Addiction Medicine

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rapid uptick in virtual recovery programs and telemedicine counseling sessions for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs). New research shows that these programs are acceptable and effective alternatives to in-person sessions.

FatCamera/E+

Study results from three research teams at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville (USCSM-G) show that SUD counselors in the state were satisfied with their experience with telehealth and virtual recovery meetings.

In one of the studies, five counselors who utilized a virtual meeting platform after the COVID-19 pandemic made in-person visits unsafe were surveyed. The respondents said they much preferred in-person meetings. However, they could also see that virtual meetings were filling an important need for their patients.

Two other studies echoed the results from the first. Clinicians who were leery of the new technology at first became more enthusiastic after they gained experience using it.

“We have lived in a society where there has been one right way, which has always been in-person meetings for recovery, such as Alcoholics Anonymous. It is a very structured process,” lead author Haley Fulton, a fourth-year medical student at USCSM-G, said in an interview.

“The onset of COVID really upended a lot of things, but ... now there may not be just one right way for recovery. There are alternatives to offer,” Ms. Fulton said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, which was held online this year because of the pandemic.
 

Huge need

“Virtual meetings may not be ideal, but some version of recovery is better than none. If we can make these meetings accessible to more people, this could promote recovery from substance use disorder,” Ms. Fulton said.

There is a huge need for counseling, and past research has shown that failure to attend meetings can precipitate relapse in many individuals.

In Ms. Fulton’s study, counselors were asked to describe how they perceived the efficacy of virtual recovery meetings, compared with that of in-person meetings.

The investigators analyzed how often certain words, phrases, or issues came up during seven in-person recovery meetings held before the COVID-19 pandemic as well as observational data from seven virtual recovery-support meetings held during the pandemic.

On the pro side, the respondents cited convenience, comfort at home, and increased accessibility to counseling for patients.

In addition, because there was no need to travel, virtual meetings were cost effective. Such meetings could expand the recovery world, inasmuch as individuals could attend recovery meetings in other parts of the country.

Perceived disadvantages included challenges involving technology, because learning new apps such as Zoom could be a problem for some patients. Distractions at home and lack of privacy were also cited, but for many, the most important drawback to virtual meetings was the lessening of emotional connection with others.
 

Impact on SUD treatment

In a second study, another team from USCSM-G reported similar findings when it explored the impact of telehealth on counselors as well as on patients who were undergoing SUD treatment during the pandemic.

Led by fourth-year medical students Elizabeth Whiteside and Kyleigh Connolly, the researchers assessed data from a focus group of six behavioral health counselors representing rural and city agencies throughout South Carolina.

Themes that emerged included concerns about mental health – counselors and patients were experiencing increased stress, depression, and anxiety.

“People had to now home school, there were job layoffs, increased responsibilities at home. Also, Narcan [naloxone] distribution was decreased, and this contributed to rising overdose rates,” Ms. Whiteside said in an interview.

The focus group concluded that the advantages of telehealth included greater ability to accept new patients, an increase in scheduling flexibility, and cost-effectiveness because it obviated the need for child care or transportation.

Disadvantages included problems involving privacy, because for many patients who were undergoing SUD recovery, it was impossible to be alone in a room or a designated area of their own.

The counselors also felt strongly that in-person care was needed for certain patients.

“Before COVID happened, [health care] barriers included transport to the actual center and finding care for children,” Ms. Connolly said in an interview.

“That’s where telehealth really bridged the gap for these people, and it actually became a lot easier for them to get in contact with their counselors, get into group meetings, and access other services,” she said.

Many of the study participants were not very optimistic about telehealth at first, Ms. Connolly noted. “They felt a little odd going on telehealth at first, but by the end, everybody said that they loved having it.”

“One of the things that came out often was that patients felt they could be more open and honest because they weren’t looking their counselor right in the face. They didn’t feel so horrible sharing,” Ms. Whiteside added.

Some counselors reported that some clients shared more details with them and that there was an ease of connecting. If a patient was a few minutes late to an appointment, telehealth would put in a call to find out where that patient was.

The counselors also had the ability to determine which of their patients would be good candidates for telehealth counseling and which patients would not do well with telehealth and would instead need in-patient care.

“This is something that really helped the experience go better for the counselors. They were able to determine which patient fit the mold for telehealth working for them. Obviously, patients who have more acute periods of mental health problems would do better with in-person care,” Ms. Whiteside said.
 

Here to stay?

In the third study from USCSM-G, investigators evaluated data from a focus group of four providers of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) who practiced in urban and rural areas throughout the state.

The respondents reflected on their experiences in using telemedicine for prescribing MOUD.

As in the previous studies, the providers had positive experiences with telemedicine. It increased patient access, participation, and satisfaction with treatment, and the benefits of telemedicine outweighed its potential limitations.

Still, technology was cited as a barrier to care, especially in rural areas.

“We found that there was a lack of good internet in certain rural parts of South Carolina, and that lack of the proper electronic devices ... could also make it difficult to access telemedicine,” lead author Kellie Shell said in an interview.

As noted in the other studies, the providers expressed a desire that telemedicine incorporate safeguards that would enable clinicians to identify a particular patient’s location in order that authorities could be dispatched if an emergency were to arise.

The clinicians also said that monitoring for diversion and performing pill counts were more difficult to do via telemedicine.

“We definitely have to improve infrastructure, especially in rural areas, so that all people have access to telemedicine,” Ms. Shell said.

“Overall, the providers were won over with telemedicine, and some predicted telehealth and virtual visits were here to stay, even after COVID,” she added.

The three posters provide useful insight into the potential advantages and disadvantages of telehealth in SUD settings, experts said.
 

Telehealth data ‘very limited’

Commenting on the research, Lewei (Allison) Lin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted that “there is such limited information” about the use of telehealth for patients with SUD.

“These insights are helpful for us to start understanding the things that need to be considered, including clinician attitudes and perceptions,” said Dr. Lin, who was not involved with the studies.

“It will be key to have data as use of telemedicine increases during COVID-19 to help us see exactly how it should be used and to better understand the actual impacts and whether or not it is increasing accessibility, and for which patients,” she added.

David Kan, MD, chief medical officer at Bright Heart Health, San Ramon, Calif., has had experience with telehealth for SUD and has found that conducting pill counts with his patients has not been a problem.

“The Shell poster covers telemedicine well,” Dr. Kan said in an interview.

However, “I disagree with their point that diversion prevention is harder via telemedicine. In my experience, it is easier, as you can do pill or wrapper counts almost on demand. You can also do daily observed dosing with pill counts if diversion is suspected,” he said.

Dr. Kan also suggested ways to cope with problems involving privacy. “Privacy concerns are always an issue but can be mitigated with headphones and a scan of the room with the telehealth technology if a privacy concern arises.”

He acknowledged that in-person meetings, especially through well-established programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), will always be important. But he pointed out that people are finding ways to meet safely and have in-person connections.

“The AA has been providing virtual recovery meetings long before COVID. The common complaint is the loss of fellowship associated with recovery groups. I don’t know of a way to get around this short of vaccines,” Dr. Kan said. However, “people have adapted impressively with masked outdoor meetings and other forms of safe gathering.”

The investigators, Dr. Lin, and Dr. Kan reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rapid uptick in virtual recovery programs and telemedicine counseling sessions for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs). New research shows that these programs are acceptable and effective alternatives to in-person sessions.

FatCamera/E+

Study results from three research teams at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville (USCSM-G) show that SUD counselors in the state were satisfied with their experience with telehealth and virtual recovery meetings.

In one of the studies, five counselors who utilized a virtual meeting platform after the COVID-19 pandemic made in-person visits unsafe were surveyed. The respondents said they much preferred in-person meetings. However, they could also see that virtual meetings were filling an important need for their patients.

Two other studies echoed the results from the first. Clinicians who were leery of the new technology at first became more enthusiastic after they gained experience using it.

“We have lived in a society where there has been one right way, which has always been in-person meetings for recovery, such as Alcoholics Anonymous. It is a very structured process,” lead author Haley Fulton, a fourth-year medical student at USCSM-G, said in an interview.

“The onset of COVID really upended a lot of things, but ... now there may not be just one right way for recovery. There are alternatives to offer,” Ms. Fulton said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, which was held online this year because of the pandemic.
 

Huge need

“Virtual meetings may not be ideal, but some version of recovery is better than none. If we can make these meetings accessible to more people, this could promote recovery from substance use disorder,” Ms. Fulton said.

There is a huge need for counseling, and past research has shown that failure to attend meetings can precipitate relapse in many individuals.

In Ms. Fulton’s study, counselors were asked to describe how they perceived the efficacy of virtual recovery meetings, compared with that of in-person meetings.

The investigators analyzed how often certain words, phrases, or issues came up during seven in-person recovery meetings held before the COVID-19 pandemic as well as observational data from seven virtual recovery-support meetings held during the pandemic.

On the pro side, the respondents cited convenience, comfort at home, and increased accessibility to counseling for patients.

In addition, because there was no need to travel, virtual meetings were cost effective. Such meetings could expand the recovery world, inasmuch as individuals could attend recovery meetings in other parts of the country.

Perceived disadvantages included challenges involving technology, because learning new apps such as Zoom could be a problem for some patients. Distractions at home and lack of privacy were also cited, but for many, the most important drawback to virtual meetings was the lessening of emotional connection with others.
 

Impact on SUD treatment

In a second study, another team from USCSM-G reported similar findings when it explored the impact of telehealth on counselors as well as on patients who were undergoing SUD treatment during the pandemic.

Led by fourth-year medical students Elizabeth Whiteside and Kyleigh Connolly, the researchers assessed data from a focus group of six behavioral health counselors representing rural and city agencies throughout South Carolina.

Themes that emerged included concerns about mental health – counselors and patients were experiencing increased stress, depression, and anxiety.

“People had to now home school, there were job layoffs, increased responsibilities at home. Also, Narcan [naloxone] distribution was decreased, and this contributed to rising overdose rates,” Ms. Whiteside said in an interview.

The focus group concluded that the advantages of telehealth included greater ability to accept new patients, an increase in scheduling flexibility, and cost-effectiveness because it obviated the need for child care or transportation.

Disadvantages included problems involving privacy, because for many patients who were undergoing SUD recovery, it was impossible to be alone in a room or a designated area of their own.

The counselors also felt strongly that in-person care was needed for certain patients.

“Before COVID happened, [health care] barriers included transport to the actual center and finding care for children,” Ms. Connolly said in an interview.

“That’s where telehealth really bridged the gap for these people, and it actually became a lot easier for them to get in contact with their counselors, get into group meetings, and access other services,” she said.

Many of the study participants were not very optimistic about telehealth at first, Ms. Connolly noted. “They felt a little odd going on telehealth at first, but by the end, everybody said that they loved having it.”

“One of the things that came out often was that patients felt they could be more open and honest because they weren’t looking their counselor right in the face. They didn’t feel so horrible sharing,” Ms. Whiteside added.

Some counselors reported that some clients shared more details with them and that there was an ease of connecting. If a patient was a few minutes late to an appointment, telehealth would put in a call to find out where that patient was.

The counselors also had the ability to determine which of their patients would be good candidates for telehealth counseling and which patients would not do well with telehealth and would instead need in-patient care.

“This is something that really helped the experience go better for the counselors. They were able to determine which patient fit the mold for telehealth working for them. Obviously, patients who have more acute periods of mental health problems would do better with in-person care,” Ms. Whiteside said.
 

Here to stay?

In the third study from USCSM-G, investigators evaluated data from a focus group of four providers of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) who practiced in urban and rural areas throughout the state.

The respondents reflected on their experiences in using telemedicine for prescribing MOUD.

As in the previous studies, the providers had positive experiences with telemedicine. It increased patient access, participation, and satisfaction with treatment, and the benefits of telemedicine outweighed its potential limitations.

Still, technology was cited as a barrier to care, especially in rural areas.

“We found that there was a lack of good internet in certain rural parts of South Carolina, and that lack of the proper electronic devices ... could also make it difficult to access telemedicine,” lead author Kellie Shell said in an interview.

As noted in the other studies, the providers expressed a desire that telemedicine incorporate safeguards that would enable clinicians to identify a particular patient’s location in order that authorities could be dispatched if an emergency were to arise.

The clinicians also said that monitoring for diversion and performing pill counts were more difficult to do via telemedicine.

“We definitely have to improve infrastructure, especially in rural areas, so that all people have access to telemedicine,” Ms. Shell said.

“Overall, the providers were won over with telemedicine, and some predicted telehealth and virtual visits were here to stay, even after COVID,” she added.

The three posters provide useful insight into the potential advantages and disadvantages of telehealth in SUD settings, experts said.
 

Telehealth data ‘very limited’

Commenting on the research, Lewei (Allison) Lin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted that “there is such limited information” about the use of telehealth for patients with SUD.

“These insights are helpful for us to start understanding the things that need to be considered, including clinician attitudes and perceptions,” said Dr. Lin, who was not involved with the studies.

“It will be key to have data as use of telemedicine increases during COVID-19 to help us see exactly how it should be used and to better understand the actual impacts and whether or not it is increasing accessibility, and for which patients,” she added.

David Kan, MD, chief medical officer at Bright Heart Health, San Ramon, Calif., has had experience with telehealth for SUD and has found that conducting pill counts with his patients has not been a problem.

“The Shell poster covers telemedicine well,” Dr. Kan said in an interview.

However, “I disagree with their point that diversion prevention is harder via telemedicine. In my experience, it is easier, as you can do pill or wrapper counts almost on demand. You can also do daily observed dosing with pill counts if diversion is suspected,” he said.

Dr. Kan also suggested ways to cope with problems involving privacy. “Privacy concerns are always an issue but can be mitigated with headphones and a scan of the room with the telehealth technology if a privacy concern arises.”

He acknowledged that in-person meetings, especially through well-established programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), will always be important. But he pointed out that people are finding ways to meet safely and have in-person connections.

“The AA has been providing virtual recovery meetings long before COVID. The common complaint is the loss of fellowship associated with recovery groups. I don’t know of a way to get around this short of vaccines,” Dr. Kan said. However, “people have adapted impressively with masked outdoor meetings and other forms of safe gathering.”

The investigators, Dr. Lin, and Dr. Kan reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rapid uptick in virtual recovery programs and telemedicine counseling sessions for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs). New research shows that these programs are acceptable and effective alternatives to in-person sessions.

FatCamera/E+

Study results from three research teams at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville (USCSM-G) show that SUD counselors in the state were satisfied with their experience with telehealth and virtual recovery meetings.

In one of the studies, five counselors who utilized a virtual meeting platform after the COVID-19 pandemic made in-person visits unsafe were surveyed. The respondents said they much preferred in-person meetings. However, they could also see that virtual meetings were filling an important need for their patients.

Two other studies echoed the results from the first. Clinicians who were leery of the new technology at first became more enthusiastic after they gained experience using it.

“We have lived in a society where there has been one right way, which has always been in-person meetings for recovery, such as Alcoholics Anonymous. It is a very structured process,” lead author Haley Fulton, a fourth-year medical student at USCSM-G, said in an interview.

