looked at different periods of exposure to the two medications: early pregnancy (through gestational week 19); late pregnancy (week 20 through the day before delivery); and the 30 days before delivery.

Highlighted differences in infants included:

• Neonatal abstinence syndrome in 52% of the infants who were exposed to buprenorphine in the 30 days before delivery as compared with 69.2% of those exposed to methadone (adjusted relative risk, 0.73).
• Preterm birth in 14.4% of infants exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and in 24.9% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 0.58).
• Small size for gestational age in 12.1% (buprenorphine) and 15.3% (methadone) (ARR, 0.72).
• Low birth weight in 8.3% (buprenorphine) and 14.9% (methadone) (ARR, 0.56).
• Delivery by cesarean section occurred in 33.6% of pregnant women exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and 33.1% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 1.02.).

Severe maternal complications developed in 3.3% of the women exposed to buprenorphine and 3.5% of those on methadone (ARR, 0.91.) Exposures in late pregnancy and early pregnancy yielded similar results, the authors say.

Michael Caucci, MD, of the department of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. who also runs the Women’s Mental Health Clinic at the university, said this paper supports preliminary findings from the Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research (MOTHER) study that suggested infants exposed to buprenorphine (compared with methadone) appeared to have lower rates of neonatal complications.

“It also supports buprenorphine as a relatively safe option for treatment of opioid use disorder during pregnancy,” said Dr. Caucci, who was not part of the study by Dr. Suarez and associates. “Reducing the fear of harming the fetus or neonate will help eliminate this barrier to perinatal substance use disorder treatment.”

But he cautions against concluding that, because buprenorphine has lower risks of fetal/neonatal complications, it is safer and therefore better than methadone in pregnancy. 

“Some women do not tolerate buprenorphine and do much better on methadone, Dr. Caucci said. “Current recommendations are that both buprenorphine and methadone are relatively safe options for treatment of OUD [opioid use disorder] in pregnancy.”

Among the differences between the treatments is that while methadone is administered daily during in-person visits to federally regulated opioid treatment programs, buprenorphine can be prescribed by approved providers, which allows patients to administer buprenorphine themselves.

Dr. Caucci said he was intrigued by the finding that there was no difference in pregnancy, neonatal, and maternal outcomes depending on the time of exposure to the agents.  

“I would have expected higher rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) or poor fetal growth in those exposed later in pregnancy vs. those with early exposure,” he said. 

The work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Caucci reports no relevant financial relationships. The authors’ disclosures are available with the full text.

Using buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in pregnancy was linked with a lower risk of neonatal side effects than using methadone, but the risk of adverse maternal outcomes was similar between the two treatments, according to new research.

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Opioid use disorder in pregnant women has increased steadily in the United States since 2000, the authors write. As of 2017, about 8.2 per 1,000 deliveries were estimated to be affected by the disorder. The numbers were particularly high in people insured by Medicaid. In that group, an estimated 14.6 per 1,000 deliveries were affected.

Researchers studied pregnant women enrolled in public insurance programs in the United States from 2000 through 2018 in a dataset of 2,548,372 pregnancies that ended in live births. They analyzed outcomes in those who received buprenorphine as compared with those who received methadone.

They looked at different periods of exposure to the two medications: early pregnancy (through gestational week 19); late pregnancy (week 20 through the day before delivery); and the 30 days before delivery.

Highlighted differences in infants included:

• Neonatal abstinence syndrome in 52% of the infants who were exposed to buprenorphine in the 30 days before delivery as compared with 69.2% of those exposed to methadone (adjusted relative risk, 0.73).
• Preterm birth in 14.4% of infants exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and in 24.9% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 0.58).
• Small size for gestational age in 12.1% (buprenorphine) and 15.3% (methadone) (ARR, 0.72).
• Low birth weight in 8.3% (buprenorphine) and 14.9% (methadone) (ARR, 0.56).
• Delivery by cesarean section occurred in 33.6% of pregnant women exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and 33.1% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 1.02.).

Severe maternal complications developed in 3.3% of the women exposed to buprenorphine and 3.5% of those on methadone (ARR, 0.91.) Exposures in late pregnancy and early pregnancy yielded similar results, the authors say.

Michael Caucci, MD, of the department of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. who also runs the Women’s Mental Health Clinic at the university, said this paper supports preliminary findings from the Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research (MOTHER) study that suggested infants exposed to buprenorphine (compared with methadone) appeared to have lower rates of neonatal complications.

“It also supports buprenorphine as a relatively safe option for treatment of opioid use disorder during pregnancy,” said Dr. Caucci, who was not part of the study by Dr. Suarez and associates. “Reducing the fear of harming the fetus or neonate will help eliminate this barrier to perinatal substance use disorder treatment.”

But he cautions against concluding that, because buprenorphine has lower risks of fetal/neonatal complications, it is safer and therefore better than methadone in pregnancy. 

“Some women do not tolerate buprenorphine and do much better on methadone, Dr. Caucci said. “Current recommendations are that both buprenorphine and methadone are relatively safe options for treatment of OUD [opioid use disorder] in pregnancy.”

Among the differences between the treatments is that while methadone is administered daily during in-person visits to federally regulated opioid treatment programs, buprenorphine can be prescribed by approved providers, which allows patients to administer buprenorphine themselves.

Dr. Caucci said he was intrigued by the finding that there was no difference in pregnancy, neonatal, and maternal outcomes depending on the time of exposure to the agents.  

“I would have expected higher rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) or poor fetal growth in those exposed later in pregnancy vs. those with early exposure,” he said. 

The work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Caucci reports no relevant financial relationships. The authors’ disclosures are available with the full text.

Primary care physicians, and especially pediatricians, should consider telling their patients about the long-term oral health problems associated with vaping. 

A new study found that patients who use vapes were at a higher risk of developing tooth decay and periodontal disease. 

Vapes were introduced to the U.S. market in 2006 as an alternative to conventional cigarettes and have become widely popular among youth. According to a 2022 survey from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2.55 million middle and high school students in this country reported using the devices in the previous 30 days.

The new study, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, expands on an initial case series published in 2020 of patients who reported use of vapes and who had severe dental decay. Karina Irusa, BDS, assistant professor of comprehensive care at Tufts University, Boston, and lead author of the case series, wanted to investigate whether her initial findings would apply to a large population of vape users. 

For the new study, Dr. Irusa and colleagues collected data on 13,216 patients aged 16-40 who attended Tufts dental clinics between 2019 and 2021. All patients had received a diagnosis of tooth decay, had a tooth decay risk assessment on record, and had answered “yes” or “no” to use of vapes in a health history questionnaire. 

Patients had records on file of varying types of dental lesions, cavities filled within the previous 3 years, heavy plaque on teeth, inadequate brushing and flushing, and a self-report of recreational drug use and frequent snacking. If patients had these factors on their file, they were at high risk of developing decay that leads to cavities. 

The study found that 79% of patients who responded “yes” to being a current user of vapes were at high risk for dental decay, compared with 60% of those who did not report using the devices.  

Materials in the vaping liquids further cause an inflammatory response that disrupts an individual’s internal microbiome, according to numerous studies. 

“All the ingredients of vaping are surely a recipe for overgrowth of cavities causing bacteria,” said Jennifer Genuardi, MD, an internist and pediatrician at federally qualified community health center Urban Health Plan, in New York, who was not involved in the study. 

Dr. Irusa said information on patient’s vaping habits should be included in routine dental and medical history questionnaires as part of their overall electronic health record.

“Decay in its severe form not only affects one’s ability to eat but affects facial aesthetics and self-esteem as well,” Dr. Irusa said. 

Dr. Genuardi called the findings unsurprising. 

“We are learning daily more and more about the dangers of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. “There’s a focus of today’s research on the effect of actions on our microbiome and the subsequent effects on our health.”

