Addiction Medicine

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: Welcome to Medscape. I’m Dr Andrew Wilner. Today I have a special guest, Dr James Gordon, founder and executive director of the Center for Mind-Body Medicine. Welcome, Dr Gordon.

Courtesy Center for Mind-Body Medicine

James S. Gordon, MD: Thank you very much. It’s good to be with you.

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for joining us. We are recording this in late May 2020, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. Millions of people have been infected. Hundreds of thousands have died. Millions have lost their jobs. I think it’s fair to say that people are under a greater degree of stress than they’re normally accustomed to. Would you agree with that?

Dr. Gordon: I think it’s more than fair to say that everybody in the United States, and actually pretty much everyone in the world, is under extreme stress. And that compounds any stresses that they’ve experienced before in their lives. Everyone is affected.

Dr. Wilner: The mind-body medicine concept is one that you’ve pursued for decades. Tell us a little bit about the Center for Mind-Body Medicine and how that’s led to the program that you have to help us deal with the coronavirus.

Dr. Gordon: I started the Center for Mind-Body Medicine about 30 years ago. I’d been a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health for a number of years, in private practice, and a professor at Georgetown Medical School. But I wanted to really focus on how to change and enrich medicine by making self-care, self-awareness, and group support central to all healthcare.

Western medicine is enormously powerful in certain situations, such as physical trauma, high levels of infection, congenital anomalies. But we’re not so good at working with chronic physical or psychological problems. Those are much more complex.

We’ve been discovering that what is going to make the long-term difference in conditions like type 2 diabetes, pain syndromes, hypertension, depression, and anxiety are those approaches that we can learn to do for ourselves. These are changes we can make in how we deal with stress, eat, exercise, relate to other people, and whether we find meaning and purpose in our lives.

For the past 25 years, the major part of our focus has been on whole populations that have been psychologically traumatized by wars, climate-related disasters, the opioid epidemic, chronic poverty, historical trauma. We do a lot of work with indigenous people here in North America. We’ve worked in a number of communities where school shootings have traumatized everyone.

What we’ve learned over these past 25 years, and what interested me professionally as well as personally over the past 50 years, is what we’re now bringing out on an even larger scale. The kind of approaches that we’ve developed, studied, and published research on are exactly what everyone needs to include and incorporate in their daily life, as well as in their medical and health care, from now on.

Dr. Wilner: Do you have a program that’s specifically for health care providers?

Dr. Gordon: Yes. The Center for Mind-Body Medicine is primarily an educational organization rather than a service organization. Since the beginning, I’ve been focused on training health professionals. My first passion was for training physicians – I’m a physician, so there’s a feeling of fellowship there – but also health care workers and mental health professionals of every kind.

We teach health professionals a whole system, a comprehensive program of techniques of self-awareness and self-care. We teach them so that they can practice on themselves and study the underlying science, so they can then teach what they’ve learned to the patients or clients they work with. They integrate it into what they’re already doing, regardless of their specialty. At times we also offer some of the same kinds of mind-body skills groups that are the fundamental part of our training as a stand-alone intervention. You can’t really teach other people how to take care of themselves unless you’re also doing it yourself. Otherwise, it’s just a theory.

Dr. Wilner: As a neurologist, I’m interested in the mind-body system. You are a psychiatrist and understand that it’s a lot more difficult to objectify certain things. What is stress? What is happiness? What is sadness? It’s very hard to measure. You can have scales, but it requires insight on the part of the individual. So I think it’s certainly an ambitious project.

Dr. Gordon: You’re absolutely right. It requires insight. And one of the shortcomings of our medical education is that it doesn’t encourage us to look inside ourselves enough. There’s so much focus on objectivity and on data, that we’ve lost some of the subjective art of medicine.

My experience with myself, as well as with the thousands of people we’ve trained here in the United States and around the world and the many hundreds of thousands with whom they’ve worked, is that all of us have a greater capacity to understand and help ourselves than we ordinarily think or than most of us learn about in our medical education.

This work is saying to people to take a little bit of time and relax a little in order to allow yourself to come into a meditative state. And I don’t mean anything fancy by that. Meditation is just being relaxed. Moment-to-moment awareness doesn’t have to do with any particular religion or spiritual practice. It’s part of all of them. If you can get into that state, then you can begin to say, “Oh, that’s what’s going on with me. That’s why my pain is worse.”

For example, you often wonder in people with peripheral neuropathy why it becomes worse or better at certain points. I would encourage neurologists and other physicians to ask your patients, “Why do you think it’s worse?” They may say, “I don’t know, doc; that’s why I’m here.” But I would ask them to take a couple of minutes to let me know. They could think it has something to do with the fact that they had a big fight with their wife that morning, they don’t want to go to work, or whatever it is. This is part of the lost art that we need to bring back into medicine for ourselves and especially for our patients.

Dr. Wilner: Can you give me an example of some of the exercises you’d do in a class?

Dr. Gordon: All of the exercises and our entire program that we teach at the Center for Mind-Body Medicine is in this new book of mine, “The Transformation: Discovering Wholeness and Healing After Trauma.” It’s really the distillation of not just the past 25 or 30 years, but really 50 years of work.

Courtesy Center for Mind-Body Medicine

The techniques are all pretty simple and, as we say, evidence based. There is evidence that shows how they work on us physiologically, as well as psychologically. And they’re all pretty easy to teach to anyone.

Myself and about 60 or 70 of our faculty at the Center for Mind-Body Medicine are currently leading online groups. Then several hundred of the other people we’ve trained are also leading these groups. We’re still counting it up, but we probably have between 700 and 1,000 groups going around the world, led by our faculty and by people we’ve trained.

We teach a different technique every week in these online groups. Last week, after getting people energized and focused, we did a written dialogue with an emotion. You put down the initial of your name – in my case, “J” for Jim – and create a dialogue with an emotion, such as sadness. I would write it as fast as I can.

I would say, “OK, Sadness. Why are you here? What are you doing? I don’t enjoy having you around.” And Sadness writes back to me, “But you need me.” And J says, “What do you mean I need you?” And Sadness says, “Well, your brother died 7 weeks ago, didn’t he?” And I say, “Yes, he did.” And Sadness says, “Aren’t you sad?” I say, “Yes. I’m terribly sad and grieving all the time. But I wasn’t thinking about him at this moment.” And Sadness says, “But he’s there with you all the time and that sadness is in you.” And I say, “You mean it’s in me even here, now, as I’m talking with Andrew in this interview?” And Sadness says, “Yes. You can talk about your work. But in between the words, as you take a breath, don’t you feel it in your chest?” That’s the way the dialogue goes.

Dr. Wilner: What about specifically with the coronavirus? Fear is certainly an emotion. Nobody wants to get sick and die. Nobody wants to bring this disease home to their family. People are reluctant to even go outside and you can’t shake someone’s hand. Are there precedents for this?

Dr. Gordon: There are precedents, but only relatively small groups were affected before by, for example, severe acute respiratory syndrome or H1N1, at least in the United States. But we haven’t seen a global pandemic like this since 1918. None of us was around then – or I certainly wasn’t around. So for most everyone, not only has it not happened before, but we’ve never been so globally aware of everything that’s going on and how different groups are reacting.

I’ve been reading Daniel Defoe’s book, “A Journal of the Plague Year.” It’s really very interesting. It’s about the bubonic plague in 1665 London, although he wrote it in the 1720s. Some of the same things were going on then: the enormous fear, the isolation; rich people being able to escape, poor people having nowhere to go; conspiracy theories of one kind or another, about where the plague came from or blaming a group of people for it; magical thinking that it’s just going to go away. All of those things that happened several hundred years ago are going on now.

And we’re all simultaneously aware of all those things. There’s not only the fear, which should be universal because it’s a reasonable response to this situation, but also the terrible confusion about what to do. The President is saying one thing, governors something else; Anthony Fauci is saying something else, and Deborah Birx is saying something a little bit different. There’s this tremendous confusion that overlays the fear, and I think everybody is more or less feeling these things.

So yes, a dialogue with fear is a good thing to do because it can be clarifying. What we need here is a sense of, what is it that makes sense for me to do? What precautions should I take? What precautions shouldn’t I take?

I have a 17-year-old son who lives with his mom in California. He and I were on the phone the other day. He’s a basketball player and very serious about it. He said, “I don’t want to put my life on hold.” And my response was, “If you go outside too soon, your life may be on hold for a hell of a lot longer than if you stay inside because, if you get sick, it’s serious. But you also need to start looking at the evidence and asking yourself the right questions because I can’t be there all the time and neither can your mom.”

Everybody really needs to use these kinds of tools to help themselves. The tools we teach are extremely good at bringing us back into a state of psychological and physiological balance — slow, deep breathing being a very basic one. Because it’s only in that state that we’re going to be able to make the most intelligent decisions about what to do. It’s only in that state that we’re going to be able to really look our fear in the face and find out what we should be afraid of and what we shouldn’t be afraid of.

It’s a process that’s very much integrated. We’re talking now about how to deal with the emotions. But the first part of what we do in our groups and our online trainings and webinars is teach people to just take a few deep breaths. Just take a few deep breaths in through the nose, out through the mouth, with your belly soft and relaxed. You can keep breathing this way while talking. That’s the antidote to the fight-or-flight response. We all learn about fight-or-flight in first-year physiology. We need to deal with it. We need to bring ourselves into balance. That’s the way we’re going to make the wisest decisions for ourselves and be best able to help our patients.
 

Dr. Wilner: As you mentioned, part of modern culture is that we now have access to all of this information worldwide. There’s a continual stream of newsfeeds, people flipping on their phones, receiving constant updates, 24/7. That’s a new phenomenon. Does that steal from us the time we had before for just breathing and synthesizing data as opposed to just acquiring it all the time?

Dr. Gordon: You’re absolutely right. It does and it’s a challenge. It can’t steal from us unless we’re letting our emotional, psychological, and physiological pockets be picked!

What we need to do is to make it our priority to come into balance. I don’t watch news all day long – a little tiny bit in the morning and in the evening, just to get a sense of what’s happening. That’s enough. And I think everybody needs to take a step back, ask if this is really what they want to be doing, and to come into balance.

The other thing that’s really important is physical activity, especially during this time. In addition to using slow, deep breathing to come into balance, physical exercise and movement of any kind is extremely good as an antidote to fight-or-flight and that shut-down, freeze-up response that we get into when we feel completely overwhelmed.

We’ve got to take it into our own hands. The media just want to sell us things. Let’s face it: They’re not here for our good. Our job as physicians and health care professionals is to really reinforce for people not only what we can do for them but what they can do for themselves.

Dr. Wilner: I’m certainly interested in learning more about mind-body medicine. For those who feel the same, where do you recommend they go to learn more?

Dr. Gordon: We have a website, cmbm.org, which features a number of webinars. I do a free webinar there every week. We have mind-body skills groups that meet once a week for 8 weeks. There are six physicians in my group and all kinds of health professionals in other groups. We have a training program that we’re bringing online. We’ve trained well over 6,000 people around the world and would love to train more. You can read about that on the website.

We’re starting to do more and more consulting with health care organizations. We’re working with the largest division of Veterans Affairs, which is in Florida, as well as in south Georgia and the Caribbean. We’re working with a large health system in Indiana and others elsewhere. In addition, we’re working with groups of physicians and mental health professionals, helping them to integrate what we have to offer into what they’re already doing.

That’s our job – to help you do your job.

Dr. Wilner: Dr Gordon, I feel more relaxed just speaking with you. Thank you for talking with me and sharing your experiences with Medscape. I look forward to learning more.

Dr. Gordon: Thank you. My pleasure.

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

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: Welcome to Medscape. I’m Dr Andrew Wilner. Today I have a special guest, Dr James Gordon, founder and executive director of the Center for Mind-Body Medicine. Welcome, Dr Gordon.

Courtesy Center for Mind-Body Medicine

James S. Gordon, MD: Thank you very much. It’s good to be with you.

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for joining us. We are recording this in late May 2020, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. Millions of people have been infected. Hundreds of thousands have died. Millions have lost their jobs. I think it’s fair to say that people are under a greater degree of stress than they’re normally accustomed to. Would you agree with that?

Dr. Gordon: I think it’s more than fair to say that everybody in the United States, and actually pretty much everyone in the world, is under extreme stress. And that compounds any stresses that they’ve experienced before in their lives. Everyone is affected.

Dr. Wilner: The mind-body medicine concept is one that you’ve pursued for decades. Tell us a little bit about the Center for Mind-Body Medicine and how that’s led to the program that you have to help us deal with the coronavirus.

Dr. Gordon: I started the Center for Mind-Body Medicine about 30 years ago. I’d been a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health for a number of years, in private practice, and a professor at Georgetown Medical School. But I wanted to really focus on how to change and enrich medicine by making self-care, self-awareness, and group support central to all healthcare.

Western medicine is enormously powerful in certain situations, such as physical trauma, high levels of infection, congenital anomalies. But we’re not so good at working with chronic physical or psychological problems. Those are much more complex.

We’ve been discovering that what is going to make the long-term difference in conditions like type 2 diabetes, pain syndromes, hypertension, depression, and anxiety are those approaches that we can learn to do for ourselves. These are changes we can make in how we deal with stress, eat, exercise, relate to other people, and whether we find meaning and purpose in our lives.

For the past 25 years, the major part of our focus has been on whole populations that have been psychologically traumatized by wars, climate-related disasters, the opioid epidemic, chronic poverty, historical trauma. We do a lot of work with indigenous people here in North America. We’ve worked in a number of communities where school shootings have traumatized everyone.

What we’ve learned over these past 25 years, and what interested me professionally as well as personally over the past 50 years, is what we’re now bringing out on an even larger scale. The kind of approaches that we’ve developed, studied, and published research on are exactly what everyone needs to include and incorporate in their daily life, as well as in their medical and health care, from now on.

Dr. Wilner: Do you have a program that’s specifically for health care providers?

Dr. Gordon: Yes. The Center for Mind-Body Medicine is primarily an educational organization rather than a service organization. Since the beginning, I’ve been focused on training health professionals. My first passion was for training physicians – I’m a physician, so there’s a feeling of fellowship there – but also health care workers and mental health professionals of every kind.

We teach health professionals a whole system, a comprehensive program of techniques of self-awareness and self-care. We teach them so that they can practice on themselves and study the underlying science, so they can then teach what they’ve learned to the patients or clients they work with. They integrate it into what they’re already doing, regardless of their specialty. At times we also offer some of the same kinds of mind-body skills groups that are the fundamental part of our training as a stand-alone intervention. You can’t really teach other people how to take care of themselves unless you’re also doing it yourself. Otherwise, it’s just a theory.