“The onset of COVID really upended a lot of things, but ... now there may not be just one right way for recovery. There are alternatives to offer,” Ms. Fulton said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, which was held online this year because of the pandemic.
 

Huge need

“Virtual meetings may not be ideal, but some version of recovery is better than none. If we can make these meetings accessible to more people, this could promote recovery from substance use disorder,” Ms. Fulton said.

There is a huge need for counseling, and past research has shown that failure to attend meetings can precipitate relapse in many individuals.

In Ms. Fulton’s study, counselors were asked to describe how they perceived the efficacy of virtual recovery meetings, compared with that of in-person meetings.

The investigators analyzed how often certain words, phrases, or issues came up during seven in-person recovery meetings held before the COVID-19 pandemic as well as observational data from seven virtual recovery-support meetings held during the pandemic.

On the pro side, the respondents cited convenience, comfort at home, and increased accessibility to counseling for patients.

In addition, because there was no need to travel, virtual meetings were cost effective. Such meetings could expand the recovery world, inasmuch as individuals could attend recovery meetings in other parts of the country.

Perceived disadvantages included challenges involving technology, because learning new apps such as Zoom could be a problem for some patients. Distractions at home and lack of privacy were also cited, but for many, the most important drawback to virtual meetings was the lessening of emotional connection with others.
 

Impact on SUD treatment

In a second study, another team from USCSM-G reported similar findings when it explored the impact of telehealth on counselors as well as on patients who were undergoing SUD treatment during the pandemic.

Led by fourth-year medical students Elizabeth Whiteside and Kyleigh Connolly, the researchers assessed data from a focus group of six behavioral health counselors representing rural and city agencies throughout South Carolina.

Themes that emerged included concerns about mental health – counselors and patients were experiencing increased stress, depression, and anxiety.

“People had to now home school, there were job layoffs, increased responsibilities at home. Also, Narcan [naloxone] distribution was decreased, and this contributed to rising overdose rates,” Ms. Whiteside said in an interview.

The focus group concluded that the advantages of telehealth included greater ability to accept new patients, an increase in scheduling flexibility, and cost-effectiveness because it obviated the need for child care or transportation.

Disadvantages included problems involving privacy, because for many patients who were undergoing SUD recovery, it was impossible to be alone in a room or a designated area of their own.

The counselors also felt strongly that in-person care was needed for certain patients.

“Before COVID happened, [health care] barriers included transport to the actual center and finding care for children,” Ms. Connolly said in an interview.

“That’s where telehealth really bridged the gap for these people, and it actually became a lot easier for them to get in contact with their counselors, get into group meetings, and access other services,” she said.

Many of the study participants were not very optimistic about telehealth at first, Ms. Connolly noted. “They felt a little odd going on telehealth at first, but by the end, everybody said that they loved having it.”

“One of the things that came out often was that patients felt they could be more open and honest because they weren’t looking their counselor right in the face. They didn’t feel so horrible sharing,” Ms. Whiteside added.

Some counselors reported that some clients shared more details with them and that there was an ease of connecting. If a patient was a few minutes late to an appointment, telehealth would put in a call to find out where that patient was.

The counselors also had the ability to determine which of their patients would be good candidates for telehealth counseling and which patients would not do well with telehealth and would instead need in-patient care.

“This is something that really helped the experience go better for the counselors. They were able to determine which patient fit the mold for telehealth working for them. Obviously, patients who have more acute periods of mental health problems would do better with in-person care,” Ms. Whiteside said.
 

Here to stay?

In the third study from USCSM-G, investigators evaluated data from a focus group of four providers of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) who practiced in urban and rural areas throughout the state.

The respondents reflected on their experiences in using telemedicine for prescribing MOUD.

As in the previous studies, the providers had positive experiences with telemedicine. It increased patient access, participation, and satisfaction with treatment, and the benefits of telemedicine outweighed its potential limitations.

Still, technology was cited as a barrier to care, especially in rural areas.

“We found that there was a lack of good internet in certain rural parts of South Carolina, and that lack of the proper electronic devices ... could also make it difficult to access telemedicine,” lead author Kellie Shell said in an interview.

As noted in the other studies, the providers expressed a desire that telemedicine incorporate safeguards that would enable clinicians to identify a particular patient’s location in order that authorities could be dispatched if an emergency were to arise.

The clinicians also said that monitoring for diversion and performing pill counts were more difficult to do via telemedicine.

“We definitely have to improve infrastructure, especially in rural areas, so that all people have access to telemedicine,” Ms. Shell said.

“Overall, the providers were won over with telemedicine, and some predicted telehealth and virtual visits were here to stay, even after COVID,” she added.

The three posters provide useful insight into the potential advantages and disadvantages of telehealth in SUD settings, experts said.
 

Telehealth data ‘very limited’

Commenting on the research, Lewei (Allison) Lin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted that “there is such limited information” about the use of telehealth for patients with SUD.

“These insights are helpful for us to start understanding the things that need to be considered, including clinician attitudes and perceptions,” said Dr. Lin, who was not involved with the studies.

“It will be key to have data as use of telemedicine increases during COVID-19 to help us see exactly how it should be used and to better understand the actual impacts and whether or not it is increasing accessibility, and for which patients,” she added.

David Kan, MD, chief medical officer at Bright Heart Health, San Ramon, Calif., has had experience with telehealth for SUD and has found that conducting pill counts with his patients has not been a problem.

“The Shell poster covers telemedicine well,” Dr. Kan said in an interview.

However, “I disagree with their point that diversion prevention is harder via telemedicine. In my experience, it is easier, as you can do pill or wrapper counts almost on demand. You can also do daily observed dosing with pill counts if diversion is suspected,” he said.

Dr. Kan also suggested ways to cope with problems involving privacy. “Privacy concerns are always an issue but can be mitigated with headphones and a scan of the room with the telehealth technology if a privacy concern arises.”

He acknowledged that in-person meetings, especially through well-established programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), will always be important. But he pointed out that people are finding ways to meet safely and have in-person connections.

“The AA has been providing virtual recovery meetings long before COVID. The common complaint is the loss of fellowship associated with recovery groups. I don’t know of a way to get around this short of vaccines,” Dr. Kan said. However, “people have adapted impressively with masked outdoor meetings and other forms of safe gathering.”

The investigators, Dr. Lin, and Dr. Kan reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A public-private partnership, led by mental health advocate Patrick Kennedy and the head of the National Institute of Mental Health, Joshua Gordon, MD, PhD, want urgent action to address the wave of mental illness and suicide caused by COVID-19.

“Our country is in serious denial about the full impact of mental health in this country and certainly as part of this pandemic,” said former congressman Mr. Kennedy, cochair of the Action Alliance’s Mental Health & Suicide Prevention National Response to COVID-19, at a briefing unveiling the group’s new six-priority Action Plan.

“That’s reinforced when all we hear from is Dr. Fauci,” and only about the physical effects of the disease, said Mr. Kennedy, the founder of the Kennedy Forum, a nonprofit dedicated to changing the health system’s approach to mental health and substance use disorders.

“We’re seeing suffering on a whole new, unprecedented scale,” he said. Mr. Kennedy noted the huge effort to speed therapeutics and vaccines to the American public. “We need to bring that same sense of urgency to these deaths of despair hiding in plain sight.”

Dr. Gordon, NIMH’s director and a cochair of the National Response group, was also at the briefing.

“We know many people report experiencing symptoms of distress, including anxiety, sleep problems, depression, substance use, and suicidal thoughts at rates two to three times higher than we might expect in times before the pandemic. Just as the country has come together to mitigate the physical impacts of pandemic, we also have to identify how to mitigate the mental health impacts,” said Dr. Gordon.
 

Plan of action

Mr. Kennedy emphasized that it is crucial that federal lawmakers and regulators find a way to increase parity between mental and physical health.

Paramount in that effort would be ensuring stronger enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, he said.

That 1996 law requires health plans to ensure that benefits for physical and mental health were equivalent, but it has frequently been ignored. In 2019, a U.S. federal court found that one of the nation’s largest behavioral health insurers, United Behavioral Health, had been violating the law. Mr. Kennedy said he expects this decision to continue to have a positive impact on achieving parity.

In November, United was ordered by a federal judge to reprocess 67,000 claims that it illegally denied.

The Alliance’s Action Plan has six priorities:

• Change the national conversation about mental health and suicide.
• Increase access to evidence-based treatments for substance use and mental health disorders in specialty and primary care, and include better reimbursement for services and make permanent reimbursement for telehealth services.
• Increase the use of nonpunitive and supportive crisis intervention services, including keeping people out of the criminal justice system.
• Establish near real-time data collection systems to promptly identify changes in rates of suicide, overdose, and other key events, and of clusters or spikes.
• Ensure the equitable delivery of comprehensive and effective suicide prevention and mental health services for Black Americans, Latin Americans, American Indian/Alaskan Natives, LGBTQ individuals, and others disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
• Invest in prevention and early intervention approaches that treat the root causes of suicide and mental health problems.

Uptick in distress

Dr. Gordon noted that recent data indicate that, although ED visits for children are still down in 2020, compared with previous years, mental health ED visits are back to prepandemic levels.

A September survey showed an increase in suicidal thoughts and attempts, anxiety, and depression pandemic in youth because of the pandemic. Almost one-quarter of those surveyed said they knew a peer who developed suicidal thoughts since the start of the pandemic and 5% reported making a suicide attempt themselves.

In early December, research reported in JAMA Psychiatry showed the overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends in 2018 and 2019, and that all overdose-related incidents were about 17% above baseline in 2020.

COVID-19 also appears to be striking individuals who are living in behavioral health facilities, and some of those facilities are reducing inpatient care and other programs because they don’t have enough personal protective equipment, testing supplies, or staff to cope with the disease.

The facilities are not required to report infections to the federal government. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) issued a report based on their own offices’ survey of 10 large behavioral health program operators.

Eight of those operators – covering 376 facilities and more than 100,000 patients in 40 states and Puerto Rico – provided substantive responses.

More than half had at least one COVID case and 14% had large outbreaks of 10 or more cases. The infection rate for patients was in line with that of the general public.

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

A public-private partnership, led by mental health advocate Patrick Kennedy and the head of the National Institute of Mental Health, Joshua Gordon, MD, PhD, want urgent action to address the wave of mental illness and suicide caused by COVID-19.

“Our country is in serious denial about the full impact of mental health in this country and certainly as part of this pandemic,” said former congressman Mr. Kennedy, cochair of the Action Alliance’s Mental Health & Suicide Prevention National Response to COVID-19, at a briefing unveiling the group’s new six-priority Action Plan.

“That’s reinforced when all we hear from is Dr. Fauci,” and only about the physical effects of the disease, said Mr. Kennedy, the founder of the Kennedy Forum, a nonprofit dedicated to changing the health system’s approach to mental health and substance use disorders.

“We’re seeing suffering on a whole new, unprecedented scale,” he said. Mr. Kennedy noted the huge effort to speed therapeutics and vaccines to the American public. “We need to bring that same sense of urgency to these deaths of despair hiding in plain sight.”

Dr. Gordon, NIMH’s director and a cochair of the National Response group, was also at the briefing.

“We know many people report experiencing symptoms of distress, including anxiety, sleep problems, depression, substance use, and suicidal thoughts at rates two to three times higher than we might expect in times before the pandemic. Just as the country has come together to mitigate the physical impacts of pandemic, we also have to identify how to mitigate the mental health impacts,” said Dr. Gordon.
 

Plan of action

Mr. Kennedy emphasized that it is crucial that federal lawmakers and regulators find a way to increase parity between mental and physical health.

Paramount in that effort would be ensuring stronger enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, he said.

That 1996 law requires health plans to ensure that benefits for physical and mental health were equivalent, but it has frequently been ignored. In 2019, a U.S. federal court found that one of the nation’s largest behavioral health insurers, United Behavioral Health, had been violating the law. Mr. Kennedy said he expects this decision to continue to have a positive impact on achieving parity.

In November, United was ordered by a federal judge to reprocess 67,000 claims that it illegally denied.

The Alliance’s Action Plan has six priorities:

• Change the national conversation about mental health and suicide.
• Increase access to evidence-based treatments for substance use and mental health disorders in specialty and primary care, and include better reimbursement for services and make permanent reimbursement for telehealth services.
• Increase the use of nonpunitive and supportive crisis intervention services, including keeping people out of the criminal justice system.
• Establish near real-time data collection systems to promptly identify changes in rates of suicide, overdose, and other key events, and of clusters or spikes.
• Ensure the equitable delivery of comprehensive and effective suicide prevention and mental health services for Black Americans, Latin Americans, American Indian/Alaskan Natives, LGBTQ individuals, and others disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
• Invest in prevention and early intervention approaches that treat the root causes of suicide and mental health problems.

Uptick in distress

Dr. Gordon noted that recent data indicate that, although ED visits for children are still down in 2020, compared with previous years, mental health ED visits are back to prepandemic levels.

A September survey showed an increase in suicidal thoughts and attempts, anxiety, and depression pandemic in youth because of the pandemic. Almost one-quarter of those surveyed said they knew a peer who developed suicidal thoughts since the start of the pandemic and 5% reported making a suicide attempt themselves.

In early December, research reported in JAMA Psychiatry showed the overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends in 2018 and 2019, and that all overdose-related incidents were about 17% above baseline in 2020.

COVID-19 also appears to be striking individuals who are living in behavioral health facilities, and some of those facilities are reducing inpatient care and other programs because they don’t have enough personal protective equipment, testing supplies, or staff to cope with the disease.

The facilities are not required to report infections to the federal government. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) issued a report based on their own offices’ survey of 10 large behavioral health program operators.

Eight of those operators – covering 376 facilities and more than 100,000 patients in 40 states and Puerto Rico – provided substantive responses.

More than half had at least one COVID case and 14% had large outbreaks of 10 or more cases. The infection rate for patients was in line with that of the general public.

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

A public-private partnership, led by mental health advocate Patrick Kennedy and the head of the National Institute of Mental Health, Joshua Gordon, MD, PhD, want urgent action to address the wave of mental illness and suicide caused by COVID-19.

“Our country is in serious denial about the full impact of mental health in this country and certainly as part of this pandemic,” said former congressman Mr. Kennedy, cochair of the Action Alliance’s Mental Health & Suicide Prevention National Response to COVID-19, at a briefing unveiling the group’s new six-priority Action Plan.

“That’s reinforced when all we hear from is Dr. Fauci,” and only about the physical effects of the disease, said Mr. Kennedy, the founder of the Kennedy Forum, a nonprofit dedicated to changing the health system’s approach to mental health and substance use disorders.

“We’re seeing suffering on a whole new, unprecedented scale,” he said. Mr. Kennedy noted the huge effort to speed therapeutics and vaccines to the American public. “We need to bring that same sense of urgency to these deaths of despair hiding in plain sight.”

Dr. Gordon, NIMH’s director and a cochair of the National Response group, was also at the briefing.

“We know many people report experiencing symptoms of distress, including anxiety, sleep problems, depression, substance use, and suicidal thoughts at rates two to three times higher than we might expect in times before the pandemic. Just as the country has come together to mitigate the physical impacts of pandemic, we also have to identify how to mitigate the mental health impacts,” said Dr. Gordon.
 

