Addiction Medicine

Almost 70% of adults believe that the Food and Drug Administration should raise the legal age to purchase e-cigarettes and tobacco, according to a new survey by NORC at the University of Chicago, a nonpartisan research institution.

“Americans are particularly concerned about teens becoming newly addicted to e-cigarettes, and they support a range of actions the federal government could take to make vaping products less available, less addictive, and less appealing,” Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at NORC, said in a written statement.

The AmeriSpeak Spotlight on Health Poll, conducted Feb. 14-18, 2019 (margin of error, plus or minus 4.12%), showed that 69% of adults strongly or somewhat support raising the age limit to purchase e-cigarettes and tobacco and 55% support restricting sales of flavored e-cigarettes, NORC reported. Almost 40% of the 1,004 respondents expressed support for a complete ban on e-cigarettes.

Despite FDA efforts under Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, to raise awareness of teen vaping, only 21% of those surveyed correctly responded that e-cigarettes generally contain more nicotine that regular cigarettes. Dr. Gottlieb announced his resignation recently, “but he indicated that the Trump Administration will continue efforts to increase regulation of e-cigarettes,” NORC said.

[email protected]

Almost 70% of adults believe that the Food and Drug Administration should raise the legal age to purchase e-cigarettes and tobacco, according to a new survey by NORC at the University of Chicago, a nonpartisan research institution.

“Americans are particularly concerned about teens becoming newly addicted to e-cigarettes, and they support a range of actions the federal government could take to make vaping products less available, less addictive, and less appealing,” Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at NORC, said in a written statement.

The AmeriSpeak Spotlight on Health Poll, conducted Feb. 14-18, 2019 (margin of error, plus or minus 4.12%), showed that 69% of adults strongly or somewhat support raising the age limit to purchase e-cigarettes and tobacco and 55% support restricting sales of flavored e-cigarettes, NORC reported. Almost 40% of the 1,004 respondents expressed support for a complete ban on e-cigarettes.

Despite FDA efforts under Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, to raise awareness of teen vaping, only 21% of those surveyed correctly responded that e-cigarettes generally contain more nicotine that regular cigarettes. Dr. Gottlieb announced his resignation recently, “but he indicated that the Trump Administration will continue efforts to increase regulation of e-cigarettes,” NORC said.

[email protected]

Almost 70% of adults believe that the Food and Drug Administration should raise the legal age to purchase e-cigarettes and tobacco, according to a new survey by NORC at the University of Chicago, a nonpartisan research institution.

“Americans are particularly concerned about teens becoming newly addicted to e-cigarettes, and they support a range of actions the federal government could take to make vaping products less available, less addictive, and less appealing,” Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at NORC, said in a written statement.

The AmeriSpeak Spotlight on Health Poll, conducted Feb. 14-18, 2019 (margin of error, plus or minus 4.12%), showed that 69% of adults strongly or somewhat support raising the age limit to purchase e-cigarettes and tobacco and 55% support restricting sales of flavored e-cigarettes, NORC reported. Almost 40% of the 1,004 respondents expressed support for a complete ban on e-cigarettes.

Despite FDA efforts under Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, to raise awareness of teen vaping, only 21% of those surveyed correctly responded that e-cigarettes generally contain more nicotine that regular cigarettes. Dr. Gottlieb announced his resignation recently, “but he indicated that the Trump Administration will continue efforts to increase regulation of e-cigarettes,” NORC said.

[email protected]

It is with much enthusiasm that we read the article “Dialing back opioids for chronic pain one conversation at a time” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:753-757) about the author’s approach to opioid tapering. We have implemented a similar process in our own medical home practice, based on the continuity relationship and the Ecological Systems Theory.

The use of the human resources within the medical home—care coordinator, pharmacist, community health worker, etc— distributes the responsibility and lessens the burden of care for the family physician. The Ecological Systems Theory provides a structure for understanding the interaction between proximal influencers (eg, the team) and more distal influences (eg, national guidelines and institutional mandates).

Recently, we presented our findings at the 2018 North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Annual Meeting. Our results showed a 50% decline in per capita medication use over an almost 14-month period.

We feel that opioid tapering provides both a counterpoint and a complementary method to medication-assisted therapies (MAT). A counterpoint, because MAT involves the diagnosis and treatment of opioid misuse disorder. At the core of that diagnosis is the question of whether all chronic opioid use should be labelled as “misuse.” Tapering involves no such diagnosis and focuses on the safety of minimal opioid use, which, when MAT is used appropriately, is also a primary concern.