Dr. Wilner: As a neurologist, I’m interested in the mind-body system. You are a psychiatrist and understand that it’s a lot more difficult to objectify certain things. What is stress? What is happiness? What is sadness? It’s very hard to measure. You can have scales, but it requires insight on the part of the individual. So I think it’s certainly an ambitious project.

Dr. Gordon: You’re absolutely right. It requires insight. And one of the shortcomings of our medical education is that it doesn’t encourage us to look inside ourselves enough. There’s so much focus on objectivity and on data, that we’ve lost some of the subjective art of medicine.

My experience with myself, as well as with the thousands of people we’ve trained here in the United States and around the world and the many hundreds of thousands with whom they’ve worked, is that all of us have a greater capacity to understand and help ourselves than we ordinarily think or than most of us learn about in our medical education.

This work is saying to people to take a little bit of time and relax a little in order to allow yourself to come into a meditative state. And I don’t mean anything fancy by that. Meditation is just being relaxed. Moment-to-moment awareness doesn’t have to do with any particular religion or spiritual practice. It’s part of all of them. If you can get into that state, then you can begin to say, “Oh, that’s what’s going on with me. That’s why my pain is worse.”

For example, you often wonder in people with peripheral neuropathy why it becomes worse or better at certain points. I would encourage neurologists and other physicians to ask your patients, “Why do you think it’s worse?” They may say, “I don’t know, doc; that’s why I’m here.” But I would ask them to take a couple of minutes to let me know. They could think it has something to do with the fact that they had a big fight with their wife that morning, they don’t want to go to work, or whatever it is. This is part of the lost art that we need to bring back into medicine for ourselves and especially for our patients.

Dr. Wilner: Can you give me an example of some of the exercises you’d do in a class?

Dr. Gordon: All of the exercises and our entire program that we teach at the Center for Mind-Body Medicine is in this new book of mine, “The Transformation: Discovering Wholeness and Healing After Trauma.” It’s really the distillation of not just the past 25 or 30 years, but really 50 years of work.

Courtesy Center for Mind-Body Medicine

The techniques are all pretty simple and, as we say, evidence based. There is evidence that shows how they work on us physiologically, as well as psychologically. And they’re all pretty easy to teach to anyone.

Myself and about 60 or 70 of our faculty at the Center for Mind-Body Medicine are currently leading online groups. Then several hundred of the other people we’ve trained are also leading these groups. We’re still counting it up, but we probably have between 700 and 1,000 groups going around the world, led by our faculty and by people we’ve trained.

We teach a different technique every week in these online groups. Last week, after getting people energized and focused, we did a written dialogue with an emotion. You put down the initial of your name – in my case, “J” for Jim – and create a dialogue with an emotion, such as sadness. I would write it as fast as I can.

I would say, “OK, Sadness. Why are you here? What are you doing? I don’t enjoy having you around.” And Sadness writes back to me, “But you need me.” And J says, “What do you mean I need you?” And Sadness says, “Well, your brother died 7 weeks ago, didn’t he?” And I say, “Yes, he did.” And Sadness says, “Aren’t you sad?” I say, “Yes. I’m terribly sad and grieving all the time. But I wasn’t thinking about him at this moment.” And Sadness says, “But he’s there with you all the time and that sadness is in you.” And I say, “You mean it’s in me even here, now, as I’m talking with Andrew in this interview?” And Sadness says, “Yes. You can talk about your work. But in between the words, as you take a breath, don’t you feel it in your chest?” That’s the way the dialogue goes.

Dr. Wilner: What about specifically with the coronavirus? Fear is certainly an emotion. Nobody wants to get sick and die. Nobody wants to bring this disease home to their family. People are reluctant to even go outside and you can’t shake someone’s hand. Are there precedents for this?

Dr. Gordon: There are precedents, but only relatively small groups were affected before by, for example, severe acute respiratory syndrome or H1N1, at least in the United States. But we haven’t seen a global pandemic like this since 1918. None of us was around then – or I certainly wasn’t around. So for most everyone, not only has it not happened before, but we’ve never been so globally aware of everything that’s going on and how different groups are reacting.

I’ve been reading Daniel Defoe’s book, “A Journal of the Plague Year.” It’s really very interesting. It’s about the bubonic plague in 1665 London, although he wrote it in the 1720s. Some of the same things were going on then: the enormous fear, the isolation; rich people being able to escape, poor people having nowhere to go; conspiracy theories of one kind or another, about where the plague came from or blaming a group of people for it; magical thinking that it’s just going to go away. All of those things that happened several hundred years ago are going on now.

And we’re all simultaneously aware of all those things. There’s not only the fear, which should be universal because it’s a reasonable response to this situation, but also the terrible confusion about what to do. The President is saying one thing, governors something else; Anthony Fauci is saying something else, and Deborah Birx is saying something a little bit different. There’s this tremendous confusion that overlays the fear, and I think everybody is more or less feeling these things.

So yes, a dialogue with fear is a good thing to do because it can be clarifying. What we need here is a sense of, what is it that makes sense for me to do? What precautions should I take? What precautions shouldn’t I take?

I have a 17-year-old son who lives with his mom in California. He and I were on the phone the other day. He’s a basketball player and very serious about it. He said, “I don’t want to put my life on hold.” And my response was, “If you go outside too soon, your life may be on hold for a hell of a lot longer than if you stay inside because, if you get sick, it’s serious. But you also need to start looking at the evidence and asking yourself the right questions because I can’t be there all the time and neither can your mom.”

Everybody really needs to use these kinds of tools to help themselves. The tools we teach are extremely good at bringing us back into a state of psychological and physiological balance — slow, deep breathing being a very basic one. Because it’s only in that state that we’re going to be able to make the most intelligent decisions about what to do. It’s only in that state that we’re going to be able to really look our fear in the face and find out what we should be afraid of and what we shouldn’t be afraid of.

It’s a process that’s very much integrated. We’re talking now about how to deal with the emotions. But the first part of what we do in our groups and our online trainings and webinars is teach people to just take a few deep breaths. Just take a few deep breaths in through the nose, out through the mouth, with your belly soft and relaxed. You can keep breathing this way while talking. That’s the antidote to the fight-or-flight response. We all learn about fight-or-flight in first-year physiology. We need to deal with it. We need to bring ourselves into balance. That’s the way we’re going to make the wisest decisions for ourselves and be best able to help our patients.
 

Dr. Wilner: As you mentioned, part of modern culture is that we now have access to all of this information worldwide. There’s a continual stream of newsfeeds, people flipping on their phones, receiving constant updates, 24/7. That’s a new phenomenon. Does that steal from us the time we had before for just breathing and synthesizing data as opposed to just acquiring it all the time?

Dr. Gordon: You’re absolutely right. It does and it’s a challenge. It can’t steal from us unless we’re letting our emotional, psychological, and physiological pockets be picked!

What we need to do is to make it our priority to come into balance. I don’t watch news all day long – a little tiny bit in the morning and in the evening, just to get a sense of what’s happening. That’s enough. And I think everybody needs to take a step back, ask if this is really what they want to be doing, and to come into balance.

The other thing that’s really important is physical activity, especially during this time. In addition to using slow, deep breathing to come into balance, physical exercise and movement of any kind is extremely good as an antidote to fight-or-flight and that shut-down, freeze-up response that we get into when we feel completely overwhelmed.

We’ve got to take it into our own hands. The media just want to sell us things. Let’s face it: They’re not here for our good. Our job as physicians and health care professionals is to really reinforce for people not only what we can do for them but what they can do for themselves.

Dr. Wilner: I’m certainly interested in learning more about mind-body medicine. For those who feel the same, where do you recommend they go to learn more?

Dr. Gordon: We have a website, cmbm.org, which features a number of webinars. I do a free webinar there every week. We have mind-body skills groups that meet once a week for 8 weeks. There are six physicians in my group and all kinds of health professionals in other groups. We have a training program that we’re bringing online. We’ve trained well over 6,000 people around the world and would love to train more. You can read about that on the website.

We’re starting to do more and more consulting with health care organizations. We’re working with the largest division of Veterans Affairs, which is in Florida, as well as in south Georgia and the Caribbean. We’re working with a large health system in Indiana and others elsewhere. In addition, we’re working with groups of physicians and mental health professionals, helping them to integrate what we have to offer into what they’re already doing.

That’s our job – to help you do your job.

Dr. Wilner: Dr Gordon, I feel more relaxed just speaking with you. Thank you for talking with me and sharing your experiences with Medscape. I look forward to learning more.

Dr. Gordon: Thank you. My pleasure.

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

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: Welcome to Medscape. I’m Dr Andrew Wilner. Today I have a special guest, Dr James Gordon, founder and executive director of the Center for Mind-Body Medicine. Welcome, Dr Gordon.

Courtesy Center for Mind-Body Medicine

James S. Gordon, MD: Thank you very much. It’s good to be with you.

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for joining us. We are recording this in late May 2020, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. Millions of people have been infected. Hundreds of thousands have died. Millions have lost their jobs. I think it’s fair to say that people are under a greater degree of stress than they’re normally accustomed to. Would you agree with that?

Dr. Gordon: I think it’s more than fair to say that everybody in the United States, and actually pretty much everyone in the world, is under extreme stress. And that compounds any stresses that they’ve experienced before in their lives. Everyone is affected.

Dr. Wilner: The mind-body medicine concept is one that you’ve pursued for decades. Tell us a little bit about the Center for Mind-Body Medicine and how that’s led to the program that you have to help us deal with the coronavirus.

Dr. Gordon: I started the Center for Mind-Body Medicine about 30 years ago. I’d been a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health for a number of years, in private practice, and a professor at Georgetown Medical School. But I wanted to really focus on how to change and enrich medicine by making self-care, self-awareness, and group support central to all healthcare.

Western medicine is enormously powerful in certain situations, such as physical trauma, high levels of infection, congenital anomalies. But we’re not so good at working with chronic physical or psychological problems. Those are much more complex.

We’ve been discovering that what is going to make the long-term difference in conditions like type 2 diabetes, pain syndromes, hypertension, depression, and anxiety are those approaches that we can learn to do for ourselves. These are changes we can make in how we deal with stress, eat, exercise, relate to other people, and whether we find meaning and purpose in our lives.

For the past 25 years, the major part of our focus has been on whole populations that have been psychologically traumatized by wars, climate-related disasters, the opioid epidemic, chronic poverty, historical trauma. We do a lot of work with indigenous people here in North America. We’ve worked in a number of communities where school shootings have traumatized everyone.

What we’ve learned over these past 25 years, and what interested me professionally as well as personally over the past 50 years, is what we’re now bringing out on an even larger scale. The kind of approaches that we’ve developed, studied, and published research on are exactly what everyone needs to include and incorporate in their daily life, as well as in their medical and health care, from now on.

Dr. Wilner: Do you have a program that’s specifically for health care providers?

Dr. Gordon: Yes. The Center for Mind-Body Medicine is primarily an educational organization rather than a service organization. Since the beginning, I’ve been focused on training health professionals. My first passion was for training physicians – I’m a physician, so there’s a feeling of fellowship there – but also health care workers and mental health professionals of every kind.

We teach health professionals a whole system, a comprehensive program of techniques of self-awareness and self-care. We teach them so that they can practice on themselves and study the underlying science, so they can then teach what they’ve learned to the patients or clients they work with. They integrate it into what they’re already doing, regardless of their specialty. At times we also offer some of the same kinds of mind-body skills groups that are the fundamental part of our training as a stand-alone intervention. You can’t really teach other people how to take care of themselves unless you’re also doing it yourself. Otherwise, it’s just a theory.

Dr. Wilner: As a neurologist, I’m interested in the mind-body system. You are a psychiatrist and understand that it’s a lot more difficult to objectify certain things. What is stress? What is happiness? What is sadness? It’s very hard to measure. You can have scales, but it requires insight on the part of the individual. So I think it’s certainly an ambitious project.

Dr. Gordon: You’re absolutely right. It requires insight. And one of the shortcomings of our medical education is that it doesn’t encourage us to look inside ourselves enough. There’s so much focus on objectivity and on data, that we’ve lost some of the subjective art of medicine.

My experience with myself, as well as with the thousands of people we’ve trained here in the United States and around the world and the many hundreds of thousands with whom they’ve worked, is that all of us have a greater capacity to understand and help ourselves than we ordinarily think or than most of us learn about in our medical education.

This work is saying to people to take a little bit of time and relax a little in order to allow yourself to come into a meditative state. And I don’t mean anything fancy by that. Meditation is just being relaxed. Moment-to-moment awareness doesn’t have to do with any particular religion or spiritual practice. It’s part of all of them. If you can get into that state, then you can begin to say, “Oh, that’s what’s going on with me. That’s why my pain is worse.”

For example, you often wonder in people with peripheral neuropathy why it becomes worse or better at certain points. I would encourage neurologists and other physicians to ask your patients, “Why do you think it’s worse?” They may say, “I don’t know, doc; that’s why I’m here.” But I would ask them to take a couple of minutes to let me know. They could think it has something to do with the fact that they had a big fight with their wife that morning, they don’t want to go to work, or whatever it is. This is part of the lost art that we need to bring back into medicine for ourselves and especially for our patients.

Dr. Wilner: Can you give me an example of some of the exercises you’d do in a class?

Dr. Gordon: All of the exercises and our entire program that we teach at the Center for Mind-Body Medicine is in this new book of mine, “The Transformation: Discovering Wholeness and Healing After Trauma.” It’s really the distillation of not just the past 25 or 30 years, but really 50 years of work.

Courtesy Center for Mind-Body Medicine

The techniques are all pretty simple and, as we say, evidence based. There is evidence that shows how they work on us physiologically, as well as psychologically. And they’re all pretty easy to teach to anyone.

Myself and about 60 or 70 of our faculty at the Center for Mind-Body Medicine are currently leading online groups. Then several hundred of the other people we’ve trained are also leading these groups. We’re still counting it up, but we probably have between 700 and 1,000 groups going around the world, led by our faculty and by people we’ve trained.

We teach a different technique every week in these online groups. Last week, after getting people energized and focused, we did a written dialogue with an emotion. You put down the initial of your name – in my case, “J” for Jim – and create a dialogue with an emotion, such as sadness. I would write it as fast as I can.

I would say, “OK, Sadness. Why are you here? What are you doing? I don’t enjoy having you around.” And Sadness writes back to me, “But you need me.” And J says, “What do you mean I need you?” And Sadness says, “Well, your brother died 7 weeks ago, didn’t he?” And I say, “Yes, he did.” And Sadness says, “Aren’t you sad?” I say, “Yes. I’m terribly sad and grieving all the time. But I wasn’t thinking about him at this moment.” And Sadness says, “But he’s there with you all the time and that sadness is in you.” And I say, “You mean it’s in me even here, now, as I’m talking with Andrew in this interview?” And Sadness says, “Yes. You can talk about your work. But in between the words, as you take a breath, don’t you feel it in your chest?” That’s the way the dialogue goes.