Plan of action

Mr. Kennedy emphasized that it is crucial that federal lawmakers and regulators find a way to increase parity between mental and physical health.

Paramount in that effort would be ensuring stronger enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, he said.

That 1996 law requires health plans to ensure that benefits for physical and mental health were equivalent, but it has frequently been ignored. In 2019, a U.S. federal court found that one of the nation’s largest behavioral health insurers, United Behavioral Health, had been violating the law. Mr. Kennedy said he expects this decision to continue to have a positive impact on achieving parity.

In November, United was ordered by a federal judge to reprocess 67,000 claims that it illegally denied.

The Alliance’s Action Plan has six priorities:

• Change the national conversation about mental health and suicide.
• Increase access to evidence-based treatments for substance use and mental health disorders in specialty and primary care, and include better reimbursement for services and make permanent reimbursement for telehealth services.
• Increase the use of nonpunitive and supportive crisis intervention services, including keeping people out of the criminal justice system.
• Establish near real-time data collection systems to promptly identify changes in rates of suicide, overdose, and other key events, and of clusters or spikes.
• Ensure the equitable delivery of comprehensive and effective suicide prevention and mental health services for Black Americans, Latin Americans, American Indian/Alaskan Natives, LGBTQ individuals, and others disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
• Invest in prevention and early intervention approaches that treat the root causes of suicide and mental health problems.

Uptick in distress

Dr. Gordon noted that recent data indicate that, although ED visits for children are still down in 2020, compared with previous years, mental health ED visits are back to prepandemic levels.

A September survey showed an increase in suicidal thoughts and attempts, anxiety, and depression pandemic in youth because of the pandemic. Almost one-quarter of those surveyed said they knew a peer who developed suicidal thoughts since the start of the pandemic and 5% reported making a suicide attempt themselves.

In early December, research reported in JAMA Psychiatry showed the overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends in 2018 and 2019, and that all overdose-related incidents were about 17% above baseline in 2020.

COVID-19 also appears to be striking individuals who are living in behavioral health facilities, and some of those facilities are reducing inpatient care and other programs because they don’t have enough personal protective equipment, testing supplies, or staff to cope with the disease.

The facilities are not required to report infections to the federal government. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) issued a report based on their own offices’ survey of 10 large behavioral health program operators.

Eight of those operators – covering 376 facilities and more than 100,000 patients in 40 states and Puerto Rico – provided substantive responses.

More than half had at least one COVID case and 14% had large outbreaks of 10 or more cases. The infection rate for patients was in line with that of the general public.

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

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Two recent multicenter, open-label RCTs, 1 in the United States and 1 in Norway, compared monthly XR-NTX with daily BUP-NX.^1,2 Both studies evaluated effectiveness (defined by either the number of people who relapsed or self-reported opioid use), cravings, and safety (defined as the absence of serious adverse events such as medically complex withdrawal or fatal overdose).

The participant populations were similar in both mean age and mean age of onset of opioid use. Duration of opioid use was reported differently (total duration or years of heavy heroin or other opioid use) and couldn’t be compared directly.

Naltrexone and buprenorphine-naloxone are similarly effective

The US study enrolled 570 opioid-dependent participants in a 24-week comparative effectiveness trial.¹ The 8 study sites were community treatment programs, and the participants were recruited during voluntary inpatient detoxification admissions. Some participants were randomized while on methadone or buprenorphine tapers and some after complete detoxification.

The intention-to-treat analysis included 283 patients in the XR-NTX group and 287 in the BUP-NX group. At 24 weeks, the number of participants who’d had a relapse event (self-reported use or positive urine drug test for nonstudy opioids or refusal to provide a urine sample) was 185 (65%) for XR-NTX compared with 163 (57%) for BUP-NX (odds ratio [OR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 2.01; P = .036).

The 12-week Norwegian noninferiority trial enrolled 159 participants.² In contrast to the US study, all participants were required to complete inpatient detoxification before randomization and induction onto the study medication.

Patients on BUP-NX reported 3.6 more days of heroin use within the previous 28 days than patients in the XR-NTX group (95% CI, 1.2 to 6; P = .003). For other illicit opioids, self-reported use was 2.4 days greater in the BUP-NX group (95% CI, −0.1 to 4.9; P = .06). Retention with XR-NTX was noninferior to BUP-NX (mean days in therapy [standard deviation], 69.3 [25.9] and 63.7 [29.9]; P = .33).

Randomizing after complete detox reduces induction failures

Naltrexone, a full opioid antagonist, precipitates withdrawal when a full or partial opioid agonist is engaging the opioid receptor. For this reason, an opioid-free interval of 7 to 10 days is generally recommended before initiating naltrexone, raising the risk for relapse during the induction process.

Continue to: The Norwegian trial...

The Norwegian trial randomized participants after detoxification. The US trial, in which some participants were randomized before completing detoxification, reported 79 (28%) induction failures for XR-NTX and 17 (6%) for BUP-NX.¹ As a result, a per protocol analysis was completed with the 204 patients on XR-NTX and 270 patients on BUP-NX who were successfully inducted onto a study medication. The 24-week relapse rate was 52% (106) for XR-NTX and 56% (150) for BUP-NX (OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.25; P = .44).

Cravings, adverse events, and cost considerations

Patients reported cravings using a visual analog scale. At 12 weeks in both studies, the XR-NTX groups reported fewer cravings than the BUP-NX groups, although by the end of the 24-week US trial, no statistically significant difference in cravings was found between the 2 groups.^1,2

The Norwegian trial found a difference between the XR-NTX and the BUP-NX groups in the percentage of nonserious adverse events such as nausea or chills (60.6% in the XR-NTX group vs 30.6% in the BUP-NX group; P < .001), and the US trial found a difference in total number of overdoses (64% of the total overdoses were in the XR-NTX group). Neither trial, however, reported a statistically significant difference in serious adverse events or fatal overdoses between the 2 groups.^1,2

The price for naltrexone is $1665.06 per monthly injection.³ The price for buprenorphine-naloxone varies depending on dose and formulation, with a general range of $527 to $600 per month at 16 mg/d.⁴

Editor’s takeaway

Two higher-quality RCTs show similar but imperfect effectiveness for both XR-NTX and daily sublingual BUP-NX. Injectable naltrexone’s higher cost may influence medication choice.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Two recent multicenter, open-label RCTs, 1 in the United States and 1 in Norway, compared monthly XR-NTX with daily BUP-NX.^1,2 Both studies evaluated effectiveness (defined by either the number of people who relapsed or self-reported opioid use), cravings, and safety (defined as the absence of serious adverse events such as medically complex withdrawal or fatal overdose).

The participant populations were similar in both mean age and mean age of onset of opioid use. Duration of opioid use was reported differently (total duration or years of heavy heroin or other opioid use) and couldn’t be compared directly.

Naltrexone and buprenorphine-naloxone are similarly effective

The US study enrolled 570 opioid-dependent participants in a 24-week comparative effectiveness trial.¹ The 8 study sites were community treatment programs, and the participants were recruited during voluntary inpatient detoxification admissions. Some participants were randomized while on methadone or buprenorphine tapers and some after complete detoxification.

The intention-to-treat analysis included 283 patients in the XR-NTX group and 287 in the BUP-NX group. At 24 weeks, the number of participants who’d had a relapse event (self-reported use or positive urine drug test for nonstudy opioids or refusal to provide a urine sample) was 185 (65%) for XR-NTX compared with 163 (57%) for BUP-NX (odds ratio [OR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 2.01; P = .036).

The 12-week Norwegian noninferiority trial enrolled 159 participants.² In contrast to the US study, all participants were required to complete inpatient detoxification before randomization and induction onto the study medication.

Patients on BUP-NX reported 3.6 more days of heroin use within the previous 28 days than patients in the XR-NTX group (95% CI, 1.2 to 6; P = .003). For other illicit opioids, self-reported use was 2.4 days greater in the BUP-NX group (95% CI, −0.1 to 4.9; P = .06). Retention with XR-NTX was noninferior to BUP-NX (mean days in therapy [standard deviation], 69.3 [25.9] and 63.7 [29.9]; P = .33).

Randomizing after complete detox reduces induction failures

Naltrexone, a full opioid antagonist, precipitates withdrawal when a full or partial opioid agonist is engaging the opioid receptor. For this reason, an opioid-free interval of 7 to 10 days is generally recommended before initiating naltrexone, raising the risk for relapse during the induction process.

Continue to: The Norwegian trial...

The Norwegian trial randomized participants after detoxification. The US trial, in which some participants were randomized before completing detoxification, reported 79 (28%) induction failures for XR-NTX and 17 (6%) for BUP-NX.¹ As a result, a per protocol analysis was completed with the 204 patients on XR-NTX and 270 patients on BUP-NX who were successfully inducted onto a study medication. The 24-week relapse rate was 52% (106) for XR-NTX and 56% (150) for BUP-NX (OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.25; P = .44).

Cravings, adverse events, and cost considerations

Patients reported cravings using a visual analog scale. At 12 weeks in both studies, the XR-NTX groups reported fewer cravings than the BUP-NX groups, although by the end of the 24-week US trial, no statistically significant difference in cravings was found between the 2 groups.^1,2

The Norwegian trial found a difference between the XR-NTX and the BUP-NX groups in the percentage of nonserious adverse events such as nausea or chills (60.6% in the XR-NTX group vs 30.6% in the BUP-NX group; P < .001), and the US trial found a difference in total number of overdoses (64% of the total overdoses were in the XR-NTX group). Neither trial, however, reported a statistically significant difference in serious adverse events or fatal overdoses between the 2 groups.^1,2

The price for naltrexone is $1665.06 per monthly injection.³ The price for buprenorphine-naloxone varies depending on dose and formulation, with a general range of $527 to $600 per month at 16 mg/d.⁴

Editor’s takeaway

Two higher-quality RCTs show similar but imperfect effectiveness for both XR-NTX and daily sublingual BUP-NX. Injectable naltrexone’s higher cost may influence medication choice.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Two recent multicenter, open-label RCTs, 1 in the United States and 1 in Norway, compared monthly XR-NTX with daily BUP-NX.^1,2 Both studies evaluated effectiveness (defined by either the number of people who relapsed or self-reported opioid use), cravings, and safety (defined as the absence of serious adverse events such as medically complex withdrawal or fatal overdose).

The participant populations were similar in both mean age and mean age of onset of opioid use. Duration of opioid use was reported differently (total duration or years of heavy heroin or other opioid use) and couldn’t be compared directly.

Naltrexone and buprenorphine-naloxone are similarly effective

The US study enrolled 570 opioid-dependent participants in a 24-week comparative effectiveness trial.¹ The 8 study sites were community treatment programs, and the participants were recruited during voluntary inpatient detoxification admissions. Some participants were randomized while on methadone or buprenorphine tapers and some after complete detoxification.

The intention-to-treat analysis included 283 patients in the XR-NTX group and 287 in the BUP-NX group. At 24 weeks, the number of participants who’d had a relapse event (self-reported use or positive urine drug test for nonstudy opioids or refusal to provide a urine sample) was 185 (65%) for XR-NTX compared with 163 (57%) for BUP-NX (odds ratio [OR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 2.01; P = .036).

The 12-week Norwegian noninferiority trial enrolled 159 participants.² In contrast to the US study, all participants were required to complete inpatient detoxification before randomization and induction onto the study medication.

Patients on BUP-NX reported 3.6 more days of heroin use within the previous 28 days than patients in the XR-NTX group (95% CI, 1.2 to 6; P = .003). For other illicit opioids, self-reported use was 2.4 days greater in the BUP-NX group (95% CI, −0.1 to 4.9; P = .06). Retention with XR-NTX was noninferior to BUP-NX (mean days in therapy [standard deviation], 69.3 [25.9] and 63.7 [29.9]; P = .33).

Randomizing after complete detox reduces induction failures

Naltrexone, a full opioid antagonist, precipitates withdrawal when a full or partial opioid agonist is engaging the opioid receptor. For this reason, an opioid-free interval of 7 to 10 days is generally recommended before initiating naltrexone, raising the risk for relapse during the induction process.

Continue to: The Norwegian trial...

The Norwegian trial randomized participants after detoxification. The US trial, in which some participants were randomized before completing detoxification, reported 79 (28%) induction failures for XR-NTX and 17 (6%) for BUP-NX.¹ As a result, a per protocol analysis was completed with the 204 patients on XR-NTX and 270 patients on BUP-NX who were successfully inducted onto a study medication. The 24-week relapse rate was 52% (106) for XR-NTX and 56% (150) for BUP-NX (OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.25; P = .44).

Cravings, adverse events, and cost considerations

Patients reported cravings using a visual analog scale. At 12 weeks in both studies, the XR-NTX groups reported fewer cravings than the BUP-NX groups, although by the end of the 24-week US trial, no statistically significant difference in cravings was found between the 2 groups.^1,2

The Norwegian trial found a difference between the XR-NTX and the BUP-NX groups in the percentage of nonserious adverse events such as nausea or chills (60.6% in the XR-NTX group vs 30.6% in the BUP-NX group; P < .001), and the US trial found a difference in total number of overdoses (64% of the total overdoses were in the XR-NTX group). Neither trial, however, reported a statistically significant difference in serious adverse events or fatal overdoses between the 2 groups.^1,2

The price for naltrexone is $1665.06 per monthly injection.³ The price for buprenorphine-naloxone varies depending on dose and formulation, with a general range of $527 to $600 per month at 16 mg/d.⁴

Editor’s takeaway

Two higher-quality RCTs show similar but imperfect effectiveness for both XR-NTX and daily sublingual BUP-NX. Injectable naltrexone’s higher cost may influence medication choice.

There has been a sharp increase in overdose-related cardiac arrests in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new analysis shows.

Overall rates in 2020 were elevated above the baseline from 2018 and 2019 by about 50%, the data show.

“Our results suggest that overdoses may be strongly on the rise in 2020, and efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have not been effective at reducing overdoses,” Joseph Friedman, MPH, MD/PhD student, medical scientist training program, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“We need to invest heavily in substance use treatment, harm reduction, and the structural drivers of overdose as core elements of the COVID-19 response,” said Mr. Friedman, who coauthored the study with UCLA colleague David Schriger, MD, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH, Northeastern University, Boston.

The study was published as a research letter Dec. 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Social isolation a key driver

Emergency medical services (EMS) data are available in near real time, providing a novel source of up-to-date information to monitor epidemiological shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the study, the researchers leveraged data from the National EMS Information System, a large registry of more than 10,000 EMS agencies in 47 states that represent over 80% of all EMS calls nationally in 2020. They used the data to track shifts in overdose-related cardiac arrests observed by EMS.

They found clear evidence of a large-scale uptick in overdose-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends observed during 2018 and 2019, including a maximum peak of 123% above baseline reached in early May.

All overdose-related incidents (fatal and nonfatal) were elevated in 2020, by about 17% above baseline. However, there were larger increases in fatal overdose-related incidents, compared to all incidents, which may suggest a rising case fatality rate, the authors noted.