Dr. Genuardi also said many of her teenage patients do not enjoy dental visits or having cavities filled, which could serve as a useful deterrent to vaping for a demographic that has been targeted with marketing from vape manufacturers. 

“Cavity formation and the experience of having cavities filled is an experience teens can identify with, so this to me seems like perhaps an even more effective angle to try to curb this unhealthy behavior of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians, and especially pediatricians, should consider telling their patients about the long-term oral health problems associated with vaping. 

A new study found that patients who use vapes were at a higher risk of developing tooth decay and periodontal disease. 

Vapes were introduced to the U.S. market in 2006 as an alternative to conventional cigarettes and have become widely popular among youth. According to a 2022 survey from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2.55 million middle and high school students in this country reported using the devices in the previous 30 days.

The new study, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, expands on an initial case series published in 2020 of patients who reported use of vapes and who had severe dental decay. Karina Irusa, BDS, assistant professor of comprehensive care at Tufts University, Boston, and lead author of the case series, wanted to investigate whether her initial findings would apply to a large population of vape users. 

For the new study, Dr. Irusa and colleagues collected data on 13,216 patients aged 16-40 who attended Tufts dental clinics between 2019 and 2021. All patients had received a diagnosis of tooth decay, had a tooth decay risk assessment on record, and had answered “yes” or “no” to use of vapes in a health history questionnaire. 

Patients had records on file of varying types of dental lesions, cavities filled within the previous 3 years, heavy plaque on teeth, inadequate brushing and flushing, and a self-report of recreational drug use and frequent snacking. If patients had these factors on their file, they were at high risk of developing decay that leads to cavities. 

The study found that 79% of patients who responded “yes” to being a current user of vapes were at high risk for dental decay, compared with 60% of those who did not report using the devices.  

Materials in the vaping liquids further cause an inflammatory response that disrupts an individual’s internal microbiome, according to numerous studies. 

“All the ingredients of vaping are surely a recipe for overgrowth of cavities causing bacteria,” said Jennifer Genuardi, MD, an internist and pediatrician at federally qualified community health center Urban Health Plan, in New York, who was not involved in the study. 

Dr. Irusa said information on patient’s vaping habits should be included in routine dental and medical history questionnaires as part of their overall electronic health record.

“Decay in its severe form not only affects one’s ability to eat but affects facial aesthetics and self-esteem as well,” Dr. Irusa said. 

Dr. Genuardi called the findings unsurprising. 

“We are learning daily more and more about the dangers of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. “There’s a focus of today’s research on the effect of actions on our microbiome and the subsequent effects on our health.”

Dr. Genuardi also said many of her teenage patients do not enjoy dental visits or having cavities filled, which could serve as a useful deterrent to vaping for a demographic that has been targeted with marketing from vape manufacturers. 

“Cavity formation and the experience of having cavities filled is an experience teens can identify with, so this to me seems like perhaps an even more effective angle to try to curb this unhealthy behavior of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians, and especially pediatricians, should consider telling their patients about the long-term oral health problems associated with vaping. 

A new study found that patients who use vapes were at a higher risk of developing tooth decay and periodontal disease. 

Vapes were introduced to the U.S. market in 2006 as an alternative to conventional cigarettes and have become widely popular among youth. According to a 2022 survey from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2.55 million middle and high school students in this country reported using the devices in the previous 30 days.

The new study, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, expands on an initial case series published in 2020 of patients who reported use of vapes and who had severe dental decay. Karina Irusa, BDS, assistant professor of comprehensive care at Tufts University, Boston, and lead author of the case series, wanted to investigate whether her initial findings would apply to a large population of vape users. 

For the new study, Dr. Irusa and colleagues collected data on 13,216 patients aged 16-40 who attended Tufts dental clinics between 2019 and 2021. All patients had received a diagnosis of tooth decay, had a tooth decay risk assessment on record, and had answered “yes” or “no” to use of vapes in a health history questionnaire. 

Patients had records on file of varying types of dental lesions, cavities filled within the previous 3 years, heavy plaque on teeth, inadequate brushing and flushing, and a self-report of recreational drug use and frequent snacking. If patients had these factors on their file, they were at high risk of developing decay that leads to cavities. 

The study found that 79% of patients who responded “yes” to being a current user of vapes were at high risk for dental decay, compared with 60% of those who did not report using the devices.  

Materials in the vaping liquids further cause an inflammatory response that disrupts an individual’s internal microbiome, according to numerous studies. 

“All the ingredients of vaping are surely a recipe for overgrowth of cavities causing bacteria,” said Jennifer Genuardi, MD, an internist and pediatrician at federally qualified community health center Urban Health Plan, in New York, who was not involved in the study. 

Dr. Irusa said information on patient’s vaping habits should be included in routine dental and medical history questionnaires as part of their overall electronic health record.

“Decay in its severe form not only affects one’s ability to eat but affects facial aesthetics and self-esteem as well,” Dr. Irusa said. 

Dr. Genuardi called the findings unsurprising. 

“We are learning daily more and more about the dangers of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. “There’s a focus of today’s research on the effect of actions on our microbiome and the subsequent effects on our health.”

Dr. Genuardi also said many of her teenage patients do not enjoy dental visits or having cavities filled, which could serve as a useful deterrent to vaping for a demographic that has been targeted with marketing from vape manufacturers. 

“Cavity formation and the experience of having cavities filled is an experience teens can identify with, so this to me seems like perhaps an even more effective angle to try to curb this unhealthy behavior of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Highly processed foods meet the same criteria as tobacco for addiction, and labeling them as such might benefit public health, according to a new U.S. study that proposes a set of criteria to assess the addictive potential of some foods.

The research suggests that health care professionals are taking steps toward framing food addiction as a clinical entity in its own right; it currently lacks validated treatment protocols and recognition as a clinical diagnosis.

Meanwhile, other data, reported by researchers at the 2022 Diabetes Professional Care conference in London also add support to the clinical recognition of food addiction.

Clinical psychologist Jen Unwin, PhD, from Southport, England, showed that a 3-month online program of low-carbohydrate diet together with psychoeducational support significantly reduced food addiction symptoms among a varied group of individuals, not all of whom were overweight or had obesity.

Dr. Unwin said her new data represent the first wide-scale clinical audit of its kind, other than a prior report of three patients with food addiction who were successfully treated with a ketogenic diet. 

“Food addiction explains so much of what we see in clinical practice, where intelligent people understand what we tell them about the physiology associated with a low-carb diet, and they follow it for a while, but then they relapse,” said Dr. Unwin, explaining the difficulties faced by around 20% of her patients who are considered to have food addiction.

Meanwhile, the authors of the U.S. study, led by Ashley N. Gearhardt, PhD, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote that the ability of highly processed foods (HPFs) “to rapidly deliver high doses of refined carbohydrates and/or fat appear key to their addictive potential. Thus, we conclude that HPFs can be considered addictive substances based on scientifically established criteria.”

They asserted that the contribution to preventable deaths by a diet dominated by highly processed foods is comparable with that of tobacco products, and as such, like Dr. Unwin, the authors sought clinical recognition and a more formalized protocol to manage food addiction.

“Understanding whether addiction contributes to HPF intake may lead to new treatments, as preliminary research finds that behavioral and pharmacological interventions that target addictive mechanisms may reduce compulsive HPF intake,” they stated.

The study led by Dr. Gearhardt was published in the journal Addiction, and the study led by Unwin was also recently published in Frontiers in Psychiatry.
 

Addiction criteria similar to tobacco

HPFs can be associated with an eating phenotype “that reflects the hallmarks of addiction,” said Dr. Gearhardt and coauthors; typically, loss of control over intake, intense cravings, inability to cut down, and continued use despite negative consequences.

Acknowledging the lack of a single addictive agent, they explain that food addiction reflects mechanisms implicated in other addictive disorders such as smoking.