Dr. Wilner: What about specifically with the coronavirus? Fear is certainly an emotion. Nobody wants to get sick and die. Nobody wants to bring this disease home to their family. People are reluctant to even go outside and you can’t shake someone’s hand. Are there precedents for this?

Dr. Gordon: There are precedents, but only relatively small groups were affected before by, for example, severe acute respiratory syndrome or H1N1, at least in the United States. But we haven’t seen a global pandemic like this since 1918. None of us was around then – or I certainly wasn’t around. So for most everyone, not only has it not happened before, but we’ve never been so globally aware of everything that’s going on and how different groups are reacting.

I’ve been reading Daniel Defoe’s book, “A Journal of the Plague Year.” It’s really very interesting. It’s about the bubonic plague in 1665 London, although he wrote it in the 1720s. Some of the same things were going on then: the enormous fear, the isolation; rich people being able to escape, poor people having nowhere to go; conspiracy theories of one kind or another, about where the plague came from or blaming a group of people for it; magical thinking that it’s just going to go away. All of those things that happened several hundred years ago are going on now.

And we’re all simultaneously aware of all those things. There’s not only the fear, which should be universal because it’s a reasonable response to this situation, but also the terrible confusion about what to do. The President is saying one thing, governors something else; Anthony Fauci is saying something else, and Deborah Birx is saying something a little bit different. There’s this tremendous confusion that overlays the fear, and I think everybody is more or less feeling these things.

So yes, a dialogue with fear is a good thing to do because it can be clarifying. What we need here is a sense of, what is it that makes sense for me to do? What precautions should I take? What precautions shouldn’t I take?

I have a 17-year-old son who lives with his mom in California. He and I were on the phone the other day. He’s a basketball player and very serious about it. He said, “I don’t want to put my life on hold.” And my response was, “If you go outside too soon, your life may be on hold for a hell of a lot longer than if you stay inside because, if you get sick, it’s serious. But you also need to start looking at the evidence and asking yourself the right questions because I can’t be there all the time and neither can your mom.”

Everybody really needs to use these kinds of tools to help themselves. The tools we teach are extremely good at bringing us back into a state of psychological and physiological balance — slow, deep breathing being a very basic one. Because it’s only in that state that we’re going to be able to make the most intelligent decisions about what to do. It’s only in that state that we’re going to be able to really look our fear in the face and find out what we should be afraid of and what we shouldn’t be afraid of.

It’s a process that’s very much integrated. We’re talking now about how to deal with the emotions. But the first part of what we do in our groups and our online trainings and webinars is teach people to just take a few deep breaths. Just take a few deep breaths in through the nose, out through the mouth, with your belly soft and relaxed. You can keep breathing this way while talking. That’s the antidote to the fight-or-flight response. We all learn about fight-or-flight in first-year physiology. We need to deal with it. We need to bring ourselves into balance. That’s the way we’re going to make the wisest decisions for ourselves and be best able to help our patients.
 

Dr. Wilner: As you mentioned, part of modern culture is that we now have access to all of this information worldwide. There’s a continual stream of newsfeeds, people flipping on their phones, receiving constant updates, 24/7. That’s a new phenomenon. Does that steal from us the time we had before for just breathing and synthesizing data as opposed to just acquiring it all the time?

Dr. Gordon: You’re absolutely right. It does and it’s a challenge. It can’t steal from us unless we’re letting our emotional, psychological, and physiological pockets be picked!

What we need to do is to make it our priority to come into balance. I don’t watch news all day long – a little tiny bit in the morning and in the evening, just to get a sense of what’s happening. That’s enough. And I think everybody needs to take a step back, ask if this is really what they want to be doing, and to come into balance.

The other thing that’s really important is physical activity, especially during this time. In addition to using slow, deep breathing to come into balance, physical exercise and movement of any kind is extremely good as an antidote to fight-or-flight and that shut-down, freeze-up response that we get into when we feel completely overwhelmed.

We’ve got to take it into our own hands. The media just want to sell us things. Let’s face it: They’re not here for our good. Our job as physicians and health care professionals is to really reinforce for people not only what we can do for them but what they can do for themselves.

Dr. Wilner: I’m certainly interested in learning more about mind-body medicine. For those who feel the same, where do you recommend they go to learn more?

Dr. Gordon: We have a website, cmbm.org, which features a number of webinars. I do a free webinar there every week. We have mind-body skills groups that meet once a week for 8 weeks. There are six physicians in my group and all kinds of health professionals in other groups. We have a training program that we’re bringing online. We’ve trained well over 6,000 people around the world and would love to train more. You can read about that on the website.

We’re starting to do more and more consulting with health care organizations. We’re working with the largest division of Veterans Affairs, which is in Florida, as well as in south Georgia and the Caribbean. We’re working with a large health system in Indiana and others elsewhere. In addition, we’re working with groups of physicians and mental health professionals, helping them to integrate what we have to offer into what they’re already doing.

That’s our job – to help you do your job.

Dr. Wilner: Dr Gordon, I feel more relaxed just speaking with you. Thank you for talking with me and sharing your experiences with Medscape. I look forward to learning more.

Dr. Gordon: Thank you. My pleasure.

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

Opioid overdoses have shot up by almost 10-fold at a Virginia ED since March, a new report finds. The report provides more evidence that the coronavirus pandemic is sparking a severe medical crisis among illicit drug users.

“Health care providers should closely monitor the number of overdoses coming into their hospitals and in the surrounding community during this time,” study lead author and postdoctoral research fellow Taylor Ochalek, PhD, said in an interview. “If they do notice an increasing trend of overdoses, they should spread awareness in the community to the general public, and offer resources and information for those that may be seeking help and/or may be at a high risk of overdosing.”

Dr. Ochalek presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

According to the report, opioid overdoses at the VCU Medical Center in Richmond, Va., grew from an average of six a month from February to December 2019 to 50, 57, and 63 in March, April, and May 2020. Of the 171 cases in the later time frame, the average age was 44 years, 72% were male, and 82% were African American.

“The steep increase in overdoses began primarily in March,” said Dr. Ochalek, of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. “This timing coincides with the Virginia governor’s state of emergency declaration, stay-at-home order, and closure of nonessential businesses order.”

The researchers did not provide details about the types of opioids used, the patient outcomes, or whether the patients tested positive for COVID-19. It’s unclear whether the pandemic directly spawned a higher number of overdoses, but there are growing signs of a stark nationwide trend.

“Nationwide, federal and local officials are reporting alarming spikes in drug overdoses – a hidden epidemic within the coronavirus pandemic,” the Washington Post reported on July 1, pointing to increases in Kentucky, Virginia, and the Chicago area.

Meanwhile, the federal Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program, which tracks overdoses nationwide, issued 191% more “spike alerts” in January to April 2020 than in the same time period in 2019. However, the spike alerts began to increase in January, weeks before the pandemic began to take hold.

The findings are consistent with trends in Houston, where overdose calls were up 31% in the first 3 months of 2020, compared with 2019, said psychologist James Bray, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, in an interview. More recent data suggest that the numbers are rising even higher, said Dr. Bray, who works with Houston first responders and has analyzed data.

Possible causes include “stress due to economic problems, increased anxiety over COVID infection, and more relational stress due to social distancing and quarantining,” Dr. Bray said.

Another potential factor is the disruption in the illicit drug supply chain because of limits on crossings at the southern border, said ED physician Scott Weiner, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “As a result, opioids of extremely variable potency have infiltrated markets, and people using drugs may not be used to the new doses, especially if they are high-potency fentanyl analogues.”

Moving forward, Dr. Bray said, “people need continued access to treatment. Telehealth and other virtual services need to be provided so that people can continue to have access to treatment even during the pandemic.”

Dr. Weiner also emphasized the importance of treatment for patients who overdose on opioids. “In my previous work, we discovered that about 1 in 20 patients who are treated in an emergency department and survive would die within 1 year. That number will likely increase drastically during COVID,” he said. “When a patient presents after overdose, we must intervene aggressively with buprenorphine and other harm-reduction techniques to save these lives.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ochalek, Dr. Weiner, and Dr. Bray reported no relevant disclosures.

Opioid overdoses have shot up by almost 10-fold at a Virginia ED since March, a new report finds. The report provides more evidence that the coronavirus pandemic is sparking a severe medical crisis among illicit drug users.

“Health care providers should closely monitor the number of overdoses coming into their hospitals and in the surrounding community during this time,” study lead author and postdoctoral research fellow Taylor Ochalek, PhD, said in an interview. “If they do notice an increasing trend of overdoses, they should spread awareness in the community to the general public, and offer resources and information for those that may be seeking help and/or may be at a high risk of overdosing.”

Dr. Ochalek presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

According to the report, opioid overdoses at the VCU Medical Center in Richmond, Va., grew from an average of six a month from February to December 2019 to 50, 57, and 63 in March, April, and May 2020. Of the 171 cases in the later time frame, the average age was 44 years, 72% were male, and 82% were African American.

“The steep increase in overdoses began primarily in March,” said Dr. Ochalek, of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. “This timing coincides with the Virginia governor’s state of emergency declaration, stay-at-home order, and closure of nonessential businesses order.”

The researchers did not provide details about the types of opioids used, the patient outcomes, or whether the patients tested positive for COVID-19. It’s unclear whether the pandemic directly spawned a higher number of overdoses, but there are growing signs of a stark nationwide trend.

“Nationwide, federal and local officials are reporting alarming spikes in drug overdoses – a hidden epidemic within the coronavirus pandemic,” the Washington Post reported on July 1, pointing to increases in Kentucky, Virginia, and the Chicago area.

Meanwhile, the federal Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program, which tracks overdoses nationwide, issued 191% more “spike alerts” in January to April 2020 than in the same time period in 2019. However, the spike alerts began to increase in January, weeks before the pandemic began to take hold.

The findings are consistent with trends in Houston, where overdose calls were up 31% in the first 3 months of 2020, compared with 2019, said psychologist James Bray, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, in an interview. More recent data suggest that the numbers are rising even higher, said Dr. Bray, who works with Houston first responders and has analyzed data.

Possible causes include “stress due to economic problems, increased anxiety over COVID infection, and more relational stress due to social distancing and quarantining,” Dr. Bray said.

Another potential factor is the disruption in the illicit drug supply chain because of limits on crossings at the southern border, said ED physician Scott Weiner, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “As a result, opioids of extremely variable potency have infiltrated markets, and people using drugs may not be used to the new doses, especially if they are high-potency fentanyl analogues.”

Moving forward, Dr. Bray said, “people need continued access to treatment. Telehealth and other virtual services need to be provided so that people can continue to have access to treatment even during the pandemic.”

Dr. Weiner also emphasized the importance of treatment for patients who overdose on opioids. “In my previous work, we discovered that about 1 in 20 patients who are treated in an emergency department and survive would die within 1 year. That number will likely increase drastically during COVID,” he said. “When a patient presents after overdose, we must intervene aggressively with buprenorphine and other harm-reduction techniques to save these lives.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ochalek, Dr. Weiner, and Dr. Bray reported no relevant disclosures.

Opioid overdoses have shot up by almost 10-fold at a Virginia ED since March, a new report finds. The report provides more evidence that the coronavirus pandemic is sparking a severe medical crisis among illicit drug users.

“Health care providers should closely monitor the number of overdoses coming into their hospitals and in the surrounding community during this time,” study lead author and postdoctoral research fellow Taylor Ochalek, PhD, said in an interview. “If they do notice an increasing trend of overdoses, they should spread awareness in the community to the general public, and offer resources and information for those that may be seeking help and/or may be at a high risk of overdosing.”

Dr. Ochalek presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

According to the report, opioid overdoses at the VCU Medical Center in Richmond, Va., grew from an average of six a month from February to December 2019 to 50, 57, and 63 in March, April, and May 2020. Of the 171 cases in the later time frame, the average age was 44 years, 72% were male, and 82% were African American.

“The steep increase in overdoses began primarily in March,” said Dr. Ochalek, of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. “This timing coincides with the Virginia governor’s state of emergency declaration, stay-at-home order, and closure of nonessential businesses order.”

The researchers did not provide details about the types of opioids used, the patient outcomes, or whether the patients tested positive for COVID-19. It’s unclear whether the pandemic directly spawned a higher number of overdoses, but there are growing signs of a stark nationwide trend.

“Nationwide, federal and local officials are reporting alarming spikes in drug overdoses – a hidden epidemic within the coronavirus pandemic,” the Washington Post reported on July 1, pointing to increases in Kentucky, Virginia, and the Chicago area.

Meanwhile, the federal Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program, which tracks overdoses nationwide, issued 191% more “spike alerts” in January to April 2020 than in the same time period in 2019. However, the spike alerts began to increase in January, weeks before the pandemic began to take hold.

The findings are consistent with trends in Houston, where overdose calls were up 31% in the first 3 months of 2020, compared with 2019, said psychologist James Bray, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, in an interview. More recent data suggest that the numbers are rising even higher, said Dr. Bray, who works with Houston first responders and has analyzed data.

Possible causes include “stress due to economic problems, increased anxiety over COVID infection, and more relational stress due to social distancing and quarantining,” Dr. Bray said.

Another potential factor is the disruption in the illicit drug supply chain because of limits on crossings at the southern border, said ED physician Scott Weiner, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “As a result, opioids of extremely variable potency have infiltrated markets, and people using drugs may not be used to the new doses, especially if they are high-potency fentanyl analogues.”

Moving forward, Dr. Bray said, “people need continued access to treatment. Telehealth and other virtual services need to be provided so that people can continue to have access to treatment even during the pandemic.”

Dr. Weiner also emphasized the importance of treatment for patients who overdose on opioids. “In my previous work, we discovered that about 1 in 20 patients who are treated in an emergency department and survive would die within 1 year. That number will likely increase drastically during COVID,” he said. “When a patient presents after overdose, we must intervene aggressively with buprenorphine and other harm-reduction techniques to save these lives.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ochalek, Dr. Weiner, and Dr. Bray reported no relevant disclosures.

Nearly 40% of hundreds of opioid abusers at several emergency departments tested positive for stimulants, and they were more likely to be white than other users, a new study finds. Reflecting national trends, patients in the Midwest and West Coast regions were more likely to show signs of stimulant use.

Stimulant/opioid users were also “younger, with unstable housing, mostly unemployed, and reported high rates of recent incarcerations,” said substance use researcher and study lead author Marek Chawarski, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “They also reported higher rates of injection drug use during 1 month prior to the study admission and had higher rates of HCV infection. And higher proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS)–positive patients presented in the emergency departments (EDs) for an injury or with drug overdose.”