The observed trends line up in time with reductions in mobility (a metric of social interaction), as measured using cell phone data, they wrote.

“Many of the trends predicted by experts at the beginning of the pandemic could cause these shifts. Increases in social isolation likely play an important role, as people using [drugs] alone are less likely to receive help when they need it. Also shifts in the drug supply, and reduced access to healthcare and treatment,” said Mr. Friedman.

“We need to undertake short- and long-term strategies to combat the rising tide of overdose mortality in the United States,” he added.

In the short term, Mr. Friedman suggested reducing financial and logistical barriers for accessing a safe opioid supply. Such measures include allowing pharmacies to dispense methadone, allowing all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without a special waiver, and releasing emergency funds to make these medications universally affordable.

“In the longer term, we should acknowledge that overdose is a symptom of structural problems in the U.S. We need to invest in making employment, housing, education, and health care accessible to all to address the upstream drivers of overdose,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a sharp increase in overdose-related cardiac arrests in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new analysis shows.

Overall rates in 2020 were elevated above the baseline from 2018 and 2019 by about 50%, the data show.

“Our results suggest that overdoses may be strongly on the rise in 2020, and efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have not been effective at reducing overdoses,” Joseph Friedman, MPH, MD/PhD student, medical scientist training program, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“We need to invest heavily in substance use treatment, harm reduction, and the structural drivers of overdose as core elements of the COVID-19 response,” said Mr. Friedman, who coauthored the study with UCLA colleague David Schriger, MD, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH, Northeastern University, Boston.

The study was published as a research letter Dec. 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Social isolation a key driver

Emergency medical services (EMS) data are available in near real time, providing a novel source of up-to-date information to monitor epidemiological shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the study, the researchers leveraged data from the National EMS Information System, a large registry of more than 10,000 EMS agencies in 47 states that represent over 80% of all EMS calls nationally in 2020. They used the data to track shifts in overdose-related cardiac arrests observed by EMS.

They found clear evidence of a large-scale uptick in overdose-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends observed during 2018 and 2019, including a maximum peak of 123% above baseline reached in early May.

All overdose-related incidents (fatal and nonfatal) were elevated in 2020, by about 17% above baseline. However, there were larger increases in fatal overdose-related incidents, compared to all incidents, which may suggest a rising case fatality rate, the authors noted.

The observed trends line up in time with reductions in mobility (a metric of social interaction), as measured using cell phone data, they wrote.

“Many of the trends predicted by experts at the beginning of the pandemic could cause these shifts. Increases in social isolation likely play an important role, as people using [drugs] alone are less likely to receive help when they need it. Also shifts in the drug supply, and reduced access to healthcare and treatment,” said Mr. Friedman.

“We need to undertake short- and long-term strategies to combat the rising tide of overdose mortality in the United States,” he added.

In the short term, Mr. Friedman suggested reducing financial and logistical barriers for accessing a safe opioid supply. Such measures include allowing pharmacies to dispense methadone, allowing all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without a special waiver, and releasing emergency funds to make these medications universally affordable.

“In the longer term, we should acknowledge that overdose is a symptom of structural problems in the U.S. We need to invest in making employment, housing, education, and health care accessible to all to address the upstream drivers of overdose,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a sharp increase in overdose-related cardiac arrests in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new analysis shows.

Overall rates in 2020 were elevated above the baseline from 2018 and 2019 by about 50%, the data show.

“Our results suggest that overdoses may be strongly on the rise in 2020, and efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have not been effective at reducing overdoses,” Joseph Friedman, MPH, MD/PhD student, medical scientist training program, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“We need to invest heavily in substance use treatment, harm reduction, and the structural drivers of overdose as core elements of the COVID-19 response,” said Mr. Friedman, who coauthored the study with UCLA colleague David Schriger, MD, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH, Northeastern University, Boston.

The study was published as a research letter Dec. 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Social isolation a key driver

Emergency medical services (EMS) data are available in near real time, providing a novel source of up-to-date information to monitor epidemiological shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the study, the researchers leveraged data from the National EMS Information System, a large registry of more than 10,000 EMS agencies in 47 states that represent over 80% of all EMS calls nationally in 2020. They used the data to track shifts in overdose-related cardiac arrests observed by EMS.

They found clear evidence of a large-scale uptick in overdose-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends observed during 2018 and 2019, including a maximum peak of 123% above baseline reached in early May.

All overdose-related incidents (fatal and nonfatal) were elevated in 2020, by about 17% above baseline. However, there were larger increases in fatal overdose-related incidents, compared to all incidents, which may suggest a rising case fatality rate, the authors noted.

The observed trends line up in time with reductions in mobility (a metric of social interaction), as measured using cell phone data, they wrote.

“Many of the trends predicted by experts at the beginning of the pandemic could cause these shifts. Increases in social isolation likely play an important role, as people using [drugs] alone are less likely to receive help when they need it. Also shifts in the drug supply, and reduced access to healthcare and treatment,” said Mr. Friedman.

“We need to undertake short- and long-term strategies to combat the rising tide of overdose mortality in the United States,” he added.

In the short term, Mr. Friedman suggested reducing financial and logistical barriers for accessing a safe opioid supply. Such measures include allowing pharmacies to dispense methadone, allowing all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without a special waiver, and releasing emergency funds to make these medications universally affordable.

“In the longer term, we should acknowledge that overdose is a symptom of structural problems in the U.S. We need to invest in making employment, housing, education, and health care accessible to all to address the upstream drivers of overdose,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is “compelling” evidence of the harmful effects of alcohol on the brain. The greatest risk occurs during three periods of life that are marked by dynamic brain changes, say researchers from Australia and the United Kingdom.

alenkadr/Thinkstock

The three periods are:

• Gestation (conception to birth), which is characterized by extensive production, migration, and differentiation of neurons, as well as substantial apoptosis.
• Later adolescence (aged 15-19 years), a period marked by synaptic pruning and increased axonal myelination.
• Older adulthood (aged 65 and beyond), a period associated with brain atrophy. Changes accelerate after age 65, largely driven by decreases in neuron size and reductions in the number of dendritic spines and synapses.

These changes in neurocircuitry could increase sensitivity to the neurotoxic effects of alcohol, Louise Mewton, PhD, of the Center for Healthy Brain Aging, University of New South Wales, Sydney, and colleagues said.

“A life course perspective on brain health supports the formulation of policy and public health interventions to reduce alcohol use and misuse at all ages,” they wrote in an editorial published online Dec. 4 in The BMJ.
 

Worrisome trends

Research has shown that globally about 10% of pregnant women drink alcohol. In European countries, the rates are much higher than the global average.

Heavy drinking during gestation can cause fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which is associated with widespread reductions in brain volume and cognitive impairment.

Even low or moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy is significantly associated with poorer psychological and behavioral outcomes in children, the investigators noted.

In adolescence, more than 20% of 15- to 19-year-olds in European and other high-income countries report at least occasional binge drinking, which is linked to reduced brain volume, poorer white matter development, and deficits in a range of cognitive functions, they added.

In a recent study of older adults, alcohol use disorders emerged as one of the strongest modifiable risk factors for dementia (particularly early-onset dementia), compared with other established risk factors such as high blood pressure and smoking.

Alcohol use disorders are relatively rare in older adults, but even moderate drinking during midlife has been linked to “small but significant” brain volume loss, the authors said.

Dr. Mewton and colleagues said demographic trends may compound the effect of alcohol use on brain health.

They noted that women are now just as likely as men to drink alcohol and suffer alcohol-related problems. Global consumption is forecast to increase further in the next decade.

Although the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on alcohol intake and related harms remain unclear, alcohol use has increased in the long term after other major public health crises, they added.

Given the data, Dr. Mewton and colleagues called for “an integrated approach” to reducing the harms of alcohol intake at all ages.

“Population-based interventions such as guidelines on low-risk drinking, alcohol pricing policies, and lower drink driving limits need to be accompanied by the development of training and care pathways that consider the human brain at risk throughout life,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

There is “compelling” evidence of the harmful effects of alcohol on the brain. The greatest risk occurs during three periods of life that are marked by dynamic brain changes, say researchers from Australia and the United Kingdom.

alenkadr/Thinkstock

The three periods are:

• Gestation (conception to birth), which is characterized by extensive production, migration, and differentiation of neurons, as well as substantial apoptosis.
• Later adolescence (aged 15-19 years), a period marked by synaptic pruning and increased axonal myelination.
• Older adulthood (aged 65 and beyond), a period associated with brain atrophy. Changes accelerate after age 65, largely driven by decreases in neuron size and reductions in the number of dendritic spines and synapses.

These changes in neurocircuitry could increase sensitivity to the neurotoxic effects of alcohol, Louise Mewton, PhD, of the Center for Healthy Brain Aging, University of New South Wales, Sydney, and colleagues said.

“A life course perspective on brain health supports the formulation of policy and public health interventions to reduce alcohol use and misuse at all ages,” they wrote in an editorial published online Dec. 4 in The BMJ.
 

Worrisome trends

Research has shown that globally about 10% of pregnant women drink alcohol. In European countries, the rates are much higher than the global average.

Heavy drinking during gestation can cause fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which is associated with widespread reductions in brain volume and cognitive impairment.

Even low or moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy is significantly associated with poorer psychological and behavioral outcomes in children, the investigators noted.

In adolescence, more than 20% of 15- to 19-year-olds in European and other high-income countries report at least occasional binge drinking, which is linked to reduced brain volume, poorer white matter development, and deficits in a range of cognitive functions, they added.

In a recent study of older adults, alcohol use disorders emerged as one of the strongest modifiable risk factors for dementia (particularly early-onset dementia), compared with other established risk factors such as high blood pressure and smoking.

Alcohol use disorders are relatively rare in older adults, but even moderate drinking during midlife has been linked to “small but significant” brain volume loss, the authors said.

Dr. Mewton and colleagues said demographic trends may compound the effect of alcohol use on brain health.

They noted that women are now just as likely as men to drink alcohol and suffer alcohol-related problems. Global consumption is forecast to increase further in the next decade.

Although the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on alcohol intake and related harms remain unclear, alcohol use has increased in the long term after other major public health crises, they added.

Given the data, Dr. Mewton and colleagues called for “an integrated approach” to reducing the harms of alcohol intake at all ages.

“Population-based interventions such as guidelines on low-risk drinking, alcohol pricing policies, and lower drink driving limits need to be accompanied by the development of training and care pathways that consider the human brain at risk throughout life,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

There is “compelling” evidence of the harmful effects of alcohol on the brain. The greatest risk occurs during three periods of life that are marked by dynamic brain changes, say researchers from Australia and the United Kingdom.

alenkadr/Thinkstock

The three periods are:

• Gestation (conception to birth), which is characterized by extensive production, migration, and differentiation of neurons, as well as substantial apoptosis.
• Later adolescence (aged 15-19 years), a period marked by synaptic pruning and increased axonal myelination.
• Older adulthood (aged 65 and beyond), a period associated with brain atrophy. Changes accelerate after age 65, largely driven by decreases in neuron size and reductions in the number of dendritic spines and synapses.

These changes in neurocircuitry could increase sensitivity to the neurotoxic effects of alcohol, Louise Mewton, PhD, of the Center for Healthy Brain Aging, University of New South Wales, Sydney, and colleagues said.

“A life course perspective on brain health supports the formulation of policy and public health interventions to reduce alcohol use and misuse at all ages,” they wrote in an editorial published online Dec. 4 in The BMJ.
 

Worrisome trends

Research has shown that globally about 10% of pregnant women drink alcohol. In European countries, the rates are much higher than the global average.

Heavy drinking during gestation can cause fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which is associated with widespread reductions in brain volume and cognitive impairment.

Even low or moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy is significantly associated with poorer psychological and behavioral outcomes in children, the investigators noted.

In adolescence, more than 20% of 15- to 19-year-olds in European and other high-income countries report at least occasional binge drinking, which is linked to reduced brain volume, poorer white matter development, and deficits in a range of cognitive functions, they added.

In a recent study of older adults, alcohol use disorders emerged as one of the strongest modifiable risk factors for dementia (particularly early-onset dementia), compared with other established risk factors such as high blood pressure and smoking.

Alcohol use disorders are relatively rare in older adults, but even moderate drinking during midlife has been linked to “small but significant” brain volume loss, the authors said.

Dr. Mewton and colleagues said demographic trends may compound the effect of alcohol use on brain health.

They noted that women are now just as likely as men to drink alcohol and suffer alcohol-related problems. Global consumption is forecast to increase further in the next decade.

Although the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on alcohol intake and related harms remain unclear, alcohol use has increased in the long term after other major public health crises, they added.

Given the data, Dr. Mewton and colleagues called for “an integrated approach” to reducing the harms of alcohol intake at all ages.

“Population-based interventions such as guidelines on low-risk drinking, alcohol pricing policies, and lower drink driving limits need to be accompanied by the development of training and care pathways that consider the human brain at risk throughout life,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In recent years, Percocet (oxycodone/paracetamol) has experienced a meteoric rise to prominence because of the presence of conspicuous references in pop culture and the ever-evolving hip-hop scene,¹ so much so that even propafenone is being mislabeled as the agent.² It is of utmost importance for clinicians to be made aware of the adverse effects and the treatment protocols associated with Percocet as well as propafenone.

Propafenone is identified as a class 1C antiarrhythmic with adverse effects associated with that particular class of drugs (e.g., generalized tonic-clonic seizures coupled with widened QRS complex), however, Percocet’s toxidrome is the product of the opioid/nonopioid (in the form of oxycodone/acetaminophen) components found within the formulation. Percocet is often recreationally used with MDMA (“molly”) or ecstasy as popularized by the lyrics of “Mask Off” by Future (“Percocets, Molly, Percocets”).^3,4

Addressing the challenge of imitation Percocet pills

Differentiating the untoward effects of Percocet and propafenone isn’t too challenging because the agents belong to separate classes – the problem is the use of deceitful labels on propafenone with both medications sporting the “512 imprint” on their respective pills. Initial symptoms of propafenone ingestion may include weakness and dizziness followed by seizures.⁵As an emergent situation, the patient should be immediately treated with a sodium bicarbonate infusion to effectively reverse the sodium channel blockade associated with the widened QRS.

However, a more likely scenario is that of Percocet counterfeit pills designed to illicitly emulate the properties of officially marketed Percocet. As expected, Percocet overdose management will require that the clinician be familiar with treating general opioid toxicity (in this case, derived from the oxycodone component), in particular respiratory or CNS depression. Symptoms of opioid overdose also include the loss of consciousness with pupillary miosis. Therapy entails the use of naloxone and/or mechanical ventilation for respiratory support. The patient can also exhibit cardiovascular compromise. If further information is elicited during a patient interview, it may reveal a history of drug procurement from the streets.

Epidemiologists from Georgia collaborated with the state’s department of public health’s office of emergency services, forensic experts, and drug enforcement professionals to evaluate almost 40 cases of counterfeit Percocet overdoses during the period spanning the second week of June 2017. Of these cases, a cluster triad was identified consisting of general opioid toxicity symptoms (for example, CNS or respiratory depression with concomitant pupillary constriction, a history of drug procurement, and a history of ingesting only one or two pills with rapid deterioration.⁶ Unfortunately, the screening process is often hindered by the fact that synthetic opioids such as Percocet are not readily identified on urine drug screens (UDS).