We appreciate the approach that the authors took in their project and look forward to seeing further iterations.

Bharat Gopal, MD
Cristina Capannolo, DO
Corvallis, Ore

It is with much enthusiasm that we read the article “Dialing back opioids for chronic pain one conversation at a time” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:753-757) about the author’s approach to opioid tapering. We have implemented a similar process in our own medical home practice, based on the continuity relationship and the Ecological Systems Theory.

The use of the human resources within the medical home—care coordinator, pharmacist, community health worker, etc— distributes the responsibility and lessens the burden of care for the family physician. The Ecological Systems Theory provides a structure for understanding the interaction between proximal influencers (eg, the team) and more distal influences (eg, national guidelines and institutional mandates).

Recently, we presented our findings at the 2018 North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Annual Meeting. Our results showed a 50% decline in per capita medication use over an almost 14-month period.

We feel that opioid tapering provides both a counterpoint and a complementary method to medication-assisted therapies (MAT). A counterpoint, because MAT involves the diagnosis and treatment of opioid misuse disorder. At the core of that diagnosis is the question of whether all chronic opioid use should be labelled as “misuse.” Tapering involves no such diagnosis and focuses on the safety of minimal opioid use, which, when MAT is used appropriately, is also a primary concern.

We appreciate the approach that the authors took in their project and look forward to seeing further iterations.

Bharat Gopal, MD
Cristina Capannolo, DO
Corvallis, Ore

It is with much enthusiasm that we read the article “Dialing back opioids for chronic pain one conversation at a time” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:753-757) about the author’s approach to opioid tapering. We have implemented a similar process in our own medical home practice, based on the continuity relationship and the Ecological Systems Theory.

The use of the human resources within the medical home—care coordinator, pharmacist, community health worker, etc— distributes the responsibility and lessens the burden of care for the family physician. The Ecological Systems Theory provides a structure for understanding the interaction between proximal influencers (eg, the team) and more distal influences (eg, national guidelines and institutional mandates).

Recently, we presented our findings at the 2018 North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Annual Meeting. Our results showed a 50% decline in per capita medication use over an almost 14-month period.

We feel that opioid tapering provides both a counterpoint and a complementary method to medication-assisted therapies (MAT). A counterpoint, because MAT involves the diagnosis and treatment of opioid misuse disorder. At the core of that diagnosis is the question of whether all chronic opioid use should be labelled as “misuse.” Tapering involves no such diagnosis and focuses on the safety of minimal opioid use, which, when MAT is used appropriately, is also a primary concern.

We appreciate the approach that the authors took in their project and look forward to seeing further iterations.

Bharat Gopal, MD
Cristina Capannolo, DO
Corvallis, Ore

SEATTLE – People with HIV are more likely to die from an opioid overdose than the general public, according to investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

M.Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We looked into this because we know persons with HIV are more likely to have chronic pain and more likely to receive opioid analgesic treatments, and receive higher doses. In addition, they are more likely to have substance use disorders and mental illness than the U.S. general populations,” CDC epidemiologist Karin A. Bosh, PhD, said at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

To see how that played out in terms of unintentional opioid overdose deaths, they turned to the National HIV Surveillance System and focused on overdose deaths during 2011-2015, the latest data available at the time of the work.

There were 1,363 overdose deaths among persons with HIV during that period, with the rate increasing 42.7% – from 23.2/100,000 HIV patients in 2011 to 33.1/100,000 in 2015.

Although the rate of increase was comparable to the general population, the crude rate was “actually substantially higher among persons with HIV,” Dr. Bosh said. Deaths were highest among persons aged 50-59 years (41.9/100,000), whites (49.1/100,000), injection drug users (137.4/100,000), and people who live in the Northeast (60.6/100,000).

Surprisingly, there was no increase in the rate of overdose deaths among HIV patients on the West Coast, possibly because heroin there was less likely to be cut with fentanyl.

Also, the rate of opioid overdose deaths was higher among women with HIV (35.2/100,000) than among men, perhaps because women are more likely to contract HIV by injection drug use, so they are more likely to be injection drug users at baseline, while the vast majority of men are infected through male-male sex, the investigators said.

The findings underscore the importance of intensifying overdose prevention in the HIV community, and better integrating HIV and substance use disorder treatment, they concluded.

M. Alexander Otto//MDedge News

That comes down to screening people for problems, especially in the subgroups identified in the study, and connecting them to drug treatment services. If HIV and substance disorder services were in the same clinic it would help, as would an increase in the number of buprenorphine providers, according to Sheryl B. Lyss, PhD, a coinvestigator and CDC epidemiologist.