Dr. Chawarski, who presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, said in an interview that the study is the first to analyze stimulant use in ED patients with opioid use disorder.

The researchers analyzed data for the period 2017-2019 from EDs in Baltimore, New York, Cincinnati, and Seattle. Out of 396 patients, 150 (38%) were positive for amphetamine-type stimulants.

Patients in the Midwest and West Coast were more likely to test positive (38%). The rates of stimulant use were 6% in Baltimore, 7% in New York, 32% in Cincinnati, and 80% in Seattle.

In general, stimulant use is higher in the Midwest and West Coast, said epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., in an interview. “This is due to a number of supply-side, historical, and cultural reasons. New England, Appalachia, and large urban centers on the East Coast are the historical hot spots for opioid use, while states west of the Mississippi River have lower rates of opioid overdose, but a much higher prevalence of ATS use and stimulant-related morbidity and mortality.”

Those who showed signs of stimulant use were more likely to be white (69%) vs. the nonusers (46%), and were more likely to have unstable housing (67% vs. 49%).

Those who used stimulants also were more likely to be suffering from an overdose (23% vs. 13%) and to report injecting drugs in the last month (79% vs. 47%). More had unstable housing (67% vs. 49%, P < .05 for all comparisons).

Dr. Chawarski said there are many reasons why users might use more than one kind of drug. For example, they may take one drug to “alleviate problems created by the use of one substance with taking another substance and multiple other reasons,” he said. “Polysubstance use can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. It can pose greater treatment challenges, both for the patients and treatment providers, and often is more difficult to overcome.”

Links between opioid and stimulant use are not new. Last year, a study of 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts from 2014 to 2015 found that 36% of patients also showed signs of stimulant use. “Persons older than 24 years, nonrural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone,” the researchers reported (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:59-63).

Dr. Marshall said the study findings are not surprising. However, he said, they do indicate “ongoing, intentional consumption of opioids. The trends and characteristics we are seeing here suggests a large population of persons who are intentionally using both stimulants and opioids, many of whom are also injecting.”

He added that the study sample is probably higher risk than the general population since they’re presenting to the emergency department, so the findings might not reflect the use of stimulants in the general opioid-misusing population.

Dr. Marshall added that “there have been several instances in modern U.S. history during which increases in stimulant use follow a rise in opioid use, so the pattern we are seeing isn’t entirely surprising.”

“What we don’t know,” he added, “is the extent to which overdoses involving both an opioid and a stimulant are due to fentanyl contamination of the methamphetamine supply or intentional concurrent use – e.g., ‘speedballing’ or ‘goof balling’ – or some other pattern of polysubstance use, such as using an opioid to come down off a methamphetamine high.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the study. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with two of the study coauthors.

Nearly 40% of hundreds of opioid abusers at several emergency departments tested positive for stimulants, and they were more likely to be white than other users, a new study finds. Reflecting national trends, patients in the Midwest and West Coast regions were more likely to show signs of stimulant use.

Stimulant/opioid users were also “younger, with unstable housing, mostly unemployed, and reported high rates of recent incarcerations,” said substance use researcher and study lead author Marek Chawarski, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “They also reported higher rates of injection drug use during 1 month prior to the study admission and had higher rates of HCV infection. And higher proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS)–positive patients presented in the emergency departments (EDs) for an injury or with drug overdose.”

Dr. Chawarski, who presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, said in an interview that the study is the first to analyze stimulant use in ED patients with opioid use disorder.

The researchers analyzed data for the period 2017-2019 from EDs in Baltimore, New York, Cincinnati, and Seattle. Out of 396 patients, 150 (38%) were positive for amphetamine-type stimulants.

Patients in the Midwest and West Coast were more likely to test positive (38%). The rates of stimulant use were 6% in Baltimore, 7% in New York, 32% in Cincinnati, and 80% in Seattle.

In general, stimulant use is higher in the Midwest and West Coast, said epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., in an interview. “This is due to a number of supply-side, historical, and cultural reasons. New England, Appalachia, and large urban centers on the East Coast are the historical hot spots for opioid use, while states west of the Mississippi River have lower rates of opioid overdose, but a much higher prevalence of ATS use and stimulant-related morbidity and mortality.”

Those who showed signs of stimulant use were more likely to be white (69%) vs. the nonusers (46%), and were more likely to have unstable housing (67% vs. 49%).

Those who used stimulants also were more likely to be suffering from an overdose (23% vs. 13%) and to report injecting drugs in the last month (79% vs. 47%). More had unstable housing (67% vs. 49%, P < .05 for all comparisons).

Dr. Chawarski said there are many reasons why users might use more than one kind of drug. For example, they may take one drug to “alleviate problems created by the use of one substance with taking another substance and multiple other reasons,” he said. “Polysubstance use can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. It can pose greater treatment challenges, both for the patients and treatment providers, and often is more difficult to overcome.”

Links between opioid and stimulant use are not new. Last year, a study of 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts from 2014 to 2015 found that 36% of patients also showed signs of stimulant use. “Persons older than 24 years, nonrural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone,” the researchers reported (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:59-63).

Dr. Marshall said the study findings are not surprising. However, he said, they do indicate “ongoing, intentional consumption of opioids. The trends and characteristics we are seeing here suggests a large population of persons who are intentionally using both stimulants and opioids, many of whom are also injecting.”

He added that the study sample is probably higher risk than the general population since they’re presenting to the emergency department, so the findings might not reflect the use of stimulants in the general opioid-misusing population.

Dr. Marshall added that “there have been several instances in modern U.S. history during which increases in stimulant use follow a rise in opioid use, so the pattern we are seeing isn’t entirely surprising.”

“What we don’t know,” he added, “is the extent to which overdoses involving both an opioid and a stimulant are due to fentanyl contamination of the methamphetamine supply or intentional concurrent use – e.g., ‘speedballing’ or ‘goof balling’ – or some other pattern of polysubstance use, such as using an opioid to come down off a methamphetamine high.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the study. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with two of the study coauthors.

Nearly 40% of hundreds of opioid abusers at several emergency departments tested positive for stimulants, and they were more likely to be white than other users, a new study finds. Reflecting national trends, patients in the Midwest and West Coast regions were more likely to show signs of stimulant use.

Stimulant/opioid users were also “younger, with unstable housing, mostly unemployed, and reported high rates of recent incarcerations,” said substance use researcher and study lead author Marek Chawarski, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “They also reported higher rates of injection drug use during 1 month prior to the study admission and had higher rates of HCV infection. And higher proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS)–positive patients presented in the emergency departments (EDs) for an injury or with drug overdose.”

Dr. Chawarski, who presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, said in an interview that the study is the first to analyze stimulant use in ED patients with opioid use disorder.

The researchers analyzed data for the period 2017-2019 from EDs in Baltimore, New York, Cincinnati, and Seattle. Out of 396 patients, 150 (38%) were positive for amphetamine-type stimulants.

Patients in the Midwest and West Coast were more likely to test positive (38%). The rates of stimulant use were 6% in Baltimore, 7% in New York, 32% in Cincinnati, and 80% in Seattle.

In general, stimulant use is higher in the Midwest and West Coast, said epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., in an interview. “This is due to a number of supply-side, historical, and cultural reasons. New England, Appalachia, and large urban centers on the East Coast are the historical hot spots for opioid use, while states west of the Mississippi River have lower rates of opioid overdose, but a much higher prevalence of ATS use and stimulant-related morbidity and mortality.”

Those who showed signs of stimulant use were more likely to be white (69%) vs. the nonusers (46%), and were more likely to have unstable housing (67% vs. 49%).

Those who used stimulants also were more likely to be suffering from an overdose (23% vs. 13%) and to report injecting drugs in the last month (79% vs. 47%). More had unstable housing (67% vs. 49%, P < .05 for all comparisons).

Dr. Chawarski said there are many reasons why users might use more than one kind of drug. For example, they may take one drug to “alleviate problems created by the use of one substance with taking another substance and multiple other reasons,” he said. “Polysubstance use can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. It can pose greater treatment challenges, both for the patients and treatment providers, and often is more difficult to overcome.”

Links between opioid and stimulant use are not new. Last year, a study of 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts from 2014 to 2015 found that 36% of patients also showed signs of stimulant use. “Persons older than 24 years, nonrural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone,” the researchers reported (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:59-63).

Dr. Marshall said the study findings are not surprising. However, he said, they do indicate “ongoing, intentional consumption of opioids. The trends and characteristics we are seeing here suggests a large population of persons who are intentionally using both stimulants and opioids, many of whom are also injecting.”

He added that the study sample is probably higher risk than the general population since they’re presenting to the emergency department, so the findings might not reflect the use of stimulants in the general opioid-misusing population.

Dr. Marshall added that “there have been several instances in modern U.S. history during which increases in stimulant use follow a rise in opioid use, so the pattern we are seeing isn’t entirely surprising.”

“What we don’t know,” he added, “is the extent to which overdoses involving both an opioid and a stimulant are due to fentanyl contamination of the methamphetamine supply or intentional concurrent use – e.g., ‘speedballing’ or ‘goof balling’ – or some other pattern of polysubstance use, such as using an opioid to come down off a methamphetamine high.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the study. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with two of the study coauthors.

Several federal lawmakers on June 30 questioned state policies that require disclosure of mental health treatment as part of medical licensing applications and renewals, citing concerns about creating barriers to psychiatric care for clinicians.

Mental health–related questions on state medical boards’ licensing applications are especially worrisome with many clinicians, including ED staff, immersed in the physical and emotional challenges involved in treating waves of people with COVID-19, lawmakers said during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel.

“We must consider the mental health of the providers on the front lines of the pandemic,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican.

The issue of state medical boards’ disclosure rules was not on the official agenda for the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee’s hearing. And there was no discussion of any specific state medical board’s regulations. The Energy and Commerce health subcommittee is working on more than 20 bills related to mental health, including measures intended to aid first responders, such as firemen and emergency medical personnel, and students.

This hearing marked an early stage in the process for a planned package of mental health legislation, said Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, of Texas, who is the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. There may be opportunities as this legislation advances to add provisions intended to aid physicians, said Dr. Burgess, who practiced for many years as an ob.gyn. before being elected to Congress.

“We knew that suicide was a problem among our colleagues prior to the onset of this coronavirus epidemic and I know it is more pronounced now,” he said.

Dr. Burgess then solicited specific recommendations from the hearing’s witnesses on steps needed to help clinicians’ mental health.

The first suggestion offered in reply by Jeffrey L. Geller, MD, MPH, appearing in his role as president of the American Psychiatric Association, was that Congress should look for ways to encourage states to alter their licensing procedures.

The hearing comes on the heels of the APA, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and more than 40 other groups having jointly signed a statement calling for changes to disclosure rules about mental health.

“Licensing and credentialing applications by covered entities should only employ narrowly focused questions that address current functional impairment,” the statement said. “Additionally, we strongly support The Joint Commission (TJC) statement on Removing Barriers to Mental Health Care for Clinicians and Health Care Staff. TJC ‘supports the removal of any barriers that inhibit clinicians and health care staff from accessing mental health care services.’ ”

Physicians and other clinicians must be able to safely secure treatment for mental or other health issues, just as any other individual,” the groups wrote. “A provider’s history of mental illness or substance use disorder should not be used as any indication of their current or future ability to practice competently and without impairment.”

Also among the signers to this statement was the Federation of State Medical Boards, which has been leading an effort for years to change licensing.

In 2018, the FSMB recommended state medical boards reconsider whether it is necessary to include probing questions about a physician applicant’s mental health, addiction, or substance use on applications for medical licensure or their renewal. While the intent of these questions may be to protect patients, these queries can discourage physicians from getting needed help, the FSMB said.

Several states have since revised or considered revising their license applications and renewals. In May 2020, The Joint Commission urged broader adoption of recommendations from the FSMB and the American Medical Association to limit queries about clinicians’ mental health to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” said The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

Rep. Susan Brooks, an Indiana Republican who is an attorney, suggested there may need to be a broader look at how state officials pose questions about past mental health treatment to people in many professions, including her own.

“It does build on the stigma on accessing services” to know a state or licensing authority may question a professional about receiving treatment for mental health, she said.

Also at the hearing, Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán, a California Democrat, spoke of her own reaction to seeing a question about mental health treatment while applying for a White House internship. During her college years, Rep. Barragán had to cope with her father’s terminal illness.

“I remember thinking to myself: ‘Jeez, if I end up seeing a mental health expert maybe one day I couldn’t work in government,’ ” she said.

Several federal lawmakers on June 30 questioned state policies that require disclosure of mental health treatment as part of medical licensing applications and renewals, citing concerns about creating barriers to psychiatric care for clinicians.

Mental health–related questions on state medical boards’ licensing applications are especially worrisome with many clinicians, including ED staff, immersed in the physical and emotional challenges involved in treating waves of people with COVID-19, lawmakers said during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel.

“We must consider the mental health of the providers on the front lines of the pandemic,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican.

The issue of state medical boards’ disclosure rules was not on the official agenda for the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee’s hearing. And there was no discussion of any specific state medical board’s regulations. The Energy and Commerce health subcommittee is working on more than 20 bills related to mental health, including measures intended to aid first responders, such as firemen and emergency medical personnel, and students.

This hearing marked an early stage in the process for a planned package of mental health legislation, said Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, of Texas, who is the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. There may be opportunities as this legislation advances to add provisions intended to aid physicians, said Dr. Burgess, who practiced for many years as an ob.gyn. before being elected to Congress.

“We knew that suicide was a problem among our colleagues prior to the onset of this coronavirus epidemic and I know it is more pronounced now,” he said.

Dr. Burgess then solicited specific recommendations from the hearing’s witnesses on steps needed to help clinicians’ mental health.

The first suggestion offered in reply by Jeffrey L. Geller, MD, MPH, appearing in his role as president of the American Psychiatric Association, was that Congress should look for ways to encourage states to alter their licensing procedures.

The hearing comes on the heels of the APA, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and more than 40 other groups having jointly signed a statement calling for changes to disclosure rules about mental health.

“Licensing and credentialing applications by covered entities should only employ narrowly focused questions that address current functional impairment,” the statement said. “Additionally, we strongly support The Joint Commission (TJC) statement on Removing Barriers to Mental Health Care for Clinicians and Health Care Staff. TJC ‘supports the removal of any barriers that inhibit clinicians and health care staff from accessing mental health care services.’ ”

Physicians and other clinicians must be able to safely secure treatment for mental or other health issues, just as any other individual,” the groups wrote. “A provider’s history of mental illness or substance use disorder should not be used as any indication of their current or future ability to practice competently and without impairment.”