As such, in their study, Dr. Gearhardt and colleagues proposed a set of scientifically based criteria for the evaluation of whether certain foods are addictive. “Specifically, we propose the primary criteria used to resolve one of the last major controversies over whether a substance, tobacco products, was addictive.”

They consider certain foods according to the primary criteria that have stood the test of time after being proposed in 1988 by the U.S. Surgeon General to establish the addictive potential of tobacco: they trigger compulsive use, they have psychoactive effects, and they are reinforcing.

They have updated these criteria to include the ability to trigger urges and cravings, and added that “both these products [tobacco and HPFs] are legal, easily accessible, inexpensive, lack an intoxication syndrome, and are major causes of preventable death.”

For example, with compulsive use, tobacco meets this criterion because evidence suggests that most smokers would like to quit but are unable to do so.

Likewise, wrote Dr. Gearhardt and colleagues, even “in the face of significant diet-related health consequences (e.g., diabetes and cardiovascular disease), the majority of patients are unable to adhere to medically recommended dietary plans that require a reduction in HPF intake.”

Reinforcement, through tobacco use, is demonstrated by its ‘being sufficiently rewarding to maintain self-administration” because of its ability to deliver nicotine, they said, quoting the Surgeon General’s report, and likewise, with food addiction, “both adults and children will self-administer HPFs (e.g., potato chips, candy, and cookies) even when satiated.”
 

Online group food addiction intervention study

Dr. Unwin and coauthors want people with food addiction to be able to access a validated treatment protocol. Their study aimed to evaluate an online group intervention across multiple sites in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, involving an abstinent, low-carbohydrate diet and biopsychosocial education focused on addiction and recovery in people self-identifying as having food addiction.

“Lots of people with food addiction go to GPs who don’t clinically recognize this, or if they attend addiction services and psychiatry, then they tend to only specialize in drugs, alcohol, and gambling. Eating disorder services are linked but their programs mostly don’t work for a food addict,” Dr. Unwin remarked in an interview.

“We feel running groups, as well as training professionals to run groups, is the best way to manage food addiction,” she said, reflecting on the scale of the problem, with around 10% of adults in the U.K. general population considered to have food addiction. In Dr. Unwin’s study, some people had type 2 diabetes and some overweight/obesity, but she added that some participants were underweight or of normal weight.

Initially, the 103 participants received weekly group (8-24 people) sessions for 10-14 weeks, and then monthly maintenance comprising follow-up that involved coaching participants on how to cope with relapse and get back on track.

Food addiction symptoms were assessed pre- and post program using the modified Yale Food Addiction Scale (mYFAS) 2.0; ICD-10 symptoms of food-related substance use disorder (CRAVED); and mental health well-being measured using the short version of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale and body weight.

“The program eliminates processed foods with a personalized, abstinence food plan that involves education around mechanisms involved,” said Dr. Unwin, who explained that processed foods deliver a dopamine high, and in response to this, the brain lowers the number of dopamine receptors to effectively counteract the increase in dopamine. This drop in dopamine receptors explains the depression often associated with food addiction.

Dr. Unwin reported that food addiction symptoms were significantly reduced, with the mYFAS dropping by 1.52, the CRAVED score by 1.53, and body weight by 2.34 kg (5.2 lb). Mental health, as measured by the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale, improved by 2.37 points.

“We were very interested in mental health and well-being because it impacts so much across our lives, and we saw significant improvements here, but we were less interested in weight because food addicts come in all shapes and sizes with some people underweight,” said Dr. Unwin. “Food addiction symptoms were significantly improved in the group, but we now need to look at the longer-term outcomes.”

Dr. Unwin runs a low-carbohydrate program for type 2 diabetes with her husband David Unwin, MD, who is a GP in Southport, England. She said that they ask patients if they think they have food addiction, and most say they do.

“I always try to explain to patients about the dopamine high, and how this starts the craving which makes people wonder when and where they can find the next sugar hit. Just thinking about the next chocolate bar gets the dopamine running for many people, and the more they tread this path then the worse it gets because the dopamine receptors keep reducing.”

Lorraine Avery, RN, a diabetes nurse specialist for Solent NHS Trust, who attended the DPC conference, welcomed Dr. Unwin’s presentation.

“My concern as a diabetes nurse specialist is that I’m unsure all our patients recognize their food addiction, and there are often more drivers to eating than just the food in front of them,” she said in an interview. “I think there’s an emotional element, too. These people are often ‘yo-yo’ dieters, and they join lots of expert companies to help them lose weight, but these companies want them to regain and re-join their programs,” she said.

“I think there is something about helping patients recognize they have a food addiction and they need to consider that other approaches might be helpful.”

Dr. Unwin reported no relevant financial relationships; some other authors have fee-paying clients with food addiction. Dr. Gearhardt and Ms. Avery reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Highly processed foods meet the same criteria as tobacco for addiction, and labeling them as such might benefit public health, according to a new U.S. study that proposes a set of criteria to assess the addictive potential of some foods.

The research suggests that health care professionals are taking steps toward framing food addiction as a clinical entity in its own right; it currently lacks validated treatment protocols and recognition as a clinical diagnosis.

Meanwhile, other data, reported by researchers at the 2022 Diabetes Professional Care conference in London also add support to the clinical recognition of food addiction.

Clinical psychologist Jen Unwin, PhD, from Southport, England, showed that a 3-month online program of low-carbohydrate diet together with psychoeducational support significantly reduced food addiction symptoms among a varied group of individuals, not all of whom were overweight or had obesity.

Dr. Unwin said her new data represent the first wide-scale clinical audit of its kind, other than a prior report of three patients with food addiction who were successfully treated with a ketogenic diet. 

“Food addiction explains so much of what we see in clinical practice, where intelligent people understand what we tell them about the physiology associated with a low-carb diet, and they follow it for a while, but then they relapse,” said Dr. Unwin, explaining the difficulties faced by around 20% of her patients who are considered to have food addiction.

Meanwhile, the authors of the U.S. study, led by Ashley N. Gearhardt, PhD, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote that the ability of highly processed foods (HPFs) “to rapidly deliver high doses of refined carbohydrates and/or fat appear key to their addictive potential. Thus, we conclude that HPFs can be considered addictive substances based on scientifically established criteria.”

They asserted that the contribution to preventable deaths by a diet dominated by highly processed foods is comparable with that of tobacco products, and as such, like Dr. Unwin, the authors sought clinical recognition and a more formalized protocol to manage food addiction.

“Understanding whether addiction contributes to HPF intake may lead to new treatments, as preliminary research finds that behavioral and pharmacological interventions that target addictive mechanisms may reduce compulsive HPF intake,” they stated.

The study led by Dr. Gearhardt was published in the journal Addiction, and the study led by Unwin was also recently published in Frontiers in Psychiatry.
 

Addiction criteria similar to tobacco

HPFs can be associated with an eating phenotype “that reflects the hallmarks of addiction,” said Dr. Gearhardt and coauthors; typically, loss of control over intake, intense cravings, inability to cut down, and continued use despite negative consequences.

Acknowledging the lack of a single addictive agent, they explain that food addiction reflects mechanisms implicated in other addictive disorders such as smoking.

As such, in their study, Dr. Gearhardt and colleagues proposed a set of scientifically based criteria for the evaluation of whether certain foods are addictive. “Specifically, we propose the primary criteria used to resolve one of the last major controversies over whether a substance, tobacco products, was addictive.”

They consider certain foods according to the primary criteria that have stood the test of time after being proposed in 1988 by the U.S. Surgeon General to establish the addictive potential of tobacco: they trigger compulsive use, they have psychoactive effects, and they are reinforcing.