Despite shortcomings in assessment procedures, a UDS will yield positive results for multiple drugs, a feature that is common to seasoned opioid users and serves as an instrumental diagnostic clue in the investigative process. To address the crisis and prevent further spread, numerous Georgia agencies (e.g., drug trafficking and legal authorities) worked with the health care community to expediently identify cases of interest and bring forth public awareness concerning the ongoing perils of counterfeit drug intake. Future investigations might benefit from the implementation of DNA-verified UDS, because those screens are versatile enough to detect the presence of synthetic urine substitutes within the context of opioid use.^7,8 Moreover, an expanded panel could be tailored to provide coverage for semisynthetics, including hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and oxymorphone.⁹

As a well-received painkiller from the opioid family, Percocet derives its analgesic properties from the fast-acting oxycodone; hepatic failure is also possible from Percocet (because of the acetaminophen component) or counterfeit Percocet overdose but is less common unless the Tylenol content approaches 4 grams. By binding to the brain’s opiate receptors, Percocet modulates pain pathways leading to a dulling of pain sensation along with euphoria, which is particularly attractive to drug seekers. Chronic Percocet use corresponds with a myriad of psychological and physical consequences, and the Drug Enforcement Administration recognizes oxycodone as a Schedule II drug.

A chronic Percocet user may try to disrupt the cycle of symptoms by abruptly ceasing use of the offending agent. This can precipitate the development of classical opioid-based withdrawal symptoms, including but not limited to nausea, vomiting, irritability, tachycardia, body aches, and episodes of cold sweats. Physicians have noted that misuse (i.e., deviations from intended prescribed) might include crushing and snorting as well as “doctor-shopping” behaviors for a continuous supply of Percocet.
 

Treatment recommendations

According to Sarah Wakeman, MD, medical director of the substance use disorders initiative at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, there are apparently two clinical manifestations of Percocet use. The primary consequence is derived from the oxycodone component of Percocet; as an opioid, oxycodone toxicity leads to disrupted breathing and oxygenation, negatively impacting vital organs such as the brain or the heart. Patients experiencing a lack of oxygen will often display cyanosis and may not respond appropriately to stimuli. For individuals suspected of succumbing to overdose, Dr. Wakeman reportedly advised that the clinician or trained professional rub his or her knuckles along the breastbone of the potential user – a drug overdose patient will fail to wake up. On the other hand, a Percocet user may exhibit the symptoms of liver failure depending on the overall level of acetaminophen in the formulation. To prevent relapses, Percocet use disorder is best managed in a professional setting under the direction of trained clinicians; users are provided medications to address ongoing cravings and symptoms associated with the withdrawal process. A detoxification center can tailor the treatment with opioid-based medications such as methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone to help patients be weaned off Percocet.

Clinicians may further improve the efficacy of a therapeutic regimen by incorporating a personalized plan with a comprehensive substance UDS panel for monitoring and treatment purposes. This may prove to be beneficial in the event of suspected polysubstance use, as is the case with patients who dabble with Percocet and “molly.” Preparations can also be instituted at the outset of therapy with genetic testing implemented in high-risk patients who exhibit an inclination for opioid use disorder.¹⁰ Genetic polymorphisms provide robust clinical assets for evaluating patients most at risk for relapse. For individuals with biological susceptibility, arrangements can be made to incorporate nonopioid treatment alternatives.
 

References

1. Thomas BB. The death of Lil Peep: How the U.S. prescription drug epidemic is changing hip-hop. The Guardian. 2017 Nov 16.

2. D’Orazio JL and Curtis JA. J Emer Med. 2011 Aug 1;41(2):172-5.

3. Levy L. These are the drugs influencing pop culture now. Vulture. 2018 Feb 6.

4. Kounang N and Bender M. “What is Percocet? Drug facts, side effects, abuse and more.” CNN. 2018 Jul 12.

5. The dangers of Percocet use and overdose. American Addiction Centers. Last updated 2020 Feb 3. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/percocet-treatment/dangers-of-use-and-overdose.

6. Edison L et al. MMWR. 2017 Oct 20;66(41):1119-20.

7. Choudhry Z et al. J Psychiatry. 2015. doi: 10.4172/2378-5756.10000319.

8. Islam F and Choudhry Z. Current Psychiatry. 2018 Dec;17(12):43-4.

9. Jupe N. Ask the Experts: DOT 5-panel drug test regimen. Quest Diagnostics. 2018 Mar 21. https://blog.employersolutions.com/ask-experts-dot-5-panel-drug-test-regimen/.

10. Ahmed S et al. Pharmacogenomics. 2019 Jun 28;20(9):685-703.

Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Islam reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the IMCHF. He reported no relevant disclosures.

In recent years, Percocet (oxycodone/paracetamol) has experienced a meteoric rise to prominence because of the presence of conspicuous references in pop culture and the ever-evolving hip-hop scene,¹ so much so that even propafenone is being mislabeled as the agent.² It is of utmost importance for clinicians to be made aware of the adverse effects and the treatment protocols associated with Percocet as well as propafenone.

Propafenone is identified as a class 1C antiarrhythmic with adverse effects associated with that particular class of drugs (e.g., generalized tonic-clonic seizures coupled with widened QRS complex), however, Percocet’s toxidrome is the product of the opioid/nonopioid (in the form of oxycodone/acetaminophen) components found within the formulation. Percocet is often recreationally used with MDMA (“molly”) or ecstasy as popularized by the lyrics of “Mask Off” by Future (“Percocets, Molly, Percocets”).^3,4

Addressing the challenge of imitation Percocet pills

Differentiating the untoward effects of Percocet and propafenone isn’t too challenging because the agents belong to separate classes – the problem is the use of deceitful labels on propafenone with both medications sporting the “512 imprint” on their respective pills. Initial symptoms of propafenone ingestion may include weakness and dizziness followed by seizures.⁵As an emergent situation, the patient should be immediately treated with a sodium bicarbonate infusion to effectively reverse the sodium channel blockade associated with the widened QRS.

However, a more likely scenario is that of Percocet counterfeit pills designed to illicitly emulate the properties of officially marketed Percocet. As expected, Percocet overdose management will require that the clinician be familiar with treating general opioid toxicity (in this case, derived from the oxycodone component), in particular respiratory or CNS depression. Symptoms of opioid overdose also include the loss of consciousness with pupillary miosis. Therapy entails the use of naloxone and/or mechanical ventilation for respiratory support. The patient can also exhibit cardiovascular compromise. If further information is elicited during a patient interview, it may reveal a history of drug procurement from the streets.

Epidemiologists from Georgia collaborated with the state’s department of public health’s office of emergency services, forensic experts, and drug enforcement professionals to evaluate almost 40 cases of counterfeit Percocet overdoses during the period spanning the second week of June 2017. Of these cases, a cluster triad was identified consisting of general opioid toxicity symptoms (for example, CNS or respiratory depression with concomitant pupillary constriction, a history of drug procurement, and a history of ingesting only one or two pills with rapid deterioration.⁶ Unfortunately, the screening process is often hindered by the fact that synthetic opioids such as Percocet are not readily identified on urine drug screens (UDS).

Despite shortcomings in assessment procedures, a UDS will yield positive results for multiple drugs, a feature that is common to seasoned opioid users and serves as an instrumental diagnostic clue in the investigative process. To address the crisis and prevent further spread, numerous Georgia agencies (e.g., drug trafficking and legal authorities) worked with the health care community to expediently identify cases of interest and bring forth public awareness concerning the ongoing perils of counterfeit drug intake. Future investigations might benefit from the implementation of DNA-verified UDS, because those screens are versatile enough to detect the presence of synthetic urine substitutes within the context of opioid use.^7,8 Moreover, an expanded panel could be tailored to provide coverage for semisynthetics, including hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and oxymorphone.⁹

As a well-received painkiller from the opioid family, Percocet derives its analgesic properties from the fast-acting oxycodone; hepatic failure is also possible from Percocet (because of the acetaminophen component) or counterfeit Percocet overdose but is less common unless the Tylenol content approaches 4 grams. By binding to the brain’s opiate receptors, Percocet modulates pain pathways leading to a dulling of pain sensation along with euphoria, which is particularly attractive to drug seekers. Chronic Percocet use corresponds with a myriad of psychological and physical consequences, and the Drug Enforcement Administration recognizes oxycodone as a Schedule II drug.

A chronic Percocet user may try to disrupt the cycle of symptoms by abruptly ceasing use of the offending agent. This can precipitate the development of classical opioid-based withdrawal symptoms, including but not limited to nausea, vomiting, irritability, tachycardia, body aches, and episodes of cold sweats. Physicians have noted that misuse (i.e., deviations from intended prescribed) might include crushing and snorting as well as “doctor-shopping” behaviors for a continuous supply of Percocet.
 

Treatment recommendations

According to Sarah Wakeman, MD, medical director of the substance use disorders initiative at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, there are apparently two clinical manifestations of Percocet use. The primary consequence is derived from the oxycodone component of Percocet; as an opioid, oxycodone toxicity leads to disrupted breathing and oxygenation, negatively impacting vital organs such as the brain or the heart. Patients experiencing a lack of oxygen will often display cyanosis and may not respond appropriately to stimuli. For individuals suspected of succumbing to overdose, Dr. Wakeman reportedly advised that the clinician or trained professional rub his or her knuckles along the breastbone of the potential user – a drug overdose patient will fail to wake up. On the other hand, a Percocet user may exhibit the symptoms of liver failure depending on the overall level of acetaminophen in the formulation. To prevent relapses, Percocet use disorder is best managed in a professional setting under the direction of trained clinicians; users are provided medications to address ongoing cravings and symptoms associated with the withdrawal process. A detoxification center can tailor the treatment with opioid-based medications such as methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone to help patients be weaned off Percocet.

Clinicians may further improve the efficacy of a therapeutic regimen by incorporating a personalized plan with a comprehensive substance UDS panel for monitoring and treatment purposes. This may prove to be beneficial in the event of suspected polysubstance use, as is the case with patients who dabble with Percocet and “molly.” Preparations can also be instituted at the outset of therapy with genetic testing implemented in high-risk patients who exhibit an inclination for opioid use disorder.¹⁰ Genetic polymorphisms provide robust clinical assets for evaluating patients most at risk for relapse. For individuals with biological susceptibility, arrangements can be made to incorporate nonopioid treatment alternatives.
 

References

1. Thomas BB. The death of Lil Peep: How the U.S. prescription drug epidemic is changing hip-hop. The Guardian. 2017 Nov 16.

2. D’Orazio JL and Curtis JA. J Emer Med. 2011 Aug 1;41(2):172-5.

3. Levy L. These are the drugs influencing pop culture now. Vulture. 2018 Feb 6.

4. Kounang N and Bender M. “What is Percocet? Drug facts, side effects, abuse and more.” CNN. 2018 Jul 12.

5. The dangers of Percocet use and overdose. American Addiction Centers. Last updated 2020 Feb 3. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/percocet-treatment/dangers-of-use-and-overdose.

6. Edison L et al. MMWR. 2017 Oct 20;66(41):1119-20.

7. Choudhry Z et al. J Psychiatry. 2015. doi: 10.4172/2378-5756.10000319.

8. Islam F and Choudhry Z. Current Psychiatry. 2018 Dec;17(12):43-4.

9. Jupe N. Ask the Experts: DOT 5-panel drug test regimen. Quest Diagnostics. 2018 Mar 21. https://blog.employersolutions.com/ask-experts-dot-5-panel-drug-test-regimen/.

10. Ahmed S et al. Pharmacogenomics. 2019 Jun 28;20(9):685-703.

Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Islam reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the IMCHF. He reported no relevant disclosures.

In recent years, Percocet (oxycodone/paracetamol) has experienced a meteoric rise to prominence because of the presence of conspicuous references in pop culture and the ever-evolving hip-hop scene,¹ so much so that even propafenone is being mislabeled as the agent.² It is of utmost importance for clinicians to be made aware of the adverse effects and the treatment protocols associated with Percocet as well as propafenone.

Propafenone is identified as a class 1C antiarrhythmic with adverse effects associated with that particular class of drugs (e.g., generalized tonic-clonic seizures coupled with widened QRS complex), however, Percocet’s toxidrome is the product of the opioid/nonopioid (in the form of oxycodone/acetaminophen) components found within the formulation. Percocet is often recreationally used with MDMA (“molly”) or ecstasy as popularized by the lyrics of “Mask Off” by Future (“Percocets, Molly, Percocets”).^3,4

Addressing the challenge of imitation Percocet pills

Differentiating the untoward effects of Percocet and propafenone isn’t too challenging because the agents belong to separate classes – the problem is the use of deceitful labels on propafenone with both medications sporting the “512 imprint” on their respective pills. Initial symptoms of propafenone ingestion may include weakness and dizziness followed by seizures.⁵As an emergent situation, the patient should be immediately treated with a sodium bicarbonate infusion to effectively reverse the sodium channel blockade associated with the widened QRS.

However, a more likely scenario is that of Percocet counterfeit pills designed to illicitly emulate the properties of officially marketed Percocet. As expected, Percocet overdose management will require that the clinician be familiar with treating general opioid toxicity (in this case, derived from the oxycodone component), in particular respiratory or CNS depression. Symptoms of opioid overdose also include the loss of consciousness with pupillary miosis. Therapy entails the use of naloxone and/or mechanical ventilation for respiratory support. The patient can also exhibit cardiovascular compromise. If further information is elicited during a patient interview, it may reveal a history of drug procurement from the streets.

Epidemiologists from Georgia collaborated with the state’s department of public health’s office of emergency services, forensic experts, and drug enforcement professionals to evaluate almost 40 cases of counterfeit Percocet overdoses during the period spanning the second week of June 2017. Of these cases, a cluster triad was identified consisting of general opioid toxicity symptoms (for example, CNS or respiratory depression with concomitant pupillary constriction, a history of drug procurement, and a history of ingesting only one or two pills with rapid deterioration.⁶ Unfortunately, the screening process is often hindered by the fact that synthetic opioids such as Percocet are not readily identified on urine drug screens (UDS).

Despite shortcomings in assessment procedures, a UDS will yield positive results for multiple drugs, a feature that is common to seasoned opioid users and serves as an instrumental diagnostic clue in the investigative process. To address the crisis and prevent further spread, numerous Georgia agencies (e.g., drug trafficking and legal authorities) worked with the health care community to expediently identify cases of interest and bring forth public awareness concerning the ongoing perils of counterfeit drug intake. Future investigations might benefit from the implementation of DNA-verified UDS, because those screens are versatile enough to detect the presence of synthetic urine substitutes within the context of opioid use.^7,8 Moreover, an expanded panel could be tailored to provide coverage for semisynthetics, including hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and oxymorphone.⁹

As a well-received painkiller from the opioid family, Percocet derives its analgesic properties from the fast-acting oxycodone; hepatic failure is also possible from Percocet (because of the acetaminophen component) or counterfeit Percocet overdose but is less common unless the Tylenol content approaches 4 grams. By binding to the brain’s opiate receptors, Percocet modulates pain pathways leading to a dulling of pain sensation along with euphoria, which is particularly attractive to drug seekers. Chronic Percocet use corresponds with a myriad of psychological and physical consequences, and the Drug Enforcement Administration recognizes oxycodone as a Schedule II drug.