Also among the signers to this statement was the Federation of State Medical Boards, which has been leading an effort for years to change licensing.

In 2018, the FSMB recommended state medical boards reconsider whether it is necessary to include probing questions about a physician applicant’s mental health, addiction, or substance use on applications for medical licensure or their renewal. While the intent of these questions may be to protect patients, these queries can discourage physicians from getting needed help, the FSMB said.

Several states have since revised or considered revising their license applications and renewals. In May 2020, The Joint Commission urged broader adoption of recommendations from the FSMB and the American Medical Association to limit queries about clinicians’ mental health to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” said The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

Rep. Susan Brooks, an Indiana Republican who is an attorney, suggested there may need to be a broader look at how state officials pose questions about past mental health treatment to people in many professions, including her own.

“It does build on the stigma on accessing services” to know a state or licensing authority may question a professional about receiving treatment for mental health, she said.

Also at the hearing, Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán, a California Democrat, spoke of her own reaction to seeing a question about mental health treatment while applying for a White House internship. During her college years, Rep. Barragán had to cope with her father’s terminal illness.

“I remember thinking to myself: ‘Jeez, if I end up seeing a mental health expert maybe one day I couldn’t work in government,’ ” she said.

Several federal lawmakers on June 30 questioned state policies that require disclosure of mental health treatment as part of medical licensing applications and renewals, citing concerns about creating barriers to psychiatric care for clinicians.

Mental health–related questions on state medical boards’ licensing applications are especially worrisome with many clinicians, including ED staff, immersed in the physical and emotional challenges involved in treating waves of people with COVID-19, lawmakers said during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel.

“We must consider the mental health of the providers on the front lines of the pandemic,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican.

The issue of state medical boards’ disclosure rules was not on the official agenda for the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee’s hearing. And there was no discussion of any specific state medical board’s regulations. The Energy and Commerce health subcommittee is working on more than 20 bills related to mental health, including measures intended to aid first responders, such as firemen and emergency medical personnel, and students.

This hearing marked an early stage in the process for a planned package of mental health legislation, said Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, of Texas, who is the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. There may be opportunities as this legislation advances to add provisions intended to aid physicians, said Dr. Burgess, who practiced for many years as an ob.gyn. before being elected to Congress.

“We knew that suicide was a problem among our colleagues prior to the onset of this coronavirus epidemic and I know it is more pronounced now,” he said.

Dr. Burgess then solicited specific recommendations from the hearing’s witnesses on steps needed to help clinicians’ mental health.

The first suggestion offered in reply by Jeffrey L. Geller, MD, MPH, appearing in his role as president of the American Psychiatric Association, was that Congress should look for ways to encourage states to alter their licensing procedures.

The hearing comes on the heels of the APA, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and more than 40 other groups having jointly signed a statement calling for changes to disclosure rules about mental health.

“Licensing and credentialing applications by covered entities should only employ narrowly focused questions that address current functional impairment,” the statement said. “Additionally, we strongly support The Joint Commission (TJC) statement on Removing Barriers to Mental Health Care for Clinicians and Health Care Staff. TJC ‘supports the removal of any barriers that inhibit clinicians and health care staff from accessing mental health care services.’ ”

Physicians and other clinicians must be able to safely secure treatment for mental or other health issues, just as any other individual,” the groups wrote. “A provider’s history of mental illness or substance use disorder should not be used as any indication of their current or future ability to practice competently and without impairment.”

Also among the signers to this statement was the Federation of State Medical Boards, which has been leading an effort for years to change licensing.

In 2018, the FSMB recommended state medical boards reconsider whether it is necessary to include probing questions about a physician applicant’s mental health, addiction, or substance use on applications for medical licensure or their renewal. While the intent of these questions may be to protect patients, these queries can discourage physicians from getting needed help, the FSMB said.

Several states have since revised or considered revising their license applications and renewals. In May 2020, The Joint Commission urged broader adoption of recommendations from the FSMB and the American Medical Association to limit queries about clinicians’ mental health to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” said The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

Rep. Susan Brooks, an Indiana Republican who is an attorney, suggested there may need to be a broader look at how state officials pose questions about past mental health treatment to people in many professions, including her own.

“It does build on the stigma on accessing services” to know a state or licensing authority may question a professional about receiving treatment for mental health, she said.

Also at the hearing, Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán, a California Democrat, spoke of her own reaction to seeing a question about mental health treatment while applying for a White House internship. During her college years, Rep. Barragán had to cope with her father’s terminal illness.

“I remember thinking to myself: ‘Jeez, if I end up seeing a mental health expert maybe one day I couldn’t work in government,’ ” she said.

Two new studies offer positive news about medical cannabis, suggesting that marijuana products improve physical and cognitive symptoms, boost quality of life, and rarely produce signs of problematic use.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

In one study, patients with epilepsy who used medical cannabis were nearly half as likely to have needed an emergency department visit within the last 30 days as was a control group. In the other study, 3 of 54 subjects who used medical cannabis showed signs of possible cannabis use disorder (CUD) over 12 months.

The findings show that “there is improvement in a range of outcome variables, and the adverse effects seem to be minimal, compared to what we might have hypothesized based on the bulk of the literature on the negative effects of cannabis on health outcomes,” cannabis researcher Ziva Cooper, PhD, of the University of California at Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Cooper moderated a session about the studies at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

In one study, cannabis researcher Ryan Vandrey, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues compared medical cannabis users (number, 808; mean age, 38; percentage female, 63%) to a control group of people who were interested in medical cannabis (n, 468; mean age, 35; percentage female, 62%).

In both groups, 79% were White. The groups had similar levels of primary medical conditions, such as neurologic (38% and 36%, respectively, for the medical cannabis group and control group) and chronic pain (25% and 23%, respectively.)

The wide majority of those in the medical cannabis group – 58% – were cannabidiol (CBD) users, relying on a component of cannabis (marijuana) that does not make people high. Fewer than 20% used tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which does make people high, or a combination of both CBD and THC.

Most of those in the medical cannabis group used the drug as an adjunct (39%) to other treatments or last-resort (29%) treatment instead of first line (11%) or second line (18%).

In patients with epilepsy, about 45% of controls reported a past-month ED visit, compared with about 25% of medical cannabis users. The gap in past-month hospital admissions was even wider, at about 35% for the controls and about 15% for the medical cannabis.

After an initial survey, the researchers followed subjects prospectively; some either started or stopped using medical cannabis. From baseline to follow-up, those in the medical cannabis group improved more, compared with those in the control group on a variety of measures of quality of life, anxiety, and depression.

“Folks who were in the control condition at baseline and then initiated cannabis use started to look more like the baseline cannabis users,” Dr. Vandrey said. “The folks who were cannabis users at baseline and then stopped for whatever reason started to look like the controls. And the controls [who never started using medical cannabis] stayed the same.”

As for adverse effects, two-thirds of medical cannabis users reported no problems; the highest number, 14%, reported high cost.

As for limitations, Dr. Vandrey reported missing data, a reliance on self-reports, and poor follow-up with about a third of participants agreeing to complete follow-up assessments. “We are continuing to collect data on this,” he said, “and we’re hoping we’ll be able to drill down more as we get bigger.”

The study was funded by the Realm of Caring Foundation.

In the other study, led by cannabis researcher Staci Gruber, PhD, of McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., and Harvard Medical School in Boston, researchers tracked 54 subjects (mean age, 49; 20 male and 34 female; 48 white) for up to 2 years after they began medical cannabis use. Most had pain (36) or anxiety/PTSD (31), and all had to have abstained from recreational cannabis use for at least 1 year.

At follow-ups, the users reported improved mood and anxiety via various measures, and they saw some improvement in quality of life. “We did not see worsening cognitive performance,” Dr. Gruber said. “In fact, we saw improved performance or no change on measures of executive function, in contrast to what we see in the literature.”

Research has suggested that as many as 30% of recreational cannabis users develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), Dr. Gruber said. But only 3 of the 54 patients showed signs of possible CUD at 12 months, she said, even though frequency of use jumped substantially vs. baseline.

Information about study funding was not available.

Dr. Cooper disclosed relationships with FSD Pharma, Beckley Canopy Therapeutics, and Insys Therapeutics. Dr. Vandrey disclosed work with Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Canopy Health Innovations, and FSD Pharma. Dr. Gruber reported no disclosures.

Two new studies offer positive news about medical cannabis, suggesting that marijuana products improve physical and cognitive symptoms, boost quality of life, and rarely produce signs of problematic use.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

In one study, patients with epilepsy who used medical cannabis were nearly half as likely to have needed an emergency department visit within the last 30 days as was a control group. In the other study, 3 of 54 subjects who used medical cannabis showed signs of possible cannabis use disorder (CUD) over 12 months.

The findings show that “there is improvement in a range of outcome variables, and the adverse effects seem to be minimal, compared to what we might have hypothesized based on the bulk of the literature on the negative effects of cannabis on health outcomes,” cannabis researcher Ziva Cooper, PhD, of the University of California at Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Cooper moderated a session about the studies at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

In one study, cannabis researcher Ryan Vandrey, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues compared medical cannabis users (number, 808; mean age, 38; percentage female, 63%) to a control group of people who were interested in medical cannabis (n, 468; mean age, 35; percentage female, 62%).

In both groups, 79% were White. The groups had similar levels of primary medical conditions, such as neurologic (38% and 36%, respectively, for the medical cannabis group and control group) and chronic pain (25% and 23%, respectively.)

The wide majority of those in the medical cannabis group – 58% – were cannabidiol (CBD) users, relying on a component of cannabis (marijuana) that does not make people high. Fewer than 20% used tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which does make people high, or a combination of both CBD and THC.

Most of those in the medical cannabis group used the drug as an adjunct (39%) to other treatments or last-resort (29%) treatment instead of first line (11%) or second line (18%).

In patients with epilepsy, about 45% of controls reported a past-month ED visit, compared with about 25% of medical cannabis users. The gap in past-month hospital admissions was even wider, at about 35% for the controls and about 15% for the medical cannabis.

After an initial survey, the researchers followed subjects prospectively; some either started or stopped using medical cannabis. From baseline to follow-up, those in the medical cannabis group improved more, compared with those in the control group on a variety of measures of quality of life, anxiety, and depression.

“Folks who were in the control condition at baseline and then initiated cannabis use started to look more like the baseline cannabis users,” Dr. Vandrey said. “The folks who were cannabis users at baseline and then stopped for whatever reason started to look like the controls. And the controls [who never started using medical cannabis] stayed the same.”

As for adverse effects, two-thirds of medical cannabis users reported no problems; the highest number, 14%, reported high cost.

As for limitations, Dr. Vandrey reported missing data, a reliance on self-reports, and poor follow-up with about a third of participants agreeing to complete follow-up assessments. “We are continuing to collect data on this,” he said, “and we’re hoping we’ll be able to drill down more as we get bigger.”

The study was funded by the Realm of Caring Foundation.

In the other study, led by cannabis researcher Staci Gruber, PhD, of McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., and Harvard Medical School in Boston, researchers tracked 54 subjects (mean age, 49; 20 male and 34 female; 48 white) for up to 2 years after they began medical cannabis use. Most had pain (36) or anxiety/PTSD (31), and all had to have abstained from recreational cannabis use for at least 1 year.

At follow-ups, the users reported improved mood and anxiety via various measures, and they saw some improvement in quality of life. “We did not see worsening cognitive performance,” Dr. Gruber said. “In fact, we saw improved performance or no change on measures of executive function, in contrast to what we see in the literature.”

Research has suggested that as many as 30% of recreational cannabis users develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), Dr. Gruber said. But only 3 of the 54 patients showed signs of possible CUD at 12 months, she said, even though frequency of use jumped substantially vs. baseline.

Information about study funding was not available.

Dr. Cooper disclosed relationships with FSD Pharma, Beckley Canopy Therapeutics, and Insys Therapeutics. Dr. Vandrey disclosed work with Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Canopy Health Innovations, and FSD Pharma. Dr. Gruber reported no disclosures.

Two new studies offer positive news about medical cannabis, suggesting that marijuana products improve physical and cognitive symptoms, boost quality of life, and rarely produce signs of problematic use.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

In one study, patients with epilepsy who used medical cannabis were nearly half as likely to have needed an emergency department visit within the last 30 days as was a control group. In the other study, 3 of 54 subjects who used medical cannabis showed signs of possible cannabis use disorder (CUD) over 12 months.

The findings show that “there is improvement in a range of outcome variables, and the adverse effects seem to be minimal, compared to what we might have hypothesized based on the bulk of the literature on the negative effects of cannabis on health outcomes,” cannabis researcher Ziva Cooper, PhD, of the University of California at Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Cooper moderated a session about the studies at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

In one study, cannabis researcher Ryan Vandrey, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues compared medical cannabis users (number, 808; mean age, 38; percentage female, 63%) to a control group of people who were interested in medical cannabis (n, 468; mean age, 35; percentage female, 62%).

In both groups, 79% were White. The groups had similar levels of primary medical conditions, such as neurologic (38% and 36%, respectively, for the medical cannabis group and control group) and chronic pain (25% and 23%, respectively.)

The wide majority of those in the medical cannabis group – 58% – were cannabidiol (CBD) users, relying on a component of cannabis (marijuana) that does not make people high. Fewer than 20% used tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which does make people high, or a combination of both CBD and THC.

Most of those in the medical cannabis group used the drug as an adjunct (39%) to other treatments or last-resort (29%) treatment instead of first line (11%) or second line (18%).

In patients with epilepsy, about 45% of controls reported a past-month ED visit, compared with about 25% of medical cannabis users. The gap in past-month hospital admissions was even wider, at about 35% for the controls and about 15% for the medical cannabis.

After an initial survey, the researchers followed subjects prospectively; some either started or stopped using medical cannabis. From baseline to follow-up, those in the medical cannabis group improved more, compared with those in the control group on a variety of measures of quality of life, anxiety, and depression.

“Folks who were in the control condition at baseline and then initiated cannabis use started to look more like the baseline cannabis users,” Dr. Vandrey said. “The folks who were cannabis users at baseline and then stopped for whatever reason started to look like the controls. And the controls [who never started using medical cannabis] stayed the same.”

As for adverse effects, two-thirds of medical cannabis users reported no problems; the highest number, 14%, reported high cost.

As for limitations, Dr. Vandrey reported missing data, a reliance on self-reports, and poor follow-up with about a third of participants agreeing to complete follow-up assessments. “We are continuing to collect data on this,” he said, “and we’re hoping we’ll be able to drill down more as we get bigger.”

The study was funded by the Realm of Caring Foundation.