They have updated these criteria to include the ability to trigger urges and cravings, and added that “both these products [tobacco and HPFs] are legal, easily accessible, inexpensive, lack an intoxication syndrome, and are major causes of preventable death.”

For example, with compulsive use, tobacco meets this criterion because evidence suggests that most smokers would like to quit but are unable to do so.

Likewise, wrote Dr. Gearhardt and colleagues, even “in the face of significant diet-related health consequences (e.g., diabetes and cardiovascular disease), the majority of patients are unable to adhere to medically recommended dietary plans that require a reduction in HPF intake.”

Reinforcement, through tobacco use, is demonstrated by its ‘being sufficiently rewarding to maintain self-administration” because of its ability to deliver nicotine, they said, quoting the Surgeon General’s report, and likewise, with food addiction, “both adults and children will self-administer HPFs (e.g., potato chips, candy, and cookies) even when satiated.”
 

Online group food addiction intervention study

Dr. Unwin and coauthors want people with food addiction to be able to access a validated treatment protocol. Their study aimed to evaluate an online group intervention across multiple sites in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, involving an abstinent, low-carbohydrate diet and biopsychosocial education focused on addiction and recovery in people self-identifying as having food addiction.

“Lots of people with food addiction go to GPs who don’t clinically recognize this, or if they attend addiction services and psychiatry, then they tend to only specialize in drugs, alcohol, and gambling. Eating disorder services are linked but their programs mostly don’t work for a food addict,” Dr. Unwin remarked in an interview.

“We feel running groups, as well as training professionals to run groups, is the best way to manage food addiction,” she said, reflecting on the scale of the problem, with around 10% of adults in the U.K. general population considered to have food addiction. In Dr. Unwin’s study, some people had type 2 diabetes and some overweight/obesity, but she added that some participants were underweight or of normal weight.

Initially, the 103 participants received weekly group (8-24 people) sessions for 10-14 weeks, and then monthly maintenance comprising follow-up that involved coaching participants on how to cope with relapse and get back on track.

Food addiction symptoms were assessed pre- and post program using the modified Yale Food Addiction Scale (mYFAS) 2.0; ICD-10 symptoms of food-related substance use disorder (CRAVED); and mental health well-being measured using the short version of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale and body weight.

“The program eliminates processed foods with a personalized, abstinence food plan that involves education around mechanisms involved,” said Dr. Unwin, who explained that processed foods deliver a dopamine high, and in response to this, the brain lowers the number of dopamine receptors to effectively counteract the increase in dopamine. This drop in dopamine receptors explains the depression often associated with food addiction.

Dr. Unwin reported that food addiction symptoms were significantly reduced, with the mYFAS dropping by 1.52, the CRAVED score by 1.53, and body weight by 2.34 kg (5.2 lb). Mental health, as measured by the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale, improved by 2.37 points.

“We were very interested in mental health and well-being because it impacts so much across our lives, and we saw significant improvements here, but we were less interested in weight because food addicts come in all shapes and sizes with some people underweight,” said Dr. Unwin. “Food addiction symptoms were significantly improved in the group, but we now need to look at the longer-term outcomes.”

Dr. Unwin runs a low-carbohydrate program for type 2 diabetes with her husband David Unwin, MD, who is a GP in Southport, England. She said that they ask patients if they think they have food addiction, and most say they do.

“I always try to explain to patients about the dopamine high, and how this starts the craving which makes people wonder when and where they can find the next sugar hit. Just thinking about the next chocolate bar gets the dopamine running for many people, and the more they tread this path then the worse it gets because the dopamine receptors keep reducing.”

Lorraine Avery, RN, a diabetes nurse specialist for Solent NHS Trust, who attended the DPC conference, welcomed Dr. Unwin’s presentation.

“My concern as a diabetes nurse specialist is that I’m unsure all our patients recognize their food addiction, and there are often more drivers to eating than just the food in front of them,” she said in an interview. “I think there’s an emotional element, too. These people are often ‘yo-yo’ dieters, and they join lots of expert companies to help them lose weight, but these companies want them to regain and re-join their programs,” she said.

“I think there is something about helping patients recognize they have a food addiction and they need to consider that other approaches might be helpful.”

Dr. Unwin reported no relevant financial relationships; some other authors have fee-paying clients with food addiction. Dr. Gearhardt and Ms. Avery reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Highly processed foods meet the same criteria as tobacco for addiction, and labeling them as such might benefit public health, according to a new U.S. study that proposes a set of criteria to assess the addictive potential of some foods.

The research suggests that health care professionals are taking steps toward framing food addiction as a clinical entity in its own right; it currently lacks validated treatment protocols and recognition as a clinical diagnosis.

Meanwhile, other data, reported by researchers at the 2022 Diabetes Professional Care conference in London also add support to the clinical recognition of food addiction.

Clinical psychologist Jen Unwin, PhD, from Southport, England, showed that a 3-month online program of low-carbohydrate diet together with psychoeducational support significantly reduced food addiction symptoms among a varied group of individuals, not all of whom were overweight or had obesity.

Dr. Unwin said her new data represent the first wide-scale clinical audit of its kind, other than a prior report of three patients with food addiction who were successfully treated with a ketogenic diet. 

“Food addiction explains so much of what we see in clinical practice, where intelligent people understand what we tell them about the physiology associated with a low-carb diet, and they follow it for a while, but then they relapse,” said Dr. Unwin, explaining the difficulties faced by around 20% of her patients who are considered to have food addiction.

Meanwhile, the authors of the U.S. study, led by Ashley N. Gearhardt, PhD, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote that the ability of highly processed foods (HPFs) “to rapidly deliver high doses of refined carbohydrates and/or fat appear key to their addictive potential. Thus, we conclude that HPFs can be considered addictive substances based on scientifically established criteria.”

They asserted that the contribution to preventable deaths by a diet dominated by highly processed foods is comparable with that of tobacco products, and as such, like Dr. Unwin, the authors sought clinical recognition and a more formalized protocol to manage food addiction.

“Understanding whether addiction contributes to HPF intake may lead to new treatments, as preliminary research finds that behavioral and pharmacological interventions that target addictive mechanisms may reduce compulsive HPF intake,” they stated.

The study led by Dr. Gearhardt was published in the journal Addiction, and the study led by Unwin was also recently published in Frontiers in Psychiatry.
 

Addiction criteria similar to tobacco

HPFs can be associated with an eating phenotype “that reflects the hallmarks of addiction,” said Dr. Gearhardt and coauthors; typically, loss of control over intake, intense cravings, inability to cut down, and continued use despite negative consequences.

Acknowledging the lack of a single addictive agent, they explain that food addiction reflects mechanisms implicated in other addictive disorders such as smoking.

As such, in their study, Dr. Gearhardt and colleagues proposed a set of scientifically based criteria for the evaluation of whether certain foods are addictive. “Specifically, we propose the primary criteria used to resolve one of the last major controversies over whether a substance, tobacco products, was addictive.”

They consider certain foods according to the primary criteria that have stood the test of time after being proposed in 1988 by the U.S. Surgeon General to establish the addictive potential of tobacco: they trigger compulsive use, they have psychoactive effects, and they are reinforcing.

They have updated these criteria to include the ability to trigger urges and cravings, and added that “both these products [tobacco and HPFs] are legal, easily accessible, inexpensive, lack an intoxication syndrome, and are major causes of preventable death.”

For example, with compulsive use, tobacco meets this criterion because evidence suggests that most smokers would like to quit but are unable to do so.

Likewise, wrote Dr. Gearhardt and colleagues, even “in the face of significant diet-related health consequences (e.g., diabetes and cardiovascular disease), the majority of patients are unable to adhere to medically recommended dietary plans that require a reduction in HPF intake.”