A chronic Percocet user may try to disrupt the cycle of symptoms by abruptly ceasing use of the offending agent. This can precipitate the development of classical opioid-based withdrawal symptoms, including but not limited to nausea, vomiting, irritability, tachycardia, body aches, and episodes of cold sweats. Physicians have noted that misuse (i.e., deviations from intended prescribed) might include crushing and snorting as well as “doctor-shopping” behaviors for a continuous supply of Percocet.
 

Treatment recommendations

According to Sarah Wakeman, MD, medical director of the substance use disorders initiative at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, there are apparently two clinical manifestations of Percocet use. The primary consequence is derived from the oxycodone component of Percocet; as an opioid, oxycodone toxicity leads to disrupted breathing and oxygenation, negatively impacting vital organs such as the brain or the heart. Patients experiencing a lack of oxygen will often display cyanosis and may not respond appropriately to stimuli. For individuals suspected of succumbing to overdose, Dr. Wakeman reportedly advised that the clinician or trained professional rub his or her knuckles along the breastbone of the potential user – a drug overdose patient will fail to wake up. On the other hand, a Percocet user may exhibit the symptoms of liver failure depending on the overall level of acetaminophen in the formulation. To prevent relapses, Percocet use disorder is best managed in a professional setting under the direction of trained clinicians; users are provided medications to address ongoing cravings and symptoms associated with the withdrawal process. A detoxification center can tailor the treatment with opioid-based medications such as methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone to help patients be weaned off Percocet.

Clinicians may further improve the efficacy of a therapeutic regimen by incorporating a personalized plan with a comprehensive substance UDS panel for monitoring and treatment purposes. This may prove to be beneficial in the event of suspected polysubstance use, as is the case with patients who dabble with Percocet and “molly.” Preparations can also be instituted at the outset of therapy with genetic testing implemented in high-risk patients who exhibit an inclination for opioid use disorder.¹⁰ Genetic polymorphisms provide robust clinical assets for evaluating patients most at risk for relapse. For individuals with biological susceptibility, arrangements can be made to incorporate nonopioid treatment alternatives.
 

References

1. Thomas BB. The death of Lil Peep: How the U.S. prescription drug epidemic is changing hip-hop. The Guardian. 2017 Nov 16.

2. D’Orazio JL and Curtis JA. J Emer Med. 2011 Aug 1;41(2):172-5.

3. Levy L. These are the drugs influencing pop culture now. Vulture. 2018 Feb 6.

4. Kounang N and Bender M. “What is Percocet? Drug facts, side effects, abuse and more.” CNN. 2018 Jul 12.

5. The dangers of Percocet use and overdose. American Addiction Centers. Last updated 2020 Feb 3. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/percocet-treatment/dangers-of-use-and-overdose.

6. Edison L et al. MMWR. 2017 Oct 20;66(41):1119-20.

7. Choudhry Z et al. J Psychiatry. 2015. doi: 10.4172/2378-5756.10000319.

8. Islam F and Choudhry Z. Current Psychiatry. 2018 Dec;17(12):43-4.

9. Jupe N. Ask the Experts: DOT 5-panel drug test regimen. Quest Diagnostics. 2018 Mar 21. https://blog.employersolutions.com/ask-experts-dot-5-panel-drug-test-regimen/.

10. Ahmed S et al. Pharmacogenomics. 2019 Jun 28;20(9):685-703.

Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Islam reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the IMCHF. He reported no relevant disclosures.

An intriguing pattern has emerged for cannabis enthusiasts as a result of lockdowns and statewide safety restrictions for COVID-19.

Consumers, as of late, have been shopping for larger marijuana baskets per trip to the dispensaries in various states, including California, Colorado, Nevada, and Washington, . However, they are also cutting down on the number of trips, perhaps, as a preventive measure to reduce the risk of exposure to coronavirus during this pandemic. Sales dipped considerably by the end of March only to experience a resurgence after the issuing of stimulus checks and unemployment benefits.

For the past few years, cannabis consumption remained steady while the industry continued to thrive with robust sales of the drug. It is a recession-proof phenomenon, therefore presenting a unique opportunity for clinicians with respect to patient education and individualized care.¹

An unfortunate carryover of the governmental restrictions, self-isolation, and social estrangement is that consumers are now turning to the dark web as a source for continuous supply of cannabis. Prepandemic, according to the U.N. 2020 World Drug Report, there was already a 30% increase in sales of cannabis between 2009 and 2018. COVID-19 has fractured the drug’s supply chain and created an inescapable void that is being filled by drug traffickers.² A clinical dilemma is posed when a user procures counterfeit cannabis or a drug batch with impurities.
 

Riding the cytokine storm

Cytokines are a host of proteins with designated regulatory and immune responses that play an instrumental role in cell signaling. The aptly named “cytokine storm” conjures up the image of an imperiled immune system spiraling out of control; it is, in fact, an extreme immune response that culminates into a massive influx of cytokines released into the bloodstream. Without the presence of an immunologic threat, cytokines are responsible for maintaining homeostasis and the functionality of immune cells. However, acute cytokine release (i.e., cytokine storm), as is the case with severe COVID-19, jeopardizes organ function (for example, interstitial lung disease) with clinical symptoms, such as fever, cough, dyspnea, and myalgia.

Benefits and drawbacks of immunosuppressive agents

To inhibit cytokine release (e.g., interleukin-6 cytokine levels), immunosuppressive agents such as tocilizumab have been leveraged to damper the body’s overactive inflammatory response to perceived immunologic stressors, in particular, COVID-19. While the aforementioned agent was remarkably effective with respect to lung consolidation clearance in most of the patients tested, a host of untoward effects prevent its general applicability and use. However, a team of researchers from the University of Nebraska, Omaha, with the Texas Biomedical Research Institute, San Antonio, might have stumbled upon a strategic workaround for mitigating the immune response.

They have proposed that cannabidiol (CBD) be used in lieu of other agents with potentially toxic effects. Animal and human trials have established that CBD confers a relatively high margin of safety coupled with favorable tolerance, providing a viable option for effectively targeting the inflammatory processes of SARS-CoV-2–based pulmonary disease. Furthermore, efficacy increased when CBD was combined with a terpene formulation, especially with respect to the more traditional steroid therapy.³

SARS-CoV-2 exhibits binding affinity for the ACE2 receptor, which is expressed in the lungs as well as other known predilection sites of infection. Ongoing studies attempt to modulate ACE2 expression, thereby eliminating its conspicuous role as “viral gateways,” perhaps even more so in patients with lung pathologies (e.g., people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] and smokers) as they already are prone to increased respiratory morbidity. CBD lacks tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or the psychoactive component of cannabis sativa, rendering the agent to be particularly attractive from a therapeutic perspective. In addition to being devoid of abuse potential, CBD exhibits remarkable anti-inflammatory properties. It should be noted that considerable overlap exists between tobacco and cannabis users, and it is too early to determine the impact on COVID-19. As opposed to cannabis’s effect on ACE2 levels, smoking exhibits a proinflammatory role by up-regulating ACE2 expression.3 However, there are currently numerous conflicting reports in circulation about the positive effect of nicotine on COVID-19 outcome; confounding variables will need to be explored further in patients with a history of using nicotine and cannabis together.

From an immunologic perspective, the endocannabinoid system (ECS) plays an integral role in cell signaling by interacting with natural chemicals of the body, namely, cannabinoids with designated targets at the cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) and the CB2, respectively. The CB2 receptor is of particular interest as it is intimately involved in immune homeostasis; the primary goal of these COVID-19 studies is to modulate the endocannabinoid system via targeted CB2 therapies to produce an immunosuppressant effect.⁴ CB2 activation, be it by means of THC or CBD agonism, may prove to be beneficial by inhibiting the cytokine influx.

Unfortunately, there is a general dearth of data on COVID-19–exposed cannabis users, whether the drug is consumed for medication or recreational purposes. It has been suggested that cannabis intake might contribute toward the development of a cough, complicating the overall clinical outcome for those infected with the virus. The presence of a cough, even in an otherwise asymptomatic individual, facilitates viral spread. As for those cannabis users experiencing COVID-19 symptomatology, they can expect rapid clinical deterioration, including pronounced fatigue and a change in mental status.

According to pulmonary specialists and representatives of the American Lung Association, recreational cannabis use may be associated with a bronchitis-like inflammation (comparable with chronic bronchitis/COPD for chronic users) of the airways, along the lines of cigarette smoking.⁵ As far as cannabis smokers are concerned, the rationale for lung irritation is believed to stem from the relatively large portion of unburnt plant content that is inhaled in a given joint. If there is a superimposed infection, as is the case with COVID-19, the patient may experience further risk of adverse respiratory effects. This serves as a diagnostic dilemma for physicians, especially when they encounter patients who recently started dabbling with cannabis as a means of placating themselves or because they’ve heard rumors that it will somehow protect them from COVID-19. The entire assessment plan is slowed down as a result of the confounding variable (onset of a cough), which may arise independently of COVID-19 in cannabis users. Vulnerable populations include smokers and those with COPD or asthma, as they are more likely to require ventilator assistance during the course of COVID-19 therapy.⁵ Asthmatics and COPD patients are prone to bronchospasms because of sensitive airways.


 

COVID-19 safety protocols for cannabis users

Because of increased risk of respiratory morbidity, clinicians advise that consumption of recreational cannabinoids be scaled back during the course of the pandemic. In light of conflicting news from several media outlets regarding the efficacy of cannabis intake with respect to COVID-19, preexisting users might unwittingly increase their consumption as a preemptive measure against being exposed to the infection. To prevent transmission among users, clinicians should discourage patients from sharing joints. This recommendation is thematically consistent with general precautionary measures about the dangers of sharing utensils, drinking cups/glasses, and so on, amid the pandemic.

Despite promising preliminary research results, CBD cannot be wholeheartedly recommended at this time; patients already on medically administered cannabinoids are urged to discuss the risk-benefit ratio with their respective health care clinicians. Cannabinoid therapies present a massive opportunity from the perspective of immunomodulation, especially when considering the prevalence of drug use. However, to improve clinical guidelines with respect to COVID-19 outcomes, it would be prudent to increase the overall volume of preclinical knowledge by gathering retrospective data (from case-control designs) and randomized prospective trials.

A more comprehensive list of advice from physicians concerning casual or chronic cannabis users may also include: adopting a dedicated delivery or dispensing system for cannabis products, making considerations for decontamination (i.e., disinfecting mouthpieces), ensuring cleansing precautions are maintained (washing thoroughly before and after use or procurement), switching to inhalation alternates (e.g., tinctures, edibles, and/or oils) to decrease further irritation to the lungs. For bong users, it is recommended that they apply rubbing alcohol to clean their device followed with a minute of air-drying.⁶

Conclusion

The literature from preclinical studies appears to largely favor the use of CBD, but there remains an element of uncertainty with respect to implementing cannabinoids for the treatment of coronavirus.

COVID-19 cannabinoid intervention is a hot topic with renewed interest from the industry and the public at large, but viral-focused therapies remain a relatively underused area worth exploring with case-control designs and randomized prospective trials. As cannabis legalization is picking up momentum across five additional states, the time is ripe to systematically investigate the therapeutic applications of the drug beyond merely preclinical data. Aside from educational reform initiatives, clinicians might proactively launch a platform that integrates telemedicine as well as digital apps, directly linking the patient to the clinician and monitoring the efficacy of program initiatives in real time.
 

References

1. Long A. Consumers’ cannabis buying patterns change markedly in wake of COVID-19 pandemic. Marijuana Business Daily. 2020 Sep 22. https://mjbizdaily.com/consumers-cannabis-buying-patterns-change-markedly-in-wake-of-covid-pandemic/.

2. Bures B. How the coronavirus pandemic is increasing global demand for marijuana. Chicago Tribune. 2020 Jul 1. https://www.chicagotribune.com/marijuana/sns-tft-coronavirus-increases-global-marijuana-demand-20200701-oygaxryb7vhcjfeu44cgacicaa-story.html.

3. Walters J. Marijuana and COVID-19: Top studies. CannaMD. 2020 Aug 19. https://www.cannamd.com/marijuana-covid-19-top-studies/.

4. El Biali M et al. Med Cannabis Cannabinoids. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1159/000510799.

5. LaMotte S. “Smoking weed and coronavirus: Even occasional use raises risk of COVID-19 complications.” CNN Health. 2020 Apr 10. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/health/smoking-weed-coronavirus-wellness/index.html

6. Yafai S and Etengoff S. The case for cannabis: Advising cannabis users about COVID-19. Emergency Medicine News. 2020 May 20;42(5B).

Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation (IMCHF), Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Mr. Choudhry is a research assistant at the IMCHF. Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the IMCHF and is Mr. Choudhry’s father. Dr. Islam, Mr. Choudhry, and Dr. Choudhry reported no relevant disclosures.

An intriguing pattern has emerged for cannabis enthusiasts as a result of lockdowns and statewide safety restrictions for COVID-19.

Consumers, as of late, have been shopping for larger marijuana baskets per trip to the dispensaries in various states, including California, Colorado, Nevada, and Washington, . However, they are also cutting down on the number of trips, perhaps, as a preventive measure to reduce the risk of exposure to coronavirus during this pandemic. Sales dipped considerably by the end of March only to experience a resurgence after the issuing of stimulus checks and unemployment benefits.

For the past few years, cannabis consumption remained steady while the industry continued to thrive with robust sales of the drug. It is a recession-proof phenomenon, therefore presenting a unique opportunity for clinicians with respect to patient education and individualized care.¹

An unfortunate carryover of the governmental restrictions, self-isolation, and social estrangement is that consumers are now turning to the dark web as a source for continuous supply of cannabis. Prepandemic, according to the U.N. 2020 World Drug Report, there was already a 30% increase in sales of cannabis between 2009 and 2018. COVID-19 has fractured the drug’s supply chain and created an inescapable void that is being filled by drug traffickers.² A clinical dilemma is posed when a user procures counterfeit cannabis or a drug batch with impurities.
 

Riding the cytokine storm

Cytokines are a host of proteins with designated regulatory and immune responses that play an instrumental role in cell signaling. The aptly named “cytokine storm” conjures up the image of an imperiled immune system spiraling out of control; it is, in fact, an extreme immune response that culminates into a massive influx of cytokines released into the bloodstream. Without the presence of an immunologic threat, cytokines are responsible for maintaining homeostasis and the functionality of immune cells. However, acute cytokine release (i.e., cytokine storm), as is the case with severe COVID-19, jeopardizes organ function (for example, interstitial lung disease) with clinical symptoms, such as fever, cough, dyspnea, and myalgia.