“Obviously, when substance use is addressed, people can be much more adherent with their [HIV] medications,” she noted.

The work was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The investigators had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bosh KA et al. CROI 2019, Abstract 147.

SEATTLE – People with HIV are more likely to die from an opioid overdose than the general public, according to investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

M.Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We looked into this because we know persons with HIV are more likely to have chronic pain and more likely to receive opioid analgesic treatments, and receive higher doses. In addition, they are more likely to have substance use disorders and mental illness than the U.S. general populations,” CDC epidemiologist Karin A. Bosh, PhD, said at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

To see how that played out in terms of unintentional opioid overdose deaths, they turned to the National HIV Surveillance System and focused on overdose deaths during 2011-2015, the latest data available at the time of the work.

There were 1,363 overdose deaths among persons with HIV during that period, with the rate increasing 42.7% – from 23.2/100,000 HIV patients in 2011 to 33.1/100,000 in 2015.

Although the rate of increase was comparable to the general population, the crude rate was “actually substantially higher among persons with HIV,” Dr. Bosh said. Deaths were highest among persons aged 50-59 years (41.9/100,000), whites (49.1/100,000), injection drug users (137.4/100,000), and people who live in the Northeast (60.6/100,000).

Surprisingly, there was no increase in the rate of overdose deaths among HIV patients on the West Coast, possibly because heroin there was less likely to be cut with fentanyl.

Also, the rate of opioid overdose deaths was higher among women with HIV (35.2/100,000) than among men, perhaps because women are more likely to contract HIV by injection drug use, so they are more likely to be injection drug users at baseline, while the vast majority of men are infected through male-male sex, the investigators said.

The findings underscore the importance of intensifying overdose prevention in the HIV community, and better integrating HIV and substance use disorder treatment, they concluded.

M. Alexander Otto//MDedge News

That comes down to screening people for problems, especially in the subgroups identified in the study, and connecting them to drug treatment services. If HIV and substance disorder services were in the same clinic it would help, as would an increase in the number of buprenorphine providers, according to Sheryl B. Lyss, PhD, a coinvestigator and CDC epidemiologist.

“Obviously, when substance use is addressed, people can be much more adherent with their [HIV] medications,” she noted.

The work was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The investigators had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bosh KA et al. CROI 2019, Abstract 147.

SEATTLE – People with HIV are more likely to die from an opioid overdose than the general public, according to investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

M.Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We looked into this because we know persons with HIV are more likely to have chronic pain and more likely to receive opioid analgesic treatments, and receive higher doses. In addition, they are more likely to have substance use disorders and mental illness than the U.S. general populations,” CDC epidemiologist Karin A. Bosh, PhD, said at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

To see how that played out in terms of unintentional opioid overdose deaths, they turned to the National HIV Surveillance System and focused on overdose deaths during 2011-2015, the latest data available at the time of the work.

There were 1,363 overdose deaths among persons with HIV during that period, with the rate increasing 42.7% – from 23.2/100,000 HIV patients in 2011 to 33.1/100,000 in 2015.

Although the rate of increase was comparable to the general population, the crude rate was “actually substantially higher among persons with HIV,” Dr. Bosh said. Deaths were highest among persons aged 50-59 years (41.9/100,000), whites (49.1/100,000), injection drug users (137.4/100,000), and people who live in the Northeast (60.6/100,000).

Surprisingly, there was no increase in the rate of overdose deaths among HIV patients on the West Coast, possibly because heroin there was less likely to be cut with fentanyl.

Also, the rate of opioid overdose deaths was higher among women with HIV (35.2/100,000) than among men, perhaps because women are more likely to contract HIV by injection drug use, so they are more likely to be injection drug users at baseline, while the vast majority of men are infected through male-male sex, the investigators said.

The findings underscore the importance of intensifying overdose prevention in the HIV community, and better integrating HIV and substance use disorder treatment, they concluded.

M. Alexander Otto//MDedge News

That comes down to screening people for problems, especially in the subgroups identified in the study, and connecting them to drug treatment services. If HIV and substance disorder services were in the same clinic it would help, as would an increase in the number of buprenorphine providers, according to Sheryl B. Lyss, PhD, a coinvestigator and CDC epidemiologist.

“Obviously, when substance use is addressed, people can be much more adherent with their [HIV] medications,” she noted.

The work was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The investigators had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bosh KA et al. CROI 2019, Abstract 147.