Reinforcement, through tobacco use, is demonstrated by its ‘being sufficiently rewarding to maintain self-administration” because of its ability to deliver nicotine, they said, quoting the Surgeon General’s report, and likewise, with food addiction, “both adults and children will self-administer HPFs (e.g., potato chips, candy, and cookies) even when satiated.”
 

Online group food addiction intervention study

Dr. Unwin and coauthors want people with food addiction to be able to access a validated treatment protocol. Their study aimed to evaluate an online group intervention across multiple sites in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, involving an abstinent, low-carbohydrate diet and biopsychosocial education focused on addiction and recovery in people self-identifying as having food addiction.

“Lots of people with food addiction go to GPs who don’t clinically recognize this, or if they attend addiction services and psychiatry, then they tend to only specialize in drugs, alcohol, and gambling. Eating disorder services are linked but their programs mostly don’t work for a food addict,” Dr. Unwin remarked in an interview.

“We feel running groups, as well as training professionals to run groups, is the best way to manage food addiction,” she said, reflecting on the scale of the problem, with around 10% of adults in the U.K. general population considered to have food addiction. In Dr. Unwin’s study, some people had type 2 diabetes and some overweight/obesity, but she added that some participants were underweight or of normal weight.

Initially, the 103 participants received weekly group (8-24 people) sessions for 10-14 weeks, and then monthly maintenance comprising follow-up that involved coaching participants on how to cope with relapse and get back on track.

Food addiction symptoms were assessed pre- and post program using the modified Yale Food Addiction Scale (mYFAS) 2.0; ICD-10 symptoms of food-related substance use disorder (CRAVED); and mental health well-being measured using the short version of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale and body weight.

“The program eliminates processed foods with a personalized, abstinence food plan that involves education around mechanisms involved,” said Dr. Unwin, who explained that processed foods deliver a dopamine high, and in response to this, the brain lowers the number of dopamine receptors to effectively counteract the increase in dopamine. This drop in dopamine receptors explains the depression often associated with food addiction.

Dr. Unwin reported that food addiction symptoms were significantly reduced, with the mYFAS dropping by 1.52, the CRAVED score by 1.53, and body weight by 2.34 kg (5.2 lb). Mental health, as measured by the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale, improved by 2.37 points.

“We were very interested in mental health and well-being because it impacts so much across our lives, and we saw significant improvements here, but we were less interested in weight because food addicts come in all shapes and sizes with some people underweight,” said Dr. Unwin. “Food addiction symptoms were significantly improved in the group, but we now need to look at the longer-term outcomes.”

Dr. Unwin runs a low-carbohydrate program for type 2 diabetes with her husband David Unwin, MD, who is a GP in Southport, England. She said that they ask patients if they think they have food addiction, and most say they do.

“I always try to explain to patients about the dopamine high, and how this starts the craving which makes people wonder when and where they can find the next sugar hit. Just thinking about the next chocolate bar gets the dopamine running for many people, and the more they tread this path then the worse it gets because the dopamine receptors keep reducing.”

Lorraine Avery, RN, a diabetes nurse specialist for Solent NHS Trust, who attended the DPC conference, welcomed Dr. Unwin’s presentation.

“My concern as a diabetes nurse specialist is that I’m unsure all our patients recognize their food addiction, and there are often more drivers to eating than just the food in front of them,” she said in an interview. “I think there’s an emotional element, too. These people are often ‘yo-yo’ dieters, and they join lots of expert companies to help them lose weight, but these companies want them to regain and re-join their programs,” she said.

“I think there is something about helping patients recognize they have a food addiction and they need to consider that other approaches might be helpful.”

Dr. Unwin reported no relevant financial relationships; some other authors have fee-paying clients with food addiction. Dr. Gearhardt and Ms. Avery reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Texas-based researchers have developed a vaccine that blocks the euphoric effects of fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid that is increasingly involved in opioid overdose deaths in the United States.

In studies in male and female mice, the vaccine generated significant and long-lasting levels of anti-fentanyl antibodies that were highly effective at reducing the antinociceptive, behavioral, and physiological effects of the drug.

The vaccine prevents fentanyl from entering the brain. “Thus, the individual will not feel the euphoric effects and can ‘get back on the wagon’ to sobriety,” lead investigator Colin Haile, MD, PhD, with University of Houston and founding member of the UH Drug Discovery Institute, said in a news release. The study was published online in the journal Pharmaceutics.

“The anti-fentanyl antibodies were specific to fentanyl and a fentanyl derivative and did not cross-react with other opioids, such as morphine. That means a vaccinated person would still be able to be treated for pain relief with other opioids,” said Dr. Haile.

The vaccine did not cause any adverse effects in the immunized mice. The research team plans to start manufacturing clinical-grade vaccine in the coming months with clinical trials in humans planned soon.

If proven safe and effective in clinical testing, the vaccine could have major implications for the nation’s opioid epidemic by becoming a relapse prevention agent for people trying to quit using opioids, the researchers note.

The United States in 2021 recorded more than 107,000 drug overdose deaths – a record high, according to federal health officials – and fentanyl was involved in most of these deaths. 

Senior author Therese Kosten, PhD, director of the UH Developmental, Cognitive & Behavioral Neuroscience program, calls the new fentanyl vaccine a potential “game changer.”

“Fentanyl use and overdose is a particular treatment challenge that is not adequately addressed with current medications because of its pharmacodynamics, and managing acute overdose with the short-acting naloxone [Narcan] is not appropriately effective as multiple doses of naloxone are often needed to reverse fentanyl’s fatal effects,” said Dr. Kosten.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Defense through the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Disorders Program managed by RTI International’s Pharmacotherapies for Alcohol and Substance Use Disorders Alliance, which has funded Dr. Haile’s lab for several years to develop the anti-fentanyl vaccine. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest. A provisional patent has been submitted by the University of Houston on behalf of four of the investigators containing technology related to the fentanyl vaccine.

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

Texas-based researchers have developed a vaccine that blocks the euphoric effects of fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid that is increasingly involved in opioid overdose deaths in the United States.

In studies in male and female mice, the vaccine generated significant and long-lasting levels of anti-fentanyl antibodies that were highly effective at reducing the antinociceptive, behavioral, and physiological effects of the drug.

The vaccine prevents fentanyl from entering the brain. “Thus, the individual will not feel the euphoric effects and can ‘get back on the wagon’ to sobriety,” lead investigator Colin Haile, MD, PhD, with University of Houston and founding member of the UH Drug Discovery Institute, said in a news release. The study was published online in the journal Pharmaceutics.

“The anti-fentanyl antibodies were specific to fentanyl and a fentanyl derivative and did not cross-react with other opioids, such as morphine. That means a vaccinated person would still be able to be treated for pain relief with other opioids,” said Dr. Haile.

The vaccine did not cause any adverse effects in the immunized mice. The research team plans to start manufacturing clinical-grade vaccine in the coming months with clinical trials in humans planned soon.

If proven safe and effective in clinical testing, the vaccine could have major implications for the nation’s opioid epidemic by becoming a relapse prevention agent for people trying to quit using opioids, the researchers note.

The United States in 2021 recorded more than 107,000 drug overdose deaths – a record high, according to federal health officials – and fentanyl was involved in most of these deaths. 

Senior author Therese Kosten, PhD, director of the UH Developmental, Cognitive & Behavioral Neuroscience program, calls the new fentanyl vaccine a potential “game changer.”

“Fentanyl use and overdose is a particular treatment challenge that is not adequately addressed with current medications because of its pharmacodynamics, and managing acute overdose with the short-acting naloxone [Narcan] is not appropriately effective as multiple doses of naloxone are often needed to reverse fentanyl’s fatal effects,” said Dr. Kosten.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Defense through the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Disorders Program managed by RTI International’s Pharmacotherapies for Alcohol and Substance Use Disorders Alliance, which has funded Dr. Haile’s lab for several years to develop the anti-fentanyl vaccine. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest. A provisional patent has been submitted by the University of Houston on behalf of four of the investigators containing technology related to the fentanyl vaccine.