In the other study, led by cannabis researcher Staci Gruber, PhD, of McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., and Harvard Medical School in Boston, researchers tracked 54 subjects (mean age, 49; 20 male and 34 female; 48 white) for up to 2 years after they began medical cannabis use. Most had pain (36) or anxiety/PTSD (31), and all had to have abstained from recreational cannabis use for at least 1 year.

At follow-ups, the users reported improved mood and anxiety via various measures, and they saw some improvement in quality of life. “We did not see worsening cognitive performance,” Dr. Gruber said. “In fact, we saw improved performance or no change on measures of executive function, in contrast to what we see in the literature.”

Research has suggested that as many as 30% of recreational cannabis users develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), Dr. Gruber said. But only 3 of the 54 patients showed signs of possible CUD at 12 months, she said, even though frequency of use jumped substantially vs. baseline.

Information about study funding was not available.

Dr. Cooper disclosed relationships with FSD Pharma, Beckley Canopy Therapeutics, and Insys Therapeutics. Dr. Vandrey disclosed work with Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Canopy Health Innovations, and FSD Pharma. Dr. Gruber reported no disclosures.

Naloxone can reverse opioid overdoses, but time is crucial and its effectiveness wanes if medics can’t arrive right away. Now, a new app links overdose victims or their companions to trained volunteers nearby who may be able to administer the drug much faster.

Over a 1-year period, about half of 112 participants in a Philadelphia trial said they’d responded to overdoses via the app, and about half used it to report overdoses, according to a study released at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

“Thanks to the app, there may have been a life saved about twice a month that otherwise wouldn’t have been,” said public health researcher and study coauthor Stephen Lankenau, PhD, of Drexel University, Philadelphia, in an interview.

Philadelphia has the largest opioid overdose rate of any large city, Dr. Lankenau said, and people who overdose are often reluctant to call 911. “Police are often alerted when it’s determined that it’s a drug-related call. They’re concerned that police could show up and someone will get arrested.”

However, the app, called UnityPhilly, doesn’t remove professional medics from the picture. It’s designed to be a supplement to the existing first-response system – “it’s not meant to replace 911” – and allow a faster response to overdoses when minutes matter, Dr. Lankenau said.

“If someone is adamantly opposed to calling 911,” he said, “this may not be the best intervention for them.”

Here’s how the app works: Participants who overdose themselves or witness an overdose can send out an alert to nearby app users. When an alert goes out, the app also attempts to dial 911, although the participant can bypass this.

Nearby responders can reply by pressing “En route” and then go to the address of the overdose with a provided supply of naloxone (Narcan). The amateur responders, many of whom are or were opioid users themselves, are trained in how to administer the drug.

The study authors recruited 112 participants from the Philadelphia neighborhood of Kensington and tracked them from 2019 to 2020. About half (n = 57) reported using opioids within the past 30 days, and those participants had an average age of 42 years, were 54% men, and were 74% non-Hispanic white. Only 19% were employed, and 42% had been recently homeless. Nearly 80% had overdosed before, and all had witnessed overdoses.

The other participants (n = 55), defined as “community members,” had less experience with opioids (44% had misused them before), although 91% had witnessed overdoses. Their average age was 42 years, 56% were women, 53% were employed, and 16% had been recently homeless.

Over a 1-year period, 51% of the opioid-using participants used the app to report an overdose, as did 46% of the community members. The percentages who reported being en route to an overdose was 47% (opioid users) and 46% (community members).

“The idea of people being trained as community responders has been around for quite a while, and there are hundreds of programs across the country. People are willing to carry naloxone and respond if they see an overdose in front of them,” Dr. Lankenau said. “Here, you have people becoming civilian responders to events they wouldn’t otherwise know about. This creates a community of individuals who can help out immediately and augment the work that emergency responders do.”

Opioid users who download the app may be drawn to the idea of responders who are nonjudgmental and supportive, compared with professional medics. “The system has not done well by people with substance abuse disorders,” said addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver. “In terms of overdose reversal, you may prefer that someone else [other than a medic] give you Narcan and support you through this experience. When it’s over after you’re reversed, you have a sudden onset of withdrawal symptoms. You feel terrible, and you don’t want to be sitting in an ambulance. You want to be in a supportive environment.”

As for adverse effects, there was concern that opioid users might take more risks with an app safety net in place. However, no one reported more risky behavior in interviews, Dr. Lankenau said.

The 3-year program costs $215,000, he said, and the next step is to get funding for a Philadelphia citywide trial.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Dr. Lankenau reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Klaire disclosed participating in a research fellowship and a research in addiction medical scholars program, both funded by NIDA.

Naloxone can reverse opioid overdoses, but time is crucial and its effectiveness wanes if medics can’t arrive right away. Now, a new app links overdose victims or their companions to trained volunteers nearby who may be able to administer the drug much faster.

Over a 1-year period, about half of 112 participants in a Philadelphia trial said they’d responded to overdoses via the app, and about half used it to report overdoses, according to a study released at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

“Thanks to the app, there may have been a life saved about twice a month that otherwise wouldn’t have been,” said public health researcher and study coauthor Stephen Lankenau, PhD, of Drexel University, Philadelphia, in an interview.

Philadelphia has the largest opioid overdose rate of any large city, Dr. Lankenau said, and people who overdose are often reluctant to call 911. “Police are often alerted when it’s determined that it’s a drug-related call. They’re concerned that police could show up and someone will get arrested.”

However, the app, called UnityPhilly, doesn’t remove professional medics from the picture. It’s designed to be a supplement to the existing first-response system – “it’s not meant to replace 911” – and allow a faster response to overdoses when minutes matter, Dr. Lankenau said.

“If someone is adamantly opposed to calling 911,” he said, “this may not be the best intervention for them.”

Here’s how the app works: Participants who overdose themselves or witness an overdose can send out an alert to nearby app users. When an alert goes out, the app also attempts to dial 911, although the participant can bypass this.

Nearby responders can reply by pressing “En route” and then go to the address of the overdose with a provided supply of naloxone (Narcan). The amateur responders, many of whom are or were opioid users themselves, are trained in how to administer the drug.

The study authors recruited 112 participants from the Philadelphia neighborhood of Kensington and tracked them from 2019 to 2020. About half (n = 57) reported using opioids within the past 30 days, and those participants had an average age of 42 years, were 54% men, and were 74% non-Hispanic white. Only 19% were employed, and 42% had been recently homeless. Nearly 80% had overdosed before, and all had witnessed overdoses.

The other participants (n = 55), defined as “community members,” had less experience with opioids (44% had misused them before), although 91% had witnessed overdoses. Their average age was 42 years, 56% were women, 53% were employed, and 16% had been recently homeless.

Over a 1-year period, 51% of the opioid-using participants used the app to report an overdose, as did 46% of the community members. The percentages who reported being en route to an overdose was 47% (opioid users) and 46% (community members).

“The idea of people being trained as community responders has been around for quite a while, and there are hundreds of programs across the country. People are willing to carry naloxone and respond if they see an overdose in front of them,” Dr. Lankenau said. “Here, you have people becoming civilian responders to events they wouldn’t otherwise know about. This creates a community of individuals who can help out immediately and augment the work that emergency responders do.”

Opioid users who download the app may be drawn to the idea of responders who are nonjudgmental and supportive, compared with professional medics. “The system has not done well by people with substance abuse disorders,” said addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver. “In terms of overdose reversal, you may prefer that someone else [other than a medic] give you Narcan and support you through this experience. When it’s over after you’re reversed, you have a sudden onset of withdrawal symptoms. You feel terrible, and you don’t want to be sitting in an ambulance. You want to be in a supportive environment.”

As for adverse effects, there was concern that opioid users might take more risks with an app safety net in place. However, no one reported more risky behavior in interviews, Dr. Lankenau said.

The 3-year program costs $215,000, he said, and the next step is to get funding for a Philadelphia citywide trial.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Dr. Lankenau reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Klaire disclosed participating in a research fellowship and a research in addiction medical scholars program, both funded by NIDA.

Naloxone can reverse opioid overdoses, but time is crucial and its effectiveness wanes if medics can’t arrive right away. Now, a new app links overdose victims or their companions to trained volunteers nearby who may be able to administer the drug much faster.

Over a 1-year period, about half of 112 participants in a Philadelphia trial said they’d responded to overdoses via the app, and about half used it to report overdoses, according to a study released at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

“Thanks to the app, there may have been a life saved about twice a month that otherwise wouldn’t have been,” said public health researcher and study coauthor Stephen Lankenau, PhD, of Drexel University, Philadelphia, in an interview.

Philadelphia has the largest opioid overdose rate of any large city, Dr. Lankenau said, and people who overdose are often reluctant to call 911. “Police are often alerted when it’s determined that it’s a drug-related call. They’re concerned that police could show up and someone will get arrested.”

However, the app, called UnityPhilly, doesn’t remove professional medics from the picture. It’s designed to be a supplement to the existing first-response system – “it’s not meant to replace 911” – and allow a faster response to overdoses when minutes matter, Dr. Lankenau said.

“If someone is adamantly opposed to calling 911,” he said, “this may not be the best intervention for them.”

Here’s how the app works: Participants who overdose themselves or witness an overdose can send out an alert to nearby app users. When an alert goes out, the app also attempts to dial 911, although the participant can bypass this.

Nearby responders can reply by pressing “En route” and then go to the address of the overdose with a provided supply of naloxone (Narcan). The amateur responders, many of whom are or were opioid users themselves, are trained in how to administer the drug.

The study authors recruited 112 participants from the Philadelphia neighborhood of Kensington and tracked them from 2019 to 2020. About half (n = 57) reported using opioids within the past 30 days, and those participants had an average age of 42 years, were 54% men, and were 74% non-Hispanic white. Only 19% were employed, and 42% had been recently homeless. Nearly 80% had overdosed before, and all had witnessed overdoses.

The other participants (n = 55), defined as “community members,” had less experience with opioids (44% had misused them before), although 91% had witnessed overdoses. Their average age was 42 years, 56% were women, 53% were employed, and 16% had been recently homeless.

Over a 1-year period, 51% of the opioid-using participants used the app to report an overdose, as did 46% of the community members. The percentages who reported being en route to an overdose was 47% (opioid users) and 46% (community members).

“The idea of people being trained as community responders has been around for quite a while, and there are hundreds of programs across the country. People are willing to carry naloxone and respond if they see an overdose in front of them,” Dr. Lankenau said. “Here, you have people becoming civilian responders to events they wouldn’t otherwise know about. This creates a community of individuals who can help out immediately and augment the work that emergency responders do.”

Opioid users who download the app may be drawn to the idea of responders who are nonjudgmental and supportive, compared with professional medics. “The system has not done well by people with substance abuse disorders,” said addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver. “In terms of overdose reversal, you may prefer that someone else [other than a medic] give you Narcan and support you through this experience. When it’s over after you’re reversed, you have a sudden onset of withdrawal symptoms. You feel terrible, and you don’t want to be sitting in an ambulance. You want to be in a supportive environment.”

As for adverse effects, there was concern that opioid users might take more risks with an app safety net in place. However, no one reported more risky behavior in interviews, Dr. Lankenau said.

The 3-year program costs $215,000, he said, and the next step is to get funding for a Philadelphia citywide trial.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Dr. Lankenau reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Klaire disclosed participating in a research fellowship and a research in addiction medical scholars program, both funded by NIDA.

Illicit drug users seem to overwhelmingly appreciate being able to use take-home test strips to detect the extremely common presence of dangerous fentanyl in opioids and other drugs, a new study finds. More than 95% said they’d use the inexpensive strips again.

“These tests accurately detect fentanyl in the drug supply, and they can be a valuable addition to other drug prevention strategies,” said study lead author addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver, in an interview.

Dr. Klaire presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

Researchers in Vancouver distributed take-home fentanyl test strip kits at 10 sites that allow users to test their illicit drugs. The 218 participants performed 1,680 tests, mainly (73%) for opioids, over 3 months in 2019. Of the participants, 61% were male, and the average age was 36 (interquartile range, 29-47). About 30% described themselves as indigenous Canadians (First Nations).

About 90% of the opioid samples tested at home were positive for fentanyl, about the same level as samples tested at clinics. Fentanyl is very potent and linked to the huge rise in overdose deaths in the United States.

Fentanyl test strips aren’t new. According to the Harm Reduction Coalition, they originally were developed to detect fentanyl in urine samples but were jury-rigged in Vancouver to work on samples of illicit drugs. “We literally just repurposed it,” Dr. Klaire said. “It’s the same strip.”

Users test their drugs by dissolving a small sample in water. Then then dip the test strip, which provides readings similar to those in a pregnancy test. If a sample turns up positive for fentanyl, Dr. Klaire said, users may discard the drug or “be more careful with it.”

When asked what they would do if a sample turned up positive, 27% said they’d make a “positive change,” such as using less or using more slowly (n = 45) or making sure that someone else is present in case of an overdose (n = 26). But most, 71%, reported no change in behavior.

Previously, researchers in Rhode Island and North Carolina also found that some users adopted safer behaviors – such as throwing out their drugs or using less often – after testing their drugs with the strips.

The strips cost about 75 cents, Dr. Klaire said.

Harm-reduction strategies are controversial, and fentanyl test strips aren’t any exemption. “The entire approach is based on the premise that a drug user poised to use a drug is making rational choices, is weighing pros and cons, and is thinking completely logically about his or her drug use. Based on my clinical experience, I know this could not be further from the truth,” wrote Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, assistant secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use with the Department of Health & Human Services, in a 2018 blog post.

But Dr. Klaire said the patients in the new study are highly dependent on opioids. “The drug supply is heavily contaminated [with fentanyl],” he said, “but even when people know it’s contaminated, they still need to go ahead and use it.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., who has conducted fentanyl test strip research, called the study results “compelling.”

“The researchers found that the fentanyl test strips had a very high level of acceptability – over 95% said they would use the strips again – which is remarkably similar to what we found in our work here in Rhode Island,” he said. “Taken together, these studies show that take-home test strips are a feasible, acceptable, and effective strategy for people who use drugs to reduce their risk of fentanyl overdose.”

He added that “fentanyl test strips help people make more informed decisions about their drug use and reducing their risk of overdose.”

However, he said, “one of important limitations of the strips is that they do not detect all contaminants that put persons at risk of overdose. Just because a test result is negative does not mean that the drug is 100% safe.”

Kimberly Sue, MD, PhD, medical director of the National Harm Reduction Coalition, said in an interview that the research is “important,” but noted that many drug users already have been using fentanyl test strips on their own. “We should be focusing on investing in variety of other interventions that could keep more people safe against nonfatal and fatal opioid overdoses, including structural interventions such as safe supply, housing and community with appropriate supports, low barrier access to medication for opioid use disorder, and safe consumption spaces,” she said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Klaire disclosed participating in a research fellowship and a research in addiction medical scholars program, both funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Dr. Sue reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with one of the coauthors of the Vancouver study.