The experience of recovering from addiction can look different in different people, according to a Washington Post article. Some patients hit “rock bottom” and are able to climb back after connecting with a therapist. Others maintain sobriety by working with sponsors through 12-step programs. Still others are able to attain sobriety and maintain it by carefully vetting social invitations and bypassing situations in which drugs or lots of alcohol are involved. Medications that manage cravings are another intervention used by some of the 22 million Americans reportedly in recovery from drugs and alcohol. A major milestone for those seeking recovery is reaching the 3- to 5-year mark, said Robert D. Ashford, MSW, of the Substance Use Disorders Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “That benchmark can signal a reduced risk of returning to substance use because the person with addiction has had the time to develop effective coping skills, social connections, and a renewed sense of self.” The Washington Post.

University life can be rewarding, but stress is a reality – and for some, that stress can either exacerbate or trigger mental health challenges. More universities have recognized the mental toll that campus life can exact and have put supports in place. At the University of California, Los Angeles, Internet-based screenings and online mental health treatment are offered with one-on-one personal contact with “resilience peers.” The latter are not licensed counselors, but they are trained to listen and provide an outlet for stressed students. The online help teaches skills that are useful in combating anxiety and depression. The goal is to help as many students as fast as possible. “This program fundamentally changed who I am and how I approach my life,” said UCLA student Nivi Ahlawat. “I may not remember the structures of all the intermediates of the glycolysis pathway I learned in biochemistry class. But I’ll remember what I’ve learned about active listening, motivational interviewing, and mindfulness intervention for the rest of my life.” Meanwhile, Kent (Ohio) State University has provided mental health training to more than 700 students, faculty, and staff. And at Jefferson Community College in Watertown, N.Y., mental health help includes a “wraparound” model that provides aid to economically disadvantaged students whose stress includes putting food on the table for their children. The New York Times.

Sen. Richard Briggs, MD, has proposed a resolution that seeks to loosen the purses of insurance companies in Tennessee, with the aim of better coverage for those with mental health or substance use issues who are seeking treatment. In introducing the resolution, Dr. Briggs noted that, despite the opioid crisis in his state, there is an “undeniable difference in coverage for mental health and substance abuse services for Tennesseans suffering from substance use disorder or opioid use disorder,” compared with the way other traditional diseases are covered and insured. “Mental illness is an illness just like any other medical illness, and should be treated and reimbursed to physicians in the same manner,” said Dr. Briggs, a heart and lung surgeon who served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. NewsChannel 5 in Nashville.

“When I tell you I moved down to Miami for the weather, I really mean I moved to South Florida to escape my depression,” wrote Minhae Shim Roth. But for some, other factors get in the way. “The problem is that the heat and humidity can be so oppressive that people are forced indoors, negating the positive benefits of the sunshine,” said Daniel E. Jimenez, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Miami. Last year, more than 560,000 Floridians – or 3.5% of the state’s adults – reportedly contemplated suicide, statistics show. Those stats are comparable with those of New York state. One difference, however, is that people in Miami are less willing to talk about mental health challenges, Ms. Roth suggested. “It’s easy to believe living in the Magic City is like a booze-, drug-, and fun-filled party that never stops. This pervasive hedonistic reputation makes it unpopular and shameful to admit you’re depressed. Everyone’s having fun, so why aren’t you?” Ms. Roth wrote. Those who seek help face an understaffed and underfunded system where an appointment with a psychiatrist can take months to secure. Help needs to come in other forms, according to Ms. Roth, and include “compassion and empathy, public initiatives aimed at combating the stigma of mental illness, greater accessibility to mental health services, and readily available intervention tools.” Miami New Times.

Seven in 10 U.S. teens see anxiety and depression as major problems among their peers. The concerns cut across gender, racial and socioeconomic lines, according to a survey of 920 teens aged 13-17 years. The major reason for the anxiety and depression is school, with 61% of the respondents feeling pressure to excel academically. Girls were far more likely than boys to say they planned to attend a 4-year college (68% vs. 51%). About half of the teens surveyed viewed drug addiction and alcohol consumption as major problems among people their age. Pew Research Center.

The experience of recovering from addiction can look different in different people, according to a Washington Post article. Some patients hit “rock bottom” and are able to climb back after connecting with a therapist. Others maintain sobriety by working with sponsors through 12-step programs. Still others are able to attain sobriety and maintain it by carefully vetting social invitations and bypassing situations in which drugs or lots of alcohol are involved. Medications that manage cravings are another intervention used by some of the 22 million Americans reportedly in recovery from drugs and alcohol. A major milestone for those seeking recovery is reaching the 3- to 5-year mark, said Robert D. Ashford, MSW, of the Substance Use Disorders Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “That benchmark can signal a reduced risk of returning to substance use because the person with addiction has had the time to develop effective coping skills, social connections, and a renewed sense of self.” The Washington Post.