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

Texas-based researchers have developed a vaccine that blocks the euphoric effects of fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid that is increasingly involved in opioid overdose deaths in the United States.

In studies in male and female mice, the vaccine generated significant and long-lasting levels of anti-fentanyl antibodies that were highly effective at reducing the antinociceptive, behavioral, and physiological effects of the drug.

The vaccine prevents fentanyl from entering the brain. “Thus, the individual will not feel the euphoric effects and can ‘get back on the wagon’ to sobriety,” lead investigator Colin Haile, MD, PhD, with University of Houston and founding member of the UH Drug Discovery Institute, said in a news release. The study was published online in the journal Pharmaceutics.

“The anti-fentanyl antibodies were specific to fentanyl and a fentanyl derivative and did not cross-react with other opioids, such as morphine. That means a vaccinated person would still be able to be treated for pain relief with other opioids,” said Dr. Haile.

The vaccine did not cause any adverse effects in the immunized mice. The research team plans to start manufacturing clinical-grade vaccine in the coming months with clinical trials in humans planned soon.

If proven safe and effective in clinical testing, the vaccine could have major implications for the nation’s opioid epidemic by becoming a relapse prevention agent for people trying to quit using opioids, the researchers note.

The United States in 2021 recorded more than 107,000 drug overdose deaths – a record high, according to federal health officials – and fentanyl was involved in most of these deaths. 

Senior author Therese Kosten, PhD, director of the UH Developmental, Cognitive & Behavioral Neuroscience program, calls the new fentanyl vaccine a potential “game changer.”

“Fentanyl use and overdose is a particular treatment challenge that is not adequately addressed with current medications because of its pharmacodynamics, and managing acute overdose with the short-acting naloxone [Narcan] is not appropriately effective as multiple doses of naloxone are often needed to reverse fentanyl’s fatal effects,” said Dr. Kosten.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Defense through the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Disorders Program managed by RTI International’s Pharmacotherapies for Alcohol and Substance Use Disorders Alliance, which has funded Dr. Haile’s lab for several years to develop the anti-fentanyl vaccine. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest. A provisional patent has been submitted by the University of Houston on behalf of four of the investigators containing technology related to the fentanyl vaccine.

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

As a physician in the heart of the opioid epidemic, Pavirthra R. Ellison, MD, has watched for years as her patients have lost parents to overdoses. More than 1,400 adults in West Virginia, where she practices, died of opioid abuse in 2021 alone, government statistics show.

The grim toll made Ellison wonder: What was happening to children in the state? The answer, according to a new study, is not reassuring.

Ellison and her colleagues have found a troubling link between a surge in critical head and neck injuries among youth in West Virginia and a spike in positive tests for opioids and benzodiazepines among children who arrive at emergency departments in the state. They don’t think the pattern is a coincidence.

“What we found was really kind of scary,” said Dr. Ellison, a professor of anesthesiology and pediatrics at West Virginia University, Morgantown. “Children in this region often get exposure to these drugs early on.”
 

A region in crisis

According to a 2020 report from the Department of Health & Human Services, about 9.9 million Americans abused prescription opioids in 2018. That same year, almost 47,000 died following an overdose of the painkillers. In 2017, Appalachian counties experienced a death rate from opioid overdoses that was 72% higher than that of the rest of the country.

Dr. Ellison and associates who presented their findings recently at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, examined rates of pediatric trauma injuries, injury severity, and results of drug screenings throughout West Virginia between 2009 and 2019.

The study included 4,538 children and adolescents younger than 18 years who had been treated for head and neck trauma. The youth were divided into two groups: 3,356 who were treated from 2009 to 2016, and 1,182 who were treated between 2017 and 2019.

The incidence of critical head injuries increased from 3.7% in the period 2009-2016 to 7.2% in the period 2017-2019 (P = .007). The incidence of serious neck injuries increased from 12.2% to 27.1% (P = .007) during that period, according to the researchers. The number of days that these patients spent on ventilators more than doubled, from 3.1 to 6.3 (P < .001), they reported.

At the same time, the rate of positive urine drug tests rose sharply, from 0.8% to 1.8% (P < .001) for benzodiazepines and from 1% to 4.9% for opioids (P < .001).

Drug testing of children hospitalized for trauma rose more than threefold, from 6.9% to 23.2% (P < .001). Dr. Ellison’s group was unable to match positive drug screens with patients who came in with injuries.

Dr. Ellison said her research “warrants further evaluation of current policies and protocols targeting substance use in children and adolescents.” To that end, her team is planning to conduct a prospective study in mid 2023 to further illuminate the trends.

“I hope early next year we can put together a group of physicians, pediatric general surgeons, neurosurgeons, and anesthesiologists,” she said. “I want to look at what we can do to reduce the severity of injury.”

She also wants to reach the population that these findings directly affect.

“The next step that we are currently working on is community awareness of the issue,” Dr. Ellison said. “Our trauma institute is partnering with middle school and high school kids to create material to raise awareness.”

Rural Appalachia faces several other endemic problems that affect the health and well-being of children and families, including limited access to health care, poverty, and minimal community support, according to Dr. Ellison. Children and teens in the region who live with parents who abuse opioids are more likely to experience family conflict, mental health challenges, legal troubles, and negative health effects, including physical trauma.
 

A call to action

Toufic Jildeh, MD, assistant professor of orthopedics, Michigan State University Health Care, East Lansing, who has studied ways to reduce opioid use among surgery patients, called the new findings “alarming.”

After reviewing the study, Dr. Jildeh said that in his opinion, the results support standardized drug testing of children, particularly in the context of severe trauma.

Bruce Bassi, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and owner of TelepsychHealth, a private, online psychiatric practice, agreed. “The main take-home message is that drug screening should be the standard of care for pediatric patients in this region, because it changes the management of those individuals,” Dr. Bassi said.

But identifying these patients is just the first step. “We should continue to educate and raise awareness, not only in the health care system,” Dr. Bassi said. “We also need to let parents know that the possibility of children obtaining access to medications is high.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Ellison and Dr. Jildeh reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bassi owns a private psychiatry practice called Telepsychhealth but has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

As a physician in the heart of the opioid epidemic, Pavirthra R. Ellison, MD, has watched for years as her patients have lost parents to overdoses. More than 1,400 adults in West Virginia, where she practices, died of opioid abuse in 2021 alone, government statistics show.

The grim toll made Ellison wonder: What was happening to children in the state? The answer, according to a new study, is not reassuring.

Ellison and her colleagues have found a troubling link between a surge in critical head and neck injuries among youth in West Virginia and a spike in positive tests for opioids and benzodiazepines among children who arrive at emergency departments in the state. They don’t think the pattern is a coincidence.

“What we found was really kind of scary,” said Dr. Ellison, a professor of anesthesiology and pediatrics at West Virginia University, Morgantown. “Children in this region often get exposure to these drugs early on.”
 

A region in crisis

According to a 2020 report from the Department of Health & Human Services, about 9.9 million Americans abused prescription opioids in 2018. That same year, almost 47,000 died following an overdose of the painkillers. In 2017, Appalachian counties experienced a death rate from opioid overdoses that was 72% higher than that of the rest of the country.

Dr. Ellison and associates who presented their findings recently at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, examined rates of pediatric trauma injuries, injury severity, and results of drug screenings throughout West Virginia between 2009 and 2019.

The study included 4,538 children and adolescents younger than 18 years who had been treated for head and neck trauma. The youth were divided into two groups: 3,356 who were treated from 2009 to 2016, and 1,182 who were treated between 2017 and 2019.