Illicit drug users seem to overwhelmingly appreciate being able to use take-home test strips to detect the extremely common presence of dangerous fentanyl in opioids and other drugs, a new study finds. More than 95% said they’d use the inexpensive strips again.

“These tests accurately detect fentanyl in the drug supply, and they can be a valuable addition to other drug prevention strategies,” said study lead author addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver, in an interview.

Dr. Klaire presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

Researchers in Vancouver distributed take-home fentanyl test strip kits at 10 sites that allow users to test their illicit drugs. The 218 participants performed 1,680 tests, mainly (73%) for opioids, over 3 months in 2019. Of the participants, 61% were male, and the average age was 36 (interquartile range, 29-47). About 30% described themselves as indigenous Canadians (First Nations).

About 90% of the opioid samples tested at home were positive for fentanyl, about the same level as samples tested at clinics. Fentanyl is very potent and linked to the huge rise in overdose deaths in the United States.

Fentanyl test strips aren’t new. According to the Harm Reduction Coalition, they originally were developed to detect fentanyl in urine samples but were jury-rigged in Vancouver to work on samples of illicit drugs. “We literally just repurposed it,” Dr. Klaire said. “It’s the same strip.”

Users test their drugs by dissolving a small sample in water. Then then dip the test strip, which provides readings similar to those in a pregnancy test. If a sample turns up positive for fentanyl, Dr. Klaire said, users may discard the drug or “be more careful with it.”

When asked what they would do if a sample turned up positive, 27% said they’d make a “positive change,” such as using less or using more slowly (n = 45) or making sure that someone else is present in case of an overdose (n = 26). But most, 71%, reported no change in behavior.

Previously, researchers in Rhode Island and North Carolina also found that some users adopted safer behaviors – such as throwing out their drugs or using less often – after testing their drugs with the strips.

The strips cost about 75 cents, Dr. Klaire said.

Harm-reduction strategies are controversial, and fentanyl test strips aren’t any exemption. “The entire approach is based on the premise that a drug user poised to use a drug is making rational choices, is weighing pros and cons, and is thinking completely logically about his or her drug use. Based on my clinical experience, I know this could not be further from the truth,” wrote Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, assistant secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use with the Department of Health & Human Services, in a 2018 blog post.

But Dr. Klaire said the patients in the new study are highly dependent on opioids. “The drug supply is heavily contaminated [with fentanyl],” he said, “but even when people know it’s contaminated, they still need to go ahead and use it.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., who has conducted fentanyl test strip research, called the study results “compelling.”

“The researchers found that the fentanyl test strips had a very high level of acceptability – over 95% said they would use the strips again – which is remarkably similar to what we found in our work here in Rhode Island,” he said. “Taken together, these studies show that take-home test strips are a feasible, acceptable, and effective strategy for people who use drugs to reduce their risk of fentanyl overdose.”

He added that “fentanyl test strips help people make more informed decisions about their drug use and reducing their risk of overdose.”

However, he said, “one of important limitations of the strips is that they do not detect all contaminants that put persons at risk of overdose. Just because a test result is negative does not mean that the drug is 100% safe.”

Kimberly Sue, MD, PhD, medical director of the National Harm Reduction Coalition, said in an interview that the research is “important,” but noted that many drug users already have been using fentanyl test strips on their own. “We should be focusing on investing in variety of other interventions that could keep more people safe against nonfatal and fatal opioid overdoses, including structural interventions such as safe supply, housing and community with appropriate supports, low barrier access to medication for opioid use disorder, and safe consumption spaces,” she said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Klaire disclosed participating in a research fellowship and a research in addiction medical scholars program, both funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Dr. Sue reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with one of the coauthors of the Vancouver study.

Illicit drug users seem to overwhelmingly appreciate being able to use take-home test strips to detect the extremely common presence of dangerous fentanyl in opioids and other drugs, a new study finds. More than 95% said they’d use the inexpensive strips again.

“These tests accurately detect fentanyl in the drug supply, and they can be a valuable addition to other drug prevention strategies,” said study lead author addiction medicine specialist Sukhpreet Klaire, MD, of the British Columbia Center on Substance Use in Vancouver, in an interview.

Dr. Klaire presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

Researchers in Vancouver distributed take-home fentanyl test strip kits at 10 sites that allow users to test their illicit drugs. The 218 participants performed 1,680 tests, mainly (73%) for opioids, over 3 months in 2019. Of the participants, 61% were male, and the average age was 36 (interquartile range, 29-47). About 30% described themselves as indigenous Canadians (First Nations).

About 90% of the opioid samples tested at home were positive for fentanyl, about the same level as samples tested at clinics. Fentanyl is very potent and linked to the huge rise in overdose deaths in the United States.

Fentanyl test strips aren’t new. According to the Harm Reduction Coalition, they originally were developed to detect fentanyl in urine samples but were jury-rigged in Vancouver to work on samples of illicit drugs. “We literally just repurposed it,” Dr. Klaire said. “It’s the same strip.”

Users test their drugs by dissolving a small sample in water. Then then dip the test strip, which provides readings similar to those in a pregnancy test. If a sample turns up positive for fentanyl, Dr. Klaire said, users may discard the drug or “be more careful with it.”

When asked what they would do if a sample turned up positive, 27% said they’d make a “positive change,” such as using less or using more slowly (n = 45) or making sure that someone else is present in case of an overdose (n = 26). But most, 71%, reported no change in behavior.

Previously, researchers in Rhode Island and North Carolina also found that some users adopted safer behaviors – such as throwing out their drugs or using less often – after testing their drugs with the strips.

The strips cost about 75 cents, Dr. Klaire said.

Harm-reduction strategies are controversial, and fentanyl test strips aren’t any exemption. “The entire approach is based on the premise that a drug user poised to use a drug is making rational choices, is weighing pros and cons, and is thinking completely logically about his or her drug use. Based on my clinical experience, I know this could not be further from the truth,” wrote Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, assistant secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use with the Department of Health & Human Services, in a 2018 blog post.

But Dr. Klaire said the patients in the new study are highly dependent on opioids. “The drug supply is heavily contaminated [with fentanyl],” he said, “but even when people know it’s contaminated, they still need to go ahead and use it.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., who has conducted fentanyl test strip research, called the study results “compelling.”

“The researchers found that the fentanyl test strips had a very high level of acceptability – over 95% said they would use the strips again – which is remarkably similar to what we found in our work here in Rhode Island,” he said. “Taken together, these studies show that take-home test strips are a feasible, acceptable, and effective strategy for people who use drugs to reduce their risk of fentanyl overdose.”

He added that “fentanyl test strips help people make more informed decisions about their drug use and reducing their risk of overdose.”

However, he said, “one of important limitations of the strips is that they do not detect all contaminants that put persons at risk of overdose. Just because a test result is negative does not mean that the drug is 100% safe.”

Kimberly Sue, MD, PhD, medical director of the National Harm Reduction Coalition, said in an interview that the research is “important,” but noted that many drug users already have been using fentanyl test strips on their own. “We should be focusing on investing in variety of other interventions that could keep more people safe against nonfatal and fatal opioid overdoses, including structural interventions such as safe supply, housing and community with appropriate supports, low barrier access to medication for opioid use disorder, and safe consumption spaces,” she said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Klaire disclosed participating in a research fellowship and a research in addiction medical scholars program, both funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Dr. Sue reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with one of the coauthors of the Vancouver study.

Topline results show positive results for the experimental intranasal nalmefene product OX125 for opioid overdose reversal, Orexo, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on June 30.

A crossover, comparative bioavailability study was conducted in healthy volunteers to assess nalmefene absorption of three development formulations of OX125. Preliminary results showed “extensive and rapid absorption” across all three formulations versus an intramuscular injection of nalmefene, Orexo reported.

“As the U.S. heroin crisis has developed to a fentanyl crisis, the medical need for novel and more powerful opioid rescue medications is vast,” Nikolaj Sørensen, president and CEO of Orexo, said in a press release.

“The need has also escalated due to the COVID-19 pandemic as the consequences of social distancing and economic weakness are expected to lead to a significant increase in mental health issues and substance use disorders,” Mr. Sørensen added.

Robert Rönn, vice president and head of research and development at Orexo, noted in the same release that the company will now be working with the Food and Drug Administration “to identify the optimal route to market.”

There were more than 31,000 fatalities from highly potent synthetic opioids in the United States in 2018, the manufacturer reported. “Like naloxone, nalmefene is an opioid antagonist that acts by blocking the effects of opioids at the opioid receptors.”

However, nalmefene has a longer half-life than naloxone. These longer-acting properties may be “of particular value to protect against renarcotization (second overdose), as the antagonist wears off,” according to an Orexo press release.

OX125 was developed to provide absorption of drug substances through the nasal mucosa.

In addition to showing rapid absorption across all formulations studied, study results showed “good tolerability, supporting the viability” of the treatment as an opioid overdose rescue medication, the company said.

“This is not only a proof of concept for our wholly owned OX125 product, but also a demonstration of the value of our novel nasal technology platform,” Mr. Rönn said.

“Alongside OX124, our naloxone rescue project, OX125 will be an important lifesaving addition in our commitment to helping patients suffering from opioid addiction in all phases,” Mr. Sørensen added.

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

Topline results show positive results for the experimental intranasal nalmefene product OX125 for opioid overdose reversal, Orexo, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on June 30.

A crossover, comparative bioavailability study was conducted in healthy volunteers to assess nalmefene absorption of three development formulations of OX125. Preliminary results showed “extensive and rapid absorption” across all three formulations versus an intramuscular injection of nalmefene, Orexo reported.

“As the U.S. heroin crisis has developed to a fentanyl crisis, the medical need for novel and more powerful opioid rescue medications is vast,” Nikolaj Sørensen, president and CEO of Orexo, said in a press release.

“The need has also escalated due to the COVID-19 pandemic as the consequences of social distancing and economic weakness are expected to lead to a significant increase in mental health issues and substance use disorders,” Mr. Sørensen added.

Robert Rönn, vice president and head of research and development at Orexo, noted in the same release that the company will now be working with the Food and Drug Administration “to identify the optimal route to market.”

There were more than 31,000 fatalities from highly potent synthetic opioids in the United States in 2018, the manufacturer reported. “Like naloxone, nalmefene is an opioid antagonist that acts by blocking the effects of opioids at the opioid receptors.”

However, nalmefene has a longer half-life than naloxone. These longer-acting properties may be “of particular value to protect against renarcotization (second overdose), as the antagonist wears off,” according to an Orexo press release.

OX125 was developed to provide absorption of drug substances through the nasal mucosa.

In addition to showing rapid absorption across all formulations studied, study results showed “good tolerability, supporting the viability” of the treatment as an opioid overdose rescue medication, the company said.

“This is not only a proof of concept for our wholly owned OX125 product, but also a demonstration of the value of our novel nasal technology platform,” Mr. Rönn said.

“Alongside OX124, our naloxone rescue project, OX125 will be an important lifesaving addition in our commitment to helping patients suffering from opioid addiction in all phases,” Mr. Sørensen added.

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

Topline results show positive results for the experimental intranasal nalmefene product OX125 for opioid overdose reversal, Orexo, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on June 30.

A crossover, comparative bioavailability study was conducted in healthy volunteers to assess nalmefene absorption of three development formulations of OX125. Preliminary results showed “extensive and rapid absorption” across all three formulations versus an intramuscular injection of nalmefene, Orexo reported.

“As the U.S. heroin crisis has developed to a fentanyl crisis, the medical need for novel and more powerful opioid rescue medications is vast,” Nikolaj Sørensen, president and CEO of Orexo, said in a press release.

“The need has also escalated due to the COVID-19 pandemic as the consequences of social distancing and economic weakness are expected to lead to a significant increase in mental health issues and substance use disorders,” Mr. Sørensen added.

Robert Rönn, vice president and head of research and development at Orexo, noted in the same release that the company will now be working with the Food and Drug Administration “to identify the optimal route to market.”

There were more than 31,000 fatalities from highly potent synthetic opioids in the United States in 2018, the manufacturer reported. “Like naloxone, nalmefene is an opioid antagonist that acts by blocking the effects of opioids at the opioid receptors.”

However, nalmefene has a longer half-life than naloxone. These longer-acting properties may be “of particular value to protect against renarcotization (second overdose), as the antagonist wears off,” according to an Orexo press release.

OX125 was developed to provide absorption of drug substances through the nasal mucosa.

In addition to showing rapid absorption across all formulations studied, study results showed “good tolerability, supporting the viability” of the treatment as an opioid overdose rescue medication, the company said.

“This is not only a proof of concept for our wholly owned OX125 product, but also a demonstration of the value of our novel nasal technology platform,” Mr. Rönn said.

“Alongside OX124, our naloxone rescue project, OX125 will be an important lifesaving addition in our commitment to helping patients suffering from opioid addiction in all phases,” Mr. Sørensen added.

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

In December 2019, Seattle Seahawks wide receiver Josh Gordon was suspended indefinitely from the NFL for violation of the league’s substance abuse policy. Gordon, once known as one of the most promising wide receivers of the last few decades, had a tumultuous relationship with the NFL as a result of his struggles with substance use. However, the headlines from major sports and news outlets often describe Gordon and other professional and collegiate athletes who struggle with substance use as “violating policies of abuse.” Media coverage of such athletes frequently imposes labels such as “violation” and “abuse,” implying a greater level of personal responsibility and willful misconduct than the biological process of addiction would typically allow. Gordon’s story brought attention not only to the adversity and impairments of substance use, but also the stigmatizing language that often accompanies it.

Shifting to less stigmatizing terminology

In DMS-5, use of the terminology substance use disorder fosters a more biologically-based model of behavior, and encourages recovery-oriented terminology.¹ However, for most collegiate and professional sports leagues, the policies regarding substance use often use the term substance abuse, which can perpetuate stigma and a misunderstanding of the underpinnings of substance use, insinuating a sense of personal responsibility, deliberate misconduct, and criminality. When an individual is referred to as an “abuser” of substances, this might suggest that they are willful perpetrators of the disease on themselves, and thus may be undeserving of care.² Individuals referred to as “substance abusers” rather than having a substance use disorder are more likely to be subjected to negative perceptions and evaluations of their behaviors, particularly by clinicians.