Benefits and drawbacks of immunosuppressive agents

To inhibit cytokine release (e.g., interleukin-6 cytokine levels), immunosuppressive agents such as tocilizumab have been leveraged to damper the body’s overactive inflammatory response to perceived immunologic stressors, in particular, COVID-19. While the aforementioned agent was remarkably effective with respect to lung consolidation clearance in most of the patients tested, a host of untoward effects prevent its general applicability and use. However, a team of researchers from the University of Nebraska, Omaha, with the Texas Biomedical Research Institute, San Antonio, might have stumbled upon a strategic workaround for mitigating the immune response.

They have proposed that cannabidiol (CBD) be used in lieu of other agents with potentially toxic effects. Animal and human trials have established that CBD confers a relatively high margin of safety coupled with favorable tolerance, providing a viable option for effectively targeting the inflammatory processes of SARS-CoV-2–based pulmonary disease. Furthermore, efficacy increased when CBD was combined with a terpene formulation, especially with respect to the more traditional steroid therapy.³

SARS-CoV-2 exhibits binding affinity for the ACE2 receptor, which is expressed in the lungs as well as other known predilection sites of infection. Ongoing studies attempt to modulate ACE2 expression, thereby eliminating its conspicuous role as “viral gateways,” perhaps even more so in patients with lung pathologies (e.g., people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] and smokers) as they already are prone to increased respiratory morbidity. CBD lacks tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or the psychoactive component of cannabis sativa, rendering the agent to be particularly attractive from a therapeutic perspective. In addition to being devoid of abuse potential, CBD exhibits remarkable anti-inflammatory properties. It should be noted that considerable overlap exists between tobacco and cannabis users, and it is too early to determine the impact on COVID-19. As opposed to cannabis’s effect on ACE2 levels, smoking exhibits a proinflammatory role by up-regulating ACE2 expression.3 However, there are currently numerous conflicting reports in circulation about the positive effect of nicotine on COVID-19 outcome; confounding variables will need to be explored further in patients with a history of using nicotine and cannabis together.

From an immunologic perspective, the endocannabinoid system (ECS) plays an integral role in cell signaling by interacting with natural chemicals of the body, namely, cannabinoids with designated targets at the cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) and the CB2, respectively. The CB2 receptor is of particular interest as it is intimately involved in immune homeostasis; the primary goal of these COVID-19 studies is to modulate the endocannabinoid system via targeted CB2 therapies to produce an immunosuppressant effect.⁴ CB2 activation, be it by means of THC or CBD agonism, may prove to be beneficial by inhibiting the cytokine influx.

Unfortunately, there is a general dearth of data on COVID-19–exposed cannabis users, whether the drug is consumed for medication or recreational purposes. It has been suggested that cannabis intake might contribute toward the development of a cough, complicating the overall clinical outcome for those infected with the virus. The presence of a cough, even in an otherwise asymptomatic individual, facilitates viral spread. As for those cannabis users experiencing COVID-19 symptomatology, they can expect rapid clinical deterioration, including pronounced fatigue and a change in mental status.

According to pulmonary specialists and representatives of the American Lung Association, recreational cannabis use may be associated with a bronchitis-like inflammation (comparable with chronic bronchitis/COPD for chronic users) of the airways, along the lines of cigarette smoking.⁵ As far as cannabis smokers are concerned, the rationale for lung irritation is believed to stem from the relatively large portion of unburnt plant content that is inhaled in a given joint. If there is a superimposed infection, as is the case with COVID-19, the patient may experience further risk of adverse respiratory effects. This serves as a diagnostic dilemma for physicians, especially when they encounter patients who recently started dabbling with cannabis as a means of placating themselves or because they’ve heard rumors that it will somehow protect them from COVID-19. The entire assessment plan is slowed down as a result of the confounding variable (onset of a cough), which may arise independently of COVID-19 in cannabis users. Vulnerable populations include smokers and those with COPD or asthma, as they are more likely to require ventilator assistance during the course of COVID-19 therapy.⁵ Asthmatics and COPD patients are prone to bronchospasms because of sensitive airways.


 

COVID-19 safety protocols for cannabis users

Because of increased risk of respiratory morbidity, clinicians advise that consumption of recreational cannabinoids be scaled back during the course of the pandemic. In light of conflicting news from several media outlets regarding the efficacy of cannabis intake with respect to COVID-19, preexisting users might unwittingly increase their consumption as a preemptive measure against being exposed to the infection. To prevent transmission among users, clinicians should discourage patients from sharing joints. This recommendation is thematically consistent with general precautionary measures about the dangers of sharing utensils, drinking cups/glasses, and so on, amid the pandemic.

Despite promising preliminary research results, CBD cannot be wholeheartedly recommended at this time; patients already on medically administered cannabinoids are urged to discuss the risk-benefit ratio with their respective health care clinicians. Cannabinoid therapies present a massive opportunity from the perspective of immunomodulation, especially when considering the prevalence of drug use. However, to improve clinical guidelines with respect to COVID-19 outcomes, it would be prudent to increase the overall volume of preclinical knowledge by gathering retrospective data (from case-control designs) and randomized prospective trials.

A more comprehensive list of advice from physicians concerning casual or chronic cannabis users may also include: adopting a dedicated delivery or dispensing system for cannabis products, making considerations for decontamination (i.e., disinfecting mouthpieces), ensuring cleansing precautions are maintained (washing thoroughly before and after use or procurement), switching to inhalation alternates (e.g., tinctures, edibles, and/or oils) to decrease further irritation to the lungs. For bong users, it is recommended that they apply rubbing alcohol to clean their device followed with a minute of air-drying.⁶

Conclusion

The literature from preclinical studies appears to largely favor the use of CBD, but there remains an element of uncertainty with respect to implementing cannabinoids for the treatment of coronavirus.

COVID-19 cannabinoid intervention is a hot topic with renewed interest from the industry and the public at large, but viral-focused therapies remain a relatively underused area worth exploring with case-control designs and randomized prospective trials. As cannabis legalization is picking up momentum across five additional states, the time is ripe to systematically investigate the therapeutic applications of the drug beyond merely preclinical data. Aside from educational reform initiatives, clinicians might proactively launch a platform that integrates telemedicine as well as digital apps, directly linking the patient to the clinician and monitoring the efficacy of program initiatives in real time.
 

References

1. Long A. Consumers’ cannabis buying patterns change markedly in wake of COVID-19 pandemic. Marijuana Business Daily. 2020 Sep 22. https://mjbizdaily.com/consumers-cannabis-buying-patterns-change-markedly-in-wake-of-covid-pandemic/.

2. Bures B. How the coronavirus pandemic is increasing global demand for marijuana. Chicago Tribune. 2020 Jul 1. https://www.chicagotribune.com/marijuana/sns-tft-coronavirus-increases-global-marijuana-demand-20200701-oygaxryb7vhcjfeu44cgacicaa-story.html.

3. Walters J. Marijuana and COVID-19: Top studies. CannaMD. 2020 Aug 19. https://www.cannamd.com/marijuana-covid-19-top-studies/.

4. El Biali M et al. Med Cannabis Cannabinoids. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1159/000510799.

5. LaMotte S. “Smoking weed and coronavirus: Even occasional use raises risk of COVID-19 complications.” CNN Health. 2020 Apr 10. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/health/smoking-weed-coronavirus-wellness/index.html

6. Yafai S and Etengoff S. The case for cannabis: Advising cannabis users about COVID-19. Emergency Medicine News. 2020 May 20;42(5B).

Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation (IMCHF), Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Mr. Choudhry is a research assistant at the IMCHF. Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the IMCHF and is Mr. Choudhry’s father. Dr. Islam, Mr. Choudhry, and Dr. Choudhry reported no relevant disclosures.

An intriguing pattern has emerged for cannabis enthusiasts as a result of lockdowns and statewide safety restrictions for COVID-19.

Consumers, as of late, have been shopping for larger marijuana baskets per trip to the dispensaries in various states, including California, Colorado, Nevada, and Washington, . However, they are also cutting down on the number of trips, perhaps, as a preventive measure to reduce the risk of exposure to coronavirus during this pandemic. Sales dipped considerably by the end of March only to experience a resurgence after the issuing of stimulus checks and unemployment benefits.

For the past few years, cannabis consumption remained steady while the industry continued to thrive with robust sales of the drug. It is a recession-proof phenomenon, therefore presenting a unique opportunity for clinicians with respect to patient education and individualized care.¹

An unfortunate carryover of the governmental restrictions, self-isolation, and social estrangement is that consumers are now turning to the dark web as a source for continuous supply of cannabis. Prepandemic, according to the U.N. 2020 World Drug Report, there was already a 30% increase in sales of cannabis between 2009 and 2018. COVID-19 has fractured the drug’s supply chain and created an inescapable void that is being filled by drug traffickers.² A clinical dilemma is posed when a user procures counterfeit cannabis or a drug batch with impurities.
 

Riding the cytokine storm

Cytokines are a host of proteins with designated regulatory and immune responses that play an instrumental role in cell signaling. The aptly named “cytokine storm” conjures up the image of an imperiled immune system spiraling out of control; it is, in fact, an extreme immune response that culminates into a massive influx of cytokines released into the bloodstream. Without the presence of an immunologic threat, cytokines are responsible for maintaining homeostasis and the functionality of immune cells. However, acute cytokine release (i.e., cytokine storm), as is the case with severe COVID-19, jeopardizes organ function (for example, interstitial lung disease) with clinical symptoms, such as fever, cough, dyspnea, and myalgia.

Benefits and drawbacks of immunosuppressive agents

To inhibit cytokine release (e.g., interleukin-6 cytokine levels), immunosuppressive agents such as tocilizumab have been leveraged to damper the body’s overactive inflammatory response to perceived immunologic stressors, in particular, COVID-19. While the aforementioned agent was remarkably effective with respect to lung consolidation clearance in most of the patients tested, a host of untoward effects prevent its general applicability and use. However, a team of researchers from the University of Nebraska, Omaha, with the Texas Biomedical Research Institute, San Antonio, might have stumbled upon a strategic workaround for mitigating the immune response.

They have proposed that cannabidiol (CBD) be used in lieu of other agents with potentially toxic effects. Animal and human trials have established that CBD confers a relatively high margin of safety coupled with favorable tolerance, providing a viable option for effectively targeting the inflammatory processes of SARS-CoV-2–based pulmonary disease. Furthermore, efficacy increased when CBD was combined with a terpene formulation, especially with respect to the more traditional steroid therapy.³

SARS-CoV-2 exhibits binding affinity for the ACE2 receptor, which is expressed in the lungs as well as other known predilection sites of infection. Ongoing studies attempt to modulate ACE2 expression, thereby eliminating its conspicuous role as “viral gateways,” perhaps even more so in patients with lung pathologies (e.g., people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] and smokers) as they already are prone to increased respiratory morbidity. CBD lacks tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or the psychoactive component of cannabis sativa, rendering the agent to be particularly attractive from a therapeutic perspective. In addition to being devoid of abuse potential, CBD exhibits remarkable anti-inflammatory properties. It should be noted that considerable overlap exists between tobacco and cannabis users, and it is too early to determine the impact on COVID-19. As opposed to cannabis’s effect on ACE2 levels, smoking exhibits a proinflammatory role by up-regulating ACE2 expression.3 However, there are currently numerous conflicting reports in circulation about the positive effect of nicotine on COVID-19 outcome; confounding variables will need to be explored further in patients with a history of using nicotine and cannabis together.

From an immunologic perspective, the endocannabinoid system (ECS) plays an integral role in cell signaling by interacting with natural chemicals of the body, namely, cannabinoids with designated targets at the cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) and the CB2, respectively. The CB2 receptor is of particular interest as it is intimately involved in immune homeostasis; the primary goal of these COVID-19 studies is to modulate the endocannabinoid system via targeted CB2 therapies to produce an immunosuppressant effect.⁴ CB2 activation, be it by means of THC or CBD agonism, may prove to be beneficial by inhibiting the cytokine influx.

Unfortunately, there is a general dearth of data on COVID-19–exposed cannabis users, whether the drug is consumed for medication or recreational purposes. It has been suggested that cannabis intake might contribute toward the development of a cough, complicating the overall clinical outcome for those infected with the virus. The presence of a cough, even in an otherwise asymptomatic individual, facilitates viral spread. As for those cannabis users experiencing COVID-19 symptomatology, they can expect rapid clinical deterioration, including pronounced fatigue and a change in mental status.

According to pulmonary specialists and representatives of the American Lung Association, recreational cannabis use may be associated with a bronchitis-like inflammation (comparable with chronic bronchitis/COPD for chronic users) of the airways, along the lines of cigarette smoking.⁵ As far as cannabis smokers are concerned, the rationale for lung irritation is believed to stem from the relatively large portion of unburnt plant content that is inhaled in a given joint. If there is a superimposed infection, as is the case with COVID-19, the patient may experience further risk of adverse respiratory effects. This serves as a diagnostic dilemma for physicians, especially when they encounter patients who recently started dabbling with cannabis as a means of placating themselves or because they’ve heard rumors that it will somehow protect them from COVID-19. The entire assessment plan is slowed down as a result of the confounding variable (onset of a cough), which may arise independently of COVID-19 in cannabis users. Vulnerable populations include smokers and those with COPD or asthma, as they are more likely to require ventilator assistance during the course of COVID-19 therapy.⁵ Asthmatics and COPD patients are prone to bronchospasms because of sensitive airways.


 

COVID-19 safety protocols for cannabis users

Because of increased risk of respiratory morbidity, clinicians advise that consumption of recreational cannabinoids be scaled back during the course of the pandemic. In light of conflicting news from several media outlets regarding the efficacy of cannabis intake with respect to COVID-19, preexisting users might unwittingly increase their consumption as a preemptive measure against being exposed to the infection. To prevent transmission among users, clinicians should discourage patients from sharing joints. This recommendation is thematically consistent with general precautionary measures about the dangers of sharing utensils, drinking cups/glasses, and so on, amid the pandemic.

Despite promising preliminary research results, CBD cannot be wholeheartedly recommended at this time; patients already on medically administered cannabinoids are urged to discuss the risk-benefit ratio with their respective health care clinicians. Cannabinoid therapies present a massive opportunity from the perspective of immunomodulation, especially when considering the prevalence of drug use. However, to improve clinical guidelines with respect to COVID-19 outcomes, it would be prudent to increase the overall volume of preclinical knowledge by gathering retrospective data (from case-control designs) and randomized prospective trials.

A more comprehensive list of advice from physicians concerning casual or chronic cannabis users may also include: adopting a dedicated delivery or dispensing system for cannabis products, making considerations for decontamination (i.e., disinfecting mouthpieces), ensuring cleansing precautions are maintained (washing thoroughly before and after use or procurement), switching to inhalation alternates (e.g., tinctures, edibles, and/or oils) to decrease further irritation to the lungs. For bong users, it is recommended that they apply rubbing alcohol to clean their device followed with a minute of air-drying.⁶

Conclusion

The literature from preclinical studies appears to largely favor the use of CBD, but there remains an element of uncertainty with respect to implementing cannabinoids for the treatment of coronavirus.