The incidence of critical head injuries increased from 3.7% in the period 2009-2016 to 7.2% in the period 2017-2019 (P = .007). The incidence of serious neck injuries increased from 12.2% to 27.1% (P = .007) during that period, according to the researchers. The number of days that these patients spent on ventilators more than doubled, from 3.1 to 6.3 (P < .001), they reported.

At the same time, the rate of positive urine drug tests rose sharply, from 0.8% to 1.8% (P < .001) for benzodiazepines and from 1% to 4.9% for opioids (P < .001).

Drug testing of children hospitalized for trauma rose more than threefold, from 6.9% to 23.2% (P < .001). Dr. Ellison’s group was unable to match positive drug screens with patients who came in with injuries.

Dr. Ellison said her research “warrants further evaluation of current policies and protocols targeting substance use in children and adolescents.” To that end, her team is planning to conduct a prospective study in mid 2023 to further illuminate the trends.

“I hope early next year we can put together a group of physicians, pediatric general surgeons, neurosurgeons, and anesthesiologists,” she said. “I want to look at what we can do to reduce the severity of injury.”

She also wants to reach the population that these findings directly affect.

“The next step that we are currently working on is community awareness of the issue,” Dr. Ellison said. “Our trauma institute is partnering with middle school and high school kids to create material to raise awareness.”

Rural Appalachia faces several other endemic problems that affect the health and well-being of children and families, including limited access to health care, poverty, and minimal community support, according to Dr. Ellison. Children and teens in the region who live with parents who abuse opioids are more likely to experience family conflict, mental health challenges, legal troubles, and negative health effects, including physical trauma.
 

A call to action

Toufic Jildeh, MD, assistant professor of orthopedics, Michigan State University Health Care, East Lansing, who has studied ways to reduce opioid use among surgery patients, called the new findings “alarming.”

After reviewing the study, Dr. Jildeh said that in his opinion, the results support standardized drug testing of children, particularly in the context of severe trauma.

Bruce Bassi, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and owner of TelepsychHealth, a private, online psychiatric practice, agreed. “The main take-home message is that drug screening should be the standard of care for pediatric patients in this region, because it changes the management of those individuals,” Dr. Bassi said.

But identifying these patients is just the first step. “We should continue to educate and raise awareness, not only in the health care system,” Dr. Bassi said. “We also need to let parents know that the possibility of children obtaining access to medications is high.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Ellison and Dr. Jildeh reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bassi owns a private psychiatry practice called Telepsychhealth but has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

As a physician in the heart of the opioid epidemic, Pavirthra R. Ellison, MD, has watched for years as her patients have lost parents to overdoses. More than 1,400 adults in West Virginia, where she practices, died of opioid abuse in 2021 alone, government statistics show.

The grim toll made Ellison wonder: What was happening to children in the state? The answer, according to a new study, is not reassuring.

Ellison and her colleagues have found a troubling link between a surge in critical head and neck injuries among youth in West Virginia and a spike in positive tests for opioids and benzodiazepines among children who arrive at emergency departments in the state. They don’t think the pattern is a coincidence.

“What we found was really kind of scary,” said Dr. Ellison, a professor of anesthesiology and pediatrics at West Virginia University, Morgantown. “Children in this region often get exposure to these drugs early on.”
 

A region in crisis

According to a 2020 report from the Department of Health & Human Services, about 9.9 million Americans abused prescription opioids in 2018. That same year, almost 47,000 died following an overdose of the painkillers. In 2017, Appalachian counties experienced a death rate from opioid overdoses that was 72% higher than that of the rest of the country.

Dr. Ellison and associates who presented their findings recently at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, examined rates of pediatric trauma injuries, injury severity, and results of drug screenings throughout West Virginia between 2009 and 2019.

The study included 4,538 children and adolescents younger than 18 years who had been treated for head and neck trauma. The youth were divided into two groups: 3,356 who were treated from 2009 to 2016, and 1,182 who were treated between 2017 and 2019.

The incidence of critical head injuries increased from 3.7% in the period 2009-2016 to 7.2% in the period 2017-2019 (P = .007). The incidence of serious neck injuries increased from 12.2% to 27.1% (P = .007) during that period, according to the researchers. The number of days that these patients spent on ventilators more than doubled, from 3.1 to 6.3 (P < .001), they reported.

At the same time, the rate of positive urine drug tests rose sharply, from 0.8% to 1.8% (P < .001) for benzodiazepines and from 1% to 4.9% for opioids (P < .001).

Drug testing of children hospitalized for trauma rose more than threefold, from 6.9% to 23.2% (P < .001). Dr. Ellison’s group was unable to match positive drug screens with patients who came in with injuries.

Dr. Ellison said her research “warrants further evaluation of current policies and protocols targeting substance use in children and adolescents.” To that end, her team is planning to conduct a prospective study in mid 2023 to further illuminate the trends.

“I hope early next year we can put together a group of physicians, pediatric general surgeons, neurosurgeons, and anesthesiologists,” she said. “I want to look at what we can do to reduce the severity of injury.”

She also wants to reach the population that these findings directly affect.

“The next step that we are currently working on is community awareness of the issue,” Dr. Ellison said. “Our trauma institute is partnering with middle school and high school kids to create material to raise awareness.”

Rural Appalachia faces several other endemic problems that affect the health and well-being of children and families, including limited access to health care, poverty, and minimal community support, according to Dr. Ellison. Children and teens in the region who live with parents who abuse opioids are more likely to experience family conflict, mental health challenges, legal troubles, and negative health effects, including physical trauma.
 

A call to action

Toufic Jildeh, MD, assistant professor of orthopedics, Michigan State University Health Care, East Lansing, who has studied ways to reduce opioid use among surgery patients, called the new findings “alarming.”

After reviewing the study, Dr. Jildeh said that in his opinion, the results support standardized drug testing of children, particularly in the context of severe trauma.

Bruce Bassi, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and owner of TelepsychHealth, a private, online psychiatric practice, agreed. “The main take-home message is that drug screening should be the standard of care for pediatric patients in this region, because it changes the management of those individuals,” Dr. Bassi said.

But identifying these patients is just the first step. “We should continue to educate and raise awareness, not only in the health care system,” Dr. Bassi said. “We also need to let parents know that the possibility of children obtaining access to medications is high.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Ellison and Dr. Jildeh reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bassi owns a private psychiatry practice called Telepsychhealth but has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

Vaping has become the dominant form of tobacco use by adolescents in the United States immediately after waking up, according to an analysis of a survey on teen tobacco use published in JAMA Network Open.

By 2019, Stanton Glantz, PhD, and associates found, “more e-cigarette users were using their first tobacco product within 5 minutes of waking than users of cigarettes and all other tobacco products combined.” Use upon waking is an indicator of addiction.

That number changed drastically from 2014 when less than 1% of sole-e-cigarette users were using e-cigarettes first thing in the morning to 10.3% by 2021. The numbers did not change for sole cigarette smokers or sole smokeless tobacco users, but did increase by half (odds ratio per year, 1.49) for sole cigar users.

In addition, among adolescents who currently use any tobacco product, the proportion whose first tobacco product was e-cigarettes increased from 27.2% in 2014 to 78.3% in 2019 and remained close to that at 77% in 2021.

Meanwhile, the number of young people using e-cigarettes peaked in 2019 and has been declining.

By 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 5.3 million middle and high school students were using e-cigarettes. That number dropped to 3.6 million in 2020 and to 2.1 million in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Researchers suspect more addictive nicotine

This increasing intensity of use may reflect the higher nicotine delivery and addiction liability of modern e-cigarettes that use protonated nicotine, which makes nicotine easier to inhale than older versions of e-cigarettes, which used freebase nicotine, Dr. Glantz and associates wrote.

The change in nicotine came in 2015 with the introduction of Juul products, they said, “which added benzoic acid to the nicotine e-liquid to lower the pH level and form protonated nicotine.”