Individuals with substance use disorders are often viewed more negatively than individuals with physical or other psychiatric disorders, and are among the most stigmatized and marginalized groups in health care.^4,5 Today, lawmakers, advocates, and health care professionals across the country are working to integrate destigmatizing language into media, policy, and educational settings in order to characterize substance use as a neurobiological process rather than a moral fault.⁶ For example, legislation in Maine passed in 2018 removed references to stigmatizing terms in policies related to substance use, replacing substance abuse and drug addict with recovery-oriented terminology such as substance use disorder and person with a substance use disorder.⁷

Individuals with substance use disorders often fear judgment and stigma during clinical encounters, and commonly cite this as a reason to avoid seeking care.⁸ Words matter, and if we are not careful, the language we use can convey meaning and attitudes that perpetuate the stigma that prevents so many from accessing treatment.^9,10 Individuals with a substance use disorder should feel institutionally supported, and the language of policies and the clinicians who treat these patients should reflect this as well.

In December 2019, Seattle Seahawks wide receiver Josh Gordon was suspended indefinitely from the NFL for violation of the league’s substance abuse policy. Gordon, once known as one of the most promising wide receivers of the last few decades, had a tumultuous relationship with the NFL as a result of his struggles with substance use. However, the headlines from major sports and news outlets often describe Gordon and other professional and collegiate athletes who struggle with substance use as “violating policies of abuse.” Media coverage of such athletes frequently imposes labels such as “violation” and “abuse,” implying a greater level of personal responsibility and willful misconduct than the biological process of addiction would typically allow. Gordon’s story brought attention not only to the adversity and impairments of substance use, but also the stigmatizing language that often accompanies it.

Shifting to less stigmatizing terminology

In DMS-5, use of the terminology substance use disorder fosters a more biologically-based model of behavior, and encourages recovery-oriented terminology.¹ However, for most collegiate and professional sports leagues, the policies regarding substance use often use the term substance abuse, which can perpetuate stigma and a misunderstanding of the underpinnings of substance use, insinuating a sense of personal responsibility, deliberate misconduct, and criminality. When an individual is referred to as an “abuser” of substances, this might suggest that they are willful perpetrators of the disease on themselves, and thus may be undeserving of care.² Individuals referred to as “substance abusers” rather than having a substance use disorder are more likely to be subjected to negative perceptions and evaluations of their behaviors, particularly by clinicians.

Individuals with substance use disorders are often viewed more negatively than individuals with physical or other psychiatric disorders, and are among the most stigmatized and marginalized groups in health care.^4,5 Today, lawmakers, advocates, and health care professionals across the country are working to integrate destigmatizing language into media, policy, and educational settings in order to characterize substance use as a neurobiological process rather than a moral fault.⁶ For example, legislation in Maine passed in 2018 removed references to stigmatizing terms in policies related to substance use, replacing substance abuse and drug addict with recovery-oriented terminology such as substance use disorder and person with a substance use disorder.⁷

Individuals with substance use disorders often fear judgment and stigma during clinical encounters, and commonly cite this as a reason to avoid seeking care.⁸ Words matter, and if we are not careful, the language we use can convey meaning and attitudes that perpetuate the stigma that prevents so many from accessing treatment.^9,10 Individuals with a substance use disorder should feel institutionally supported, and the language of policies and the clinicians who treat these patients should reflect this as well.

In December 2019, Seattle Seahawks wide receiver Josh Gordon was suspended indefinitely from the NFL for violation of the league’s substance abuse policy. Gordon, once known as one of the most promising wide receivers of the last few decades, had a tumultuous relationship with the NFL as a result of his struggles with substance use. However, the headlines from major sports and news outlets often describe Gordon and other professional and collegiate athletes who struggle with substance use as “violating policies of abuse.” Media coverage of such athletes frequently imposes labels such as “violation” and “abuse,” implying a greater level of personal responsibility and willful misconduct than the biological process of addiction would typically allow. Gordon’s story brought attention not only to the adversity and impairments of substance use, but also the stigmatizing language that often accompanies it.

Shifting to less stigmatizing terminology

In DMS-5, use of the terminology substance use disorder fosters a more biologically-based model of behavior, and encourages recovery-oriented terminology.¹ However, for most collegiate and professional sports leagues, the policies regarding substance use often use the term substance abuse, which can perpetuate stigma and a misunderstanding of the underpinnings of substance use, insinuating a sense of personal responsibility, deliberate misconduct, and criminality. When an individual is referred to as an “abuser” of substances, this might suggest that they are willful perpetrators of the disease on themselves, and thus may be undeserving of care.² Individuals referred to as “substance abusers” rather than having a substance use disorder are more likely to be subjected to negative perceptions and evaluations of their behaviors, particularly by clinicians.

Individuals with substance use disorders are often viewed more negatively than individuals with physical or other psychiatric disorders, and are among the most stigmatized and marginalized groups in health care.^4,5 Today, lawmakers, advocates, and health care professionals across the country are working to integrate destigmatizing language into media, policy, and educational settings in order to characterize substance use as a neurobiological process rather than a moral fault.⁶ For example, legislation in Maine passed in 2018 removed references to stigmatizing terms in policies related to substance use, replacing substance abuse and drug addict with recovery-oriented terminology such as substance use disorder and person with a substance use disorder.⁷

Individuals with substance use disorders often fear judgment and stigma during clinical encounters, and commonly cite this as a reason to avoid seeking care.⁸ Words matter, and if we are not careful, the language we use can convey meaning and attitudes that perpetuate the stigma that prevents so many from accessing treatment.^9,10 Individuals with a substance use disorder should feel institutionally supported, and the language of policies and the clinicians who treat these patients should reflect this as well.

Six Oregon teenagers ingested flualprazolam, a designer benzodiazepine, and developed symptoms of central nervous system depression. When evaluated at local emergency departments, lethargy and slurred speech were the most common clinical findings.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

One student had mild respiratory depression with a respiratory rate of 10 breaths per minute.

“All patients had sufficient clinical improvement within 6 hours such that they could be discharged from the hospital,” according to a description of the cases that was published online in Pediatrics.

The report is the first to detail clinical toxicity from flualprazolam, and “it is likely that physicians will again encounter patients” with intoxication from this new psychoactive drug, said Adam Blumenberg, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and colleagues.

Internet purchasing has increased rates of exposure to new psychoactive substances since the early 2000s, and law enforcement agents have seized tons of these drugs. “In the United States, the incidence of exposures to designer benzodiazepines in particular has been rising since 2014,” the authors said.

According to an addiction researcher, the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate abuse of designer benzodiazepines.

“This is an important paper describing what medical examiners, pathologists, and emergency rooms have been seeing recently – an increase in designer benzodiazepines,” commented Mark S. Gold, MD, adjunct professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “Recent increases in these drugs have started to be seen in many locations as the traditional drugs of abuse, grown and distributed in bulk, have been disrupted” by the pandemic, he said in an interview. Although it may be too early for such cases to appear in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, they can be described in studies like this one and, “I suspect, sadly, in medical examiner case reports.”

Flualprazolam, known colloquially as Hulk, is structurally related to the Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs alprazolam and triazolam. During 1 week in June 2019, the patients in Oregon received the drug as a free sample from another student from their Oregon high school. They believed it was commercial Xanax (alprazolam). “The flualprazolam tablets were identical in appearance and labeling to 2-mg tablets of alprazolam,” according to the report. “This indicates an intentionally counterfeit product entering the drug supply chain.”

Five of the six patients were boys, and they ranged in age from 14 to 16 years. The patient with mild respiratory depression received 0.4-mg naloxone, which physicians gave empirically because of the unknown identity of the drug, but did not respond. Two of the six patients initially felt drowsy but were asymptomatic during the clinical evaluation.

A urine immunoassay was performed in five of the patients, and all tested positive for benzodiazepines. One patient also tested positive for cannabinoids. Analysis of a tablet fragment revealed that it contained flualprazolam.

“Although flualprazolam intoxication cannot be clinically differentiated from that of other benzodiazepines without advanced testing, patient management should be the same,” Dr. Blumenberg and coauthors said. “For mild to moderate intoxication, patients should be treated with close monitoring and supportive care until symptom resolution. The benzodiazepine antidote flumazenil may be considered a safe and effective antidote in pediatric patients with significant CNS or respiratory depression. In patients for whom there is a concern of benzodiazepine dependence and flumazenil-induced seizures, airway protection and mechanical ventilation may be considered.”

Although patients rarely die from isolated benzodiazepine toxicity, death from respiratory depression or aspiration is more common when benzodiazepine toxicity occurs “in combination with alcohol, opioids, or other sedatives,” the authors noted. In addition, counterfeit alprazolam tablets have contained adulterants such as fentanyl and the opioid U-47700, which can be deadly.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Blumenberg A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2953.

Six Oregon teenagers ingested flualprazolam, a designer benzodiazepine, and developed symptoms of central nervous system depression. When evaluated at local emergency departments, lethargy and slurred speech were the most common clinical findings.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

One student had mild respiratory depression with a respiratory rate of 10 breaths per minute.

“All patients had sufficient clinical improvement within 6 hours such that they could be discharged from the hospital,” according to a description of the cases that was published online in Pediatrics.

The report is the first to detail clinical toxicity from flualprazolam, and “it is likely that physicians will again encounter patients” with intoxication from this new psychoactive drug, said Adam Blumenberg, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and colleagues.

Internet purchasing has increased rates of exposure to new psychoactive substances since the early 2000s, and law enforcement agents have seized tons of these drugs. “In the United States, the incidence of exposures to designer benzodiazepines in particular has been rising since 2014,” the authors said.

According to an addiction researcher, the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate abuse of designer benzodiazepines.

“This is an important paper describing what medical examiners, pathologists, and emergency rooms have been seeing recently – an increase in designer benzodiazepines,” commented Mark S. Gold, MD, adjunct professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “Recent increases in these drugs have started to be seen in many locations as the traditional drugs of abuse, grown and distributed in bulk, have been disrupted” by the pandemic, he said in an interview. Although it may be too early for such cases to appear in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, they can be described in studies like this one and, “I suspect, sadly, in medical examiner case reports.”

Flualprazolam, known colloquially as Hulk, is structurally related to the Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs alprazolam and triazolam. During 1 week in June 2019, the patients in Oregon received the drug as a free sample from another student from their Oregon high school. They believed it was commercial Xanax (alprazolam). “The flualprazolam tablets were identical in appearance and labeling to 2-mg tablets of alprazolam,” according to the report. “This indicates an intentionally counterfeit product entering the drug supply chain.”

Five of the six patients were boys, and they ranged in age from 14 to 16 years. The patient with mild respiratory depression received 0.4-mg naloxone, which physicians gave empirically because of the unknown identity of the drug, but did not respond. Two of the six patients initially felt drowsy but were asymptomatic during the clinical evaluation.

A urine immunoassay was performed in five of the patients, and all tested positive for benzodiazepines. One patient also tested positive for cannabinoids. Analysis of a tablet fragment revealed that it contained flualprazolam.

“Although flualprazolam intoxication cannot be clinically differentiated from that of other benzodiazepines without advanced testing, patient management should be the same,” Dr. Blumenberg and coauthors said. “For mild to moderate intoxication, patients should be treated with close monitoring and supportive care until symptom resolution. The benzodiazepine antidote flumazenil may be considered a safe and effective antidote in pediatric patients with significant CNS or respiratory depression. In patients for whom there is a concern of benzodiazepine dependence and flumazenil-induced seizures, airway protection and mechanical ventilation may be considered.”

Although patients rarely die from isolated benzodiazepine toxicity, death from respiratory depression or aspiration is more common when benzodiazepine toxicity occurs “in combination with alcohol, opioids, or other sedatives,” the authors noted. In addition, counterfeit alprazolam tablets have contained adulterants such as fentanyl and the opioid U-47700, which can be deadly.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Blumenberg A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2953.

Six Oregon teenagers ingested flualprazolam, a designer benzodiazepine, and developed symptoms of central nervous system depression. When evaluated at local emergency departments, lethargy and slurred speech were the most common clinical findings.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

One student had mild respiratory depression with a respiratory rate of 10 breaths per minute.

“All patients had sufficient clinical improvement within 6 hours such that they could be discharged from the hospital,” according to a description of the cases that was published online in Pediatrics.

The report is the first to detail clinical toxicity from flualprazolam, and “it is likely that physicians will again encounter patients” with intoxication from this new psychoactive drug, said Adam Blumenberg, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and colleagues.

Internet purchasing has increased rates of exposure to new psychoactive substances since the early 2000s, and law enforcement agents have seized tons of these drugs. “In the United States, the incidence of exposures to designer benzodiazepines in particular has been rising since 2014,” the authors said.

According to an addiction researcher, the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate abuse of designer benzodiazepines.

“This is an important paper describing what medical examiners, pathologists, and emergency rooms have been seeing recently – an increase in designer benzodiazepines,” commented Mark S. Gold, MD, adjunct professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “Recent increases in these drugs have started to be seen in many locations as the traditional drugs of abuse, grown and distributed in bulk, have been disrupted” by the pandemic, he said in an interview. Although it may be too early for such cases to appear in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, they can be described in studies like this one and, “I suspect, sadly, in medical examiner case reports.”

Flualprazolam, known colloquially as Hulk, is structurally related to the Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs alprazolam and triazolam. During 1 week in June 2019, the patients in Oregon received the drug as a free sample from another student from their Oregon high school. They believed it was commercial Xanax (alprazolam). “The flualprazolam tablets were identical in appearance and labeling to 2-mg tablets of alprazolam,” according to the report. “This indicates an intentionally counterfeit product entering the drug supply chain.”

Five of the six patients were boys, and they ranged in age from 14 to 16 years. The patient with mild respiratory depression received 0.4-mg naloxone, which physicians gave empirically because of the unknown identity of the drug, but did not respond. Two of the six patients initially felt drowsy but were asymptomatic during the clinical evaluation.

A urine immunoassay was performed in five of the patients, and all tested positive for benzodiazepines. One patient also tested positive for cannabinoids. Analysis of a tablet fragment revealed that it contained flualprazolam.

“Although flualprazolam intoxication cannot be clinically differentiated from that of other benzodiazepines without advanced testing, patient management should be the same,” Dr. Blumenberg and coauthors said. “For mild to moderate intoxication, patients should be treated with close monitoring and supportive care until symptom resolution. The benzodiazepine antidote flumazenil may be considered a safe and effective antidote in pediatric patients with significant CNS or respiratory depression. In patients for whom there is a concern of benzodiazepine dependence and flumazenil-induced seizures, airway protection and mechanical ventilation may be considered.”

Although patients rarely die from isolated benzodiazepine toxicity, death from respiratory depression or aspiration is more common when benzodiazepine toxicity occurs “in combination with alcohol, opioids, or other sedatives,” the authors noted. In addition, counterfeit alprazolam tablets have contained adulterants such as fentanyl and the opioid U-47700, which can be deadly.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Blumenberg A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2953.