COVID-19 cannabinoid intervention is a hot topic with renewed interest from the industry and the public at large, but viral-focused therapies remain a relatively underused area worth exploring with case-control designs and randomized prospective trials. As cannabis legalization is picking up momentum across five additional states, the time is ripe to systematically investigate the therapeutic applications of the drug beyond merely preclinical data. Aside from educational reform initiatives, clinicians might proactively launch a platform that integrates telemedicine as well as digital apps, directly linking the patient to the clinician and monitoring the efficacy of program initiatives in real time.
 

References

1. Long A. Consumers’ cannabis buying patterns change markedly in wake of COVID-19 pandemic. Marijuana Business Daily. 2020 Sep 22. https://mjbizdaily.com/consumers-cannabis-buying-patterns-change-markedly-in-wake-of-covid-pandemic/.

2. Bures B. How the coronavirus pandemic is increasing global demand for marijuana. Chicago Tribune. 2020 Jul 1. https://www.chicagotribune.com/marijuana/sns-tft-coronavirus-increases-global-marijuana-demand-20200701-oygaxryb7vhcjfeu44cgacicaa-story.html.

3. Walters J. Marijuana and COVID-19: Top studies. CannaMD. 2020 Aug 19. https://www.cannamd.com/marijuana-covid-19-top-studies/.

4. El Biali M et al. Med Cannabis Cannabinoids. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1159/000510799.

5. LaMotte S. “Smoking weed and coronavirus: Even occasional use raises risk of COVID-19 complications.” CNN Health. 2020 Apr 10. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/health/smoking-weed-coronavirus-wellness/index.html

6. Yafai S and Etengoff S. The case for cannabis: Advising cannabis users about COVID-19. Emergency Medicine News. 2020 May 20;42(5B).

Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation (IMCHF), Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Mr. Choudhry is a research assistant at the IMCHF. Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the IMCHF and is Mr. Choudhry’s father. Dr. Islam, Mr. Choudhry, and Dr. Choudhry reported no relevant disclosures.

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) occurs when an individual who is alcohol-dependent suddenly stops or significantly reduces his/her alcohol intake.¹ Symptoms of AWS, which can be fatal, include anxiety, restlessness, seizures, confusion, and delirium.¹ Because benzodiazepines have been proven effective in improving symptoms of AWS, they are considered the first-line treatment, but they also carry the risk of abuse, psychomotor sedation, cognitive impairment, and interactions with alcohol.¹

Non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants (NBACs) such as valproic acid (VPA) and carbamazepine may offer benefit as alternatives or adjuncts to benzodiazepines.¹ Many NBACs affect the functioning of glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) neurotransmitters,² which are particularly dysregulated in patients with AWS. Because NBACs help stabilize this imbalance, they may be useful for managing AWS and preventing relapse without the risks associated with benzodiazepines.²

Valproic acid: A better choice than carbamazepine

Compared with other NBACs, VPA and carbamazepine have been studied more extensively for treating patients with AWS, and their clinical effectiveness has been well documented.¹ For mild-to-moderate AWS, VPA and carbamazepine may be as effective as benzodiazepines in reducing the severity of symptoms, and more potent for preventing withdrawal seizures.¹

Increasing data suggests that compared with VPA, adjunctive treatment with carbamazepine for AWS may be more frequently associated with intolerable adverse effects such as ataxia, orthostatic hypotension, vertigo, nausea, and vomiting.¹ The rapid onset of AWS requires rapid-acting pharmacotherapy.¹ In attempting to rapidly achieve the desired plasma concentrations of carbamazepine, clinicians may risk inducing adverse effects. Compared with carbamazepine, VPA is associated with faster symptom resolution, a shorter duration of pharmacologic treatment, fewer transfers to the ICU, fewer withdrawal seizures, and a more favorable adverse effect profile.¹ Likely due to its shorter half-life, VPA delivers its therapeutic effects without producing significant adverse effects.¹

Early and aggressive treatment of AWS is needed to block kindling,³ which is characterized by the worsening of withdrawal symptoms each time an individual attempts to quit drinking alcohol. Compared with carbamazepine, VPA may be more helpful for blocking kindling.³

More data is needed

Due to ethical concerns, few studies have compared anticonvulsant medications with placebo for treating AWS.² Most studies examining NBACs for AWS have either used the anticonvulsant as an adjunct to a benzodiazepine to examine improvement in withdrawal symptoms, or compared the anticonvulsant with placebo or another intervention to assess the amount of a benzodiazepine required for safe detoxification.^2,4 Additionally, most studies examining NBACs have been short, and few followed patients after the active medication period, which limits our knowledge of the long-term effectiveness of NBACs.² Before NBACs can replace benzodiazepines for managing AWS, further evidence from clinical trials is needed to assess their efficiency as a stand-alone treatment.

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) occurs when an individual who is alcohol-dependent suddenly stops or significantly reduces his/her alcohol intake.¹ Symptoms of AWS, which can be fatal, include anxiety, restlessness, seizures, confusion, and delirium.¹ Because benzodiazepines have been proven effective in improving symptoms of AWS, they are considered the first-line treatment, but they also carry the risk of abuse, psychomotor sedation, cognitive impairment, and interactions with alcohol.¹

Non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants (NBACs) such as valproic acid (VPA) and carbamazepine may offer benefit as alternatives or adjuncts to benzodiazepines.¹ Many NBACs affect the functioning of glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) neurotransmitters,² which are particularly dysregulated in patients with AWS. Because NBACs help stabilize this imbalance, they may be useful for managing AWS and preventing relapse without the risks associated with benzodiazepines.²

Valproic acid: A better choice than carbamazepine

Compared with other NBACs, VPA and carbamazepine have been studied more extensively for treating patients with AWS, and their clinical effectiveness has been well documented.¹ For mild-to-moderate AWS, VPA and carbamazepine may be as effective as benzodiazepines in reducing the severity of symptoms, and more potent for preventing withdrawal seizures.¹

Increasing data suggests that compared with VPA, adjunctive treatment with carbamazepine for AWS may be more frequently associated with intolerable adverse effects such as ataxia, orthostatic hypotension, vertigo, nausea, and vomiting.¹ The rapid onset of AWS requires rapid-acting pharmacotherapy.¹ In attempting to rapidly achieve the desired plasma concentrations of carbamazepine, clinicians may risk inducing adverse effects. Compared with carbamazepine, VPA is associated with faster symptom resolution, a shorter duration of pharmacologic treatment, fewer transfers to the ICU, fewer withdrawal seizures, and a more favorable adverse effect profile.¹ Likely due to its shorter half-life, VPA delivers its therapeutic effects without producing significant adverse effects.¹

Early and aggressive treatment of AWS is needed to block kindling,³ which is characterized by the worsening of withdrawal symptoms each time an individual attempts to quit drinking alcohol. Compared with carbamazepine, VPA may be more helpful for blocking kindling.³

More data is needed

Due to ethical concerns, few studies have compared anticonvulsant medications with placebo for treating AWS.² Most studies examining NBACs for AWS have either used the anticonvulsant as an adjunct to a benzodiazepine to examine improvement in withdrawal symptoms, or compared the anticonvulsant with placebo or another intervention to assess the amount of a benzodiazepine required for safe detoxification.^2,4 Additionally, most studies examining NBACs have been short, and few followed patients after the active medication period, which limits our knowledge of the long-term effectiveness of NBACs.² Before NBACs can replace benzodiazepines for managing AWS, further evidence from clinical trials is needed to assess their efficiency as a stand-alone treatment.

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) occurs when an individual who is alcohol-dependent suddenly stops or significantly reduces his/her alcohol intake.¹ Symptoms of AWS, which can be fatal, include anxiety, restlessness, seizures, confusion, and delirium.¹ Because benzodiazepines have been proven effective in improving symptoms of AWS, they are considered the first-line treatment, but they also carry the risk of abuse, psychomotor sedation, cognitive impairment, and interactions with alcohol.¹

Non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants (NBACs) such as valproic acid (VPA) and carbamazepine may offer benefit as alternatives or adjuncts to benzodiazepines.¹ Many NBACs affect the functioning of glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) neurotransmitters,² which are particularly dysregulated in patients with AWS. Because NBACs help stabilize this imbalance, they may be useful for managing AWS and preventing relapse without the risks associated with benzodiazepines.²

Valproic acid: A better choice than carbamazepine

Compared with other NBACs, VPA and carbamazepine have been studied more extensively for treating patients with AWS, and their clinical effectiveness has been well documented.¹ For mild-to-moderate AWS, VPA and carbamazepine may be as effective as benzodiazepines in reducing the severity of symptoms, and more potent for preventing withdrawal seizures.¹

Increasing data suggests that compared with VPA, adjunctive treatment with carbamazepine for AWS may be more frequently associated with intolerable adverse effects such as ataxia, orthostatic hypotension, vertigo, nausea, and vomiting.¹ The rapid onset of AWS requires rapid-acting pharmacotherapy.¹ In attempting to rapidly achieve the desired plasma concentrations of carbamazepine, clinicians may risk inducing adverse effects. Compared with carbamazepine, VPA is associated with faster symptom resolution, a shorter duration of pharmacologic treatment, fewer transfers to the ICU, fewer withdrawal seizures, and a more favorable adverse effect profile.¹ Likely due to its shorter half-life, VPA delivers its therapeutic effects without producing significant adverse effects.¹

Early and aggressive treatment of AWS is needed to block kindling,³ which is characterized by the worsening of withdrawal symptoms each time an individual attempts to quit drinking alcohol. Compared with carbamazepine, VPA may be more helpful for blocking kindling.³

More data is needed

Due to ethical concerns, few studies have compared anticonvulsant medications with placebo for treating AWS.² Most studies examining NBACs for AWS have either used the anticonvulsant as an adjunct to a benzodiazepine to examine improvement in withdrawal symptoms, or compared the anticonvulsant with placebo or another intervention to assess the amount of a benzodiazepine required for safe detoxification.^2,4 Additionally, most studies examining NBACs have been short, and few followed patients after the active medication period, which limits our knowledge of the long-term effectiveness of NBACs.² Before NBACs can replace benzodiazepines for managing AWS, further evidence from clinical trials is needed to assess their efficiency as a stand-alone treatment.

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

Cigarettes are still the product of choice among U.S. adults who use tobacco, but the youngest adults are more likely to use e-cigarettes than any other product, according to data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

Just under 21% of all adults (an estimated 50.6 million individuals) said they used tobacco products “every day” or “some days,” with cigarette use reported by the largest share of respondents (14.0%) and e-cigarettes next at 4.5%, Monica E. Cornelius, PhD, and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Among adults aged 18-24 years, however, e-cigarettes were used by 9.3% of respondents in 2019, compared with 8.0% who used cigarettes every day or some days. Current e-cigarette use was 6.4% in 25- to 44-year-olds and continued to diminish with increasing age, said Dr. Cornelius and associates at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Men were more likely than women to use e-cigarettes (5.5% vs. 3.5%), and to use any tobacco product (26.2% vs. 15.7%). Use of other products, including cigarettes (15.3% for men vs. 12.7% for women), followed the same pattern to varying degrees, the national survey data show.

“Differences in prevalence of tobacco use also were also seen across population groups, with higher prevalence among those with a [high school equivalency degree], American Indian/Alaska Natives, uninsured adults and adults with Medicaid, and [lesbian, gay, or bisexual] adults,” the investigators said.

Among those groups, overall tobacco use and cigarette use were highest in those with an equivalency degree (43.8%, 37.1%), while lesbian/gay/bisexual individuals had the highest prevalence of e-cigarette use at 11.5%, they reported.

“As part of a comprehensive approach” to reduce tobacco-related disease and death, Dr. Cornelius and associates suggested, “targeted interventions are also warranted to reach subpopulations with the highest prevalence of use, which might vary by tobacco product type.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cornelius ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 20;69(46);1736-42.

Cigarettes are still the product of choice among U.S. adults who use tobacco, but the youngest adults are more likely to use e-cigarettes than any other product, according to data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

Just under 21% of all adults (an estimated 50.6 million individuals) said they used tobacco products “every day” or “some days,” with cigarette use reported by the largest share of respondents (14.0%) and e-cigarettes next at 4.5%, Monica E. Cornelius, PhD, and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Among adults aged 18-24 years, however, e-cigarettes were used by 9.3% of respondents in 2019, compared with 8.0% who used cigarettes every day or some days. Current e-cigarette use was 6.4% in 25- to 44-year-olds and continued to diminish with increasing age, said Dr. Cornelius and associates at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Men were more likely than women to use e-cigarettes (5.5% vs. 3.5%), and to use any tobacco product (26.2% vs. 15.7%). Use of other products, including cigarettes (15.3% for men vs. 12.7% for women), followed the same pattern to varying degrees, the national survey data show.

“Differences in prevalence of tobacco use also were also seen across population groups, with higher prevalence among those with a [high school equivalency degree], American Indian/Alaska Natives, uninsured adults and adults with Medicaid, and [lesbian, gay, or bisexual] adults,” the investigators said.

Among those groups, overall tobacco use and cigarette use were highest in those with an equivalency degree (43.8%, 37.1%), while lesbian/gay/bisexual individuals had the highest prevalence of e-cigarette use at 11.5%, they reported.

“As part of a comprehensive approach” to reduce tobacco-related disease and death, Dr. Cornelius and associates suggested, “targeted interventions are also warranted to reach subpopulations with the highest prevalence of use, which might vary by tobacco product type.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cornelius ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 20;69(46);1736-42.

Cigarettes are still the product of choice among U.S. adults who use tobacco, but the youngest adults are more likely to use e-cigarettes than any other product, according to data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

Just under 21% of all adults (an estimated 50.6 million individuals) said they used tobacco products “every day” or “some days,” with cigarette use reported by the largest share of respondents (14.0%) and e-cigarettes next at 4.5%, Monica E. Cornelius, PhD, and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Among adults aged 18-24 years, however, e-cigarettes were used by 9.3% of respondents in 2019, compared with 8.0% who used cigarettes every day or some days. Current e-cigarette use was 6.4% in 25- to 44-year-olds and continued to diminish with increasing age, said Dr. Cornelius and associates at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Men were more likely than women to use e-cigarettes (5.5% vs. 3.5%), and to use any tobacco product (26.2% vs. 15.7%). Use of other products, including cigarettes (15.3% for men vs. 12.7% for women), followed the same pattern to varying degrees, the national survey data show.

“Differences in prevalence of tobacco use also were also seen across population groups, with higher prevalence among those with a [high school equivalency degree], American Indian/Alaska Natives, uninsured adults and adults with Medicaid, and [lesbian, gay, or bisexual] adults,” the investigators said.

Among those groups, overall tobacco use and cigarette use were highest in those with an equivalency degree (43.8%, 37.1%), while lesbian/gay/bisexual individuals had the highest prevalence of e-cigarette use at 11.5%, they reported.

“As part of a comprehensive approach” to reduce tobacco-related disease and death, Dr. Cornelius and associates suggested, “targeted interventions are also warranted to reach subpopulations with the highest prevalence of use, which might vary by tobacco product type.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cornelius ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 20;69(46);1736-42.