The researchers advised: “Clinicians should question all their patients about nicotine and tobacco product use, including e-cigarettes and other new nicotine products.”

Raghu Appasani, MD, a psychiatrist who specializes in adolescent addiction and a clinical fellow at University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that users often misunderstand the potential health effects of e-cigarettes and mistakenly think of them as a safe alternative to cigarettes.

All medical providers have a responsibility to ask patients about nicotine and tobacco products, Dr. Appasani said.
 

‘Be curious, not judgmental’

Dr. Appasani advised: “Be curious with your approach. This may uncover that maybe they use [e-cigarettes] to fit into a social scene or have stressors at home or in school. Most likely there is an underlying issue that has led to their use. Perhaps there is untreated anxiety and/or depression. Be curious, not judgmental.”

It is also important to ask about social and psychological factors that may be contributing to use and help the user think through how the use is affecting life in their home, school, and social settings, Dr. Appasani said.

He said he was not surprised by the findings as e-cigarettes allow easy access to smoking and it’s easier to hide the habit. The flavoring often get kids hooked originally.

The authors wrote: “These findings suggest that clinicians need to be ready to address youth addiction to these new highly addictive nicotine products during many clinical encounters, and stronger regulation is needed, including comprehensive bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products.”

Just more than half of the survey respondents (51.1%) were male and average age was 14. Researchers analyzed data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, a nationally representative survey of middle and high school students.

They used the Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 2015 to 2019 as a confirmatory analysis.

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Glantz received personal fees from the World Health Organization outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported serving as a paid expert witness against the tobacco industry outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Appasani declared no relevant financial relationships.

Vaping has become the dominant form of tobacco use by adolescents in the United States immediately after waking up, according to an analysis of a survey on teen tobacco use published in JAMA Network Open.

By 2019, Stanton Glantz, PhD, and associates found, “more e-cigarette users were using their first tobacco product within 5 minutes of waking than users of cigarettes and all other tobacco products combined.” Use upon waking is an indicator of addiction.

That number changed drastically from 2014 when less than 1% of sole-e-cigarette users were using e-cigarettes first thing in the morning to 10.3% by 2021. The numbers did not change for sole cigarette smokers or sole smokeless tobacco users, but did increase by half (odds ratio per year, 1.49) for sole cigar users.

In addition, among adolescents who currently use any tobacco product, the proportion whose first tobacco product was e-cigarettes increased from 27.2% in 2014 to 78.3% in 2019 and remained close to that at 77% in 2021.

Meanwhile, the number of young people using e-cigarettes peaked in 2019 and has been declining.

By 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 5.3 million middle and high school students were using e-cigarettes. That number dropped to 3.6 million in 2020 and to 2.1 million in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Researchers suspect more addictive nicotine

This increasing intensity of use may reflect the higher nicotine delivery and addiction liability of modern e-cigarettes that use protonated nicotine, which makes nicotine easier to inhale than older versions of e-cigarettes, which used freebase nicotine, Dr. Glantz and associates wrote.

The change in nicotine came in 2015 with the introduction of Juul products, they said, “which added benzoic acid to the nicotine e-liquid to lower the pH level and form protonated nicotine.”

The researchers advised: “Clinicians should question all their patients about nicotine and tobacco product use, including e-cigarettes and other new nicotine products.”

Raghu Appasani, MD, a psychiatrist who specializes in adolescent addiction and a clinical fellow at University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that users often misunderstand the potential health effects of e-cigarettes and mistakenly think of them as a safe alternative to cigarettes.

All medical providers have a responsibility to ask patients about nicotine and tobacco products, Dr. Appasani said.
 

‘Be curious, not judgmental’

Dr. Appasani advised: “Be curious with your approach. This may uncover that maybe they use [e-cigarettes] to fit into a social scene or have stressors at home or in school. Most likely there is an underlying issue that has led to their use. Perhaps there is untreated anxiety and/or depression. Be curious, not judgmental.”

It is also important to ask about social and psychological factors that may be contributing to use and help the user think through how the use is affecting life in their home, school, and social settings, Dr. Appasani said.

He said he was not surprised by the findings as e-cigarettes allow easy access to smoking and it’s easier to hide the habit. The flavoring often get kids hooked originally.

The authors wrote: “These findings suggest that clinicians need to be ready to address youth addiction to these new highly addictive nicotine products during many clinical encounters, and stronger regulation is needed, including comprehensive bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products.”

Just more than half of the survey respondents (51.1%) were male and average age was 14. Researchers analyzed data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, a nationally representative survey of middle and high school students.

They used the Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 2015 to 2019 as a confirmatory analysis.

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Glantz received personal fees from the World Health Organization outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported serving as a paid expert witness against the tobacco industry outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Appasani declared no relevant financial relationships.

Vaping has become the dominant form of tobacco use by adolescents in the United States immediately after waking up, according to an analysis of a survey on teen tobacco use published in JAMA Network Open.

By 2019, Stanton Glantz, PhD, and associates found, “more e-cigarette users were using their first tobacco product within 5 minutes of waking than users of cigarettes and all other tobacco products combined.” Use upon waking is an indicator of addiction.

That number changed drastically from 2014 when less than 1% of sole-e-cigarette users were using e-cigarettes first thing in the morning to 10.3% by 2021. The numbers did not change for sole cigarette smokers or sole smokeless tobacco users, but did increase by half (odds ratio per year, 1.49) for sole cigar users.

In addition, among adolescents who currently use any tobacco product, the proportion whose first tobacco product was e-cigarettes increased from 27.2% in 2014 to 78.3% in 2019 and remained close to that at 77% in 2021.

Meanwhile, the number of young people using e-cigarettes peaked in 2019 and has been declining.

By 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 5.3 million middle and high school students were using e-cigarettes. That number dropped to 3.6 million in 2020 and to 2.1 million in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Researchers suspect more addictive nicotine

This increasing intensity of use may reflect the higher nicotine delivery and addiction liability of modern e-cigarettes that use protonated nicotine, which makes nicotine easier to inhale than older versions of e-cigarettes, which used freebase nicotine, Dr. Glantz and associates wrote.

The change in nicotine came in 2015 with the introduction of Juul products, they said, “which added benzoic acid to the nicotine e-liquid to lower the pH level and form protonated nicotine.”

The researchers advised: “Clinicians should question all their patients about nicotine and tobacco product use, including e-cigarettes and other new nicotine products.”

Raghu Appasani, MD, a psychiatrist who specializes in adolescent addiction and a clinical fellow at University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that users often misunderstand the potential health effects of e-cigarettes and mistakenly think of them as a safe alternative to cigarettes.

All medical providers have a responsibility to ask patients about nicotine and tobacco products, Dr. Appasani said.
 

‘Be curious, not judgmental’

Dr. Appasani advised: “Be curious with your approach. This may uncover that maybe they use [e-cigarettes] to fit into a social scene or have stressors at home or in school. Most likely there is an underlying issue that has led to their use. Perhaps there is untreated anxiety and/or depression. Be curious, not judgmental.”

It is also important to ask about social and psychological factors that may be contributing to use and help the user think through how the use is affecting life in their home, school, and social settings, Dr. Appasani said.

He said he was not surprised by the findings as e-cigarettes allow easy access to smoking and it’s easier to hide the habit. The flavoring often get kids hooked originally.

The authors wrote: “These findings suggest that clinicians need to be ready to address youth addiction to these new highly addictive nicotine products during many clinical encounters, and stronger regulation is needed, including comprehensive bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products.”

Just more than half of the survey respondents (51.1%) were male and average age was 14. Researchers analyzed data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, a nationally representative survey of middle and high school students.

They used the Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 2015 to 2019 as a confirmatory analysis.

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Glantz received personal fees from the World Health Organization outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported serving as a paid expert witness against the tobacco industry outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Appasani declared no relevant financial relationships.