University life can be rewarding, but stress is a reality – and for some, that stress can either exacerbate or trigger mental health challenges. More universities have recognized the mental toll that campus life can exact and have put supports in place. At the University of California, Los Angeles, Internet-based screenings and online mental health treatment are offered with one-on-one personal contact with “resilience peers.” The latter are not licensed counselors, but they are trained to listen and provide an outlet for stressed students. The online help teaches skills that are useful in combating anxiety and depression. The goal is to help as many students as fast as possible. “This program fundamentally changed who I am and how I approach my life,” said UCLA student Nivi Ahlawat. “I may not remember the structures of all the intermediates of the glycolysis pathway I learned in biochemistry class. But I’ll remember what I’ve learned about active listening, motivational interviewing, and mindfulness intervention for the rest of my life.” Meanwhile, Kent (Ohio) State University has provided mental health training to more than 700 students, faculty, and staff. And at Jefferson Community College in Watertown, N.Y., mental health help includes a “wraparound” model that provides aid to economically disadvantaged students whose stress includes putting food on the table for their children. The New York Times.

Sen. Richard Briggs, MD, has proposed a resolution that seeks to loosen the purses of insurance companies in Tennessee, with the aim of better coverage for those with mental health or substance use issues who are seeking treatment. In introducing the resolution, Dr. Briggs noted that, despite the opioid crisis in his state, there is an “undeniable difference in coverage for mental health and substance abuse services for Tennesseans suffering from substance use disorder or opioid use disorder,” compared with the way other traditional diseases are covered and insured. “Mental illness is an illness just like any other medical illness, and should be treated and reimbursed to physicians in the same manner,” said Dr. Briggs, a heart and lung surgeon who served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. NewsChannel 5 in Nashville.

“When I tell you I moved down to Miami for the weather, I really mean I moved to South Florida to escape my depression,” wrote Minhae Shim Roth. But for some, other factors get in the way. “The problem is that the heat and humidity can be so oppressive that people are forced indoors, negating the positive benefits of the sunshine,” said Daniel E. Jimenez, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Miami. Last year, more than 560,000 Floridians – or 3.5% of the state’s adults – reportedly contemplated suicide, statistics show. Those stats are comparable with those of New York state. One difference, however, is that people in Miami are less willing to talk about mental health challenges, Ms. Roth suggested. “It’s easy to believe living in the Magic City is like a booze-, drug-, and fun-filled party that never stops. This pervasive hedonistic reputation makes it unpopular and shameful to admit you’re depressed. Everyone’s having fun, so why aren’t you?” Ms. Roth wrote. Those who seek help face an understaffed and underfunded system where an appointment with a psychiatrist can take months to secure. Help needs to come in other forms, according to Ms. Roth, and include “compassion and empathy, public initiatives aimed at combating the stigma of mental illness, greater accessibility to mental health services, and readily available intervention tools.” Miami New Times.

Seven in 10 U.S. teens see anxiety and depression as major problems among their peers. The concerns cut across gender, racial and socioeconomic lines, according to a survey of 920 teens aged 13-17 years. The major reason for the anxiety and depression is school, with 61% of the respondents feeling pressure to excel academically. Girls were far more likely than boys to say they planned to attend a 4-year college (68% vs. 51%). About half of the teens surveyed viewed drug addiction and alcohol consumption as major problems among people their age. Pew Research Center.

The experience of recovering from addiction can look different in different people, according to a Washington Post article. Some patients hit “rock bottom” and are able to climb back after connecting with a therapist. Others maintain sobriety by working with sponsors through 12-step programs. Still others are able to attain sobriety and maintain it by carefully vetting social invitations and bypassing situations in which drugs or lots of alcohol are involved. Medications that manage cravings are another intervention used by some of the 22 million Americans reportedly in recovery from drugs and alcohol. A major milestone for those seeking recovery is reaching the 3- to 5-year mark, said Robert D. Ashford, MSW, of the Substance Use Disorders Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “That benchmark can signal a reduced risk of returning to substance use because the person with addiction has had the time to develop effective coping skills, social connections, and a renewed sense of self.” The Washington Post.

University life can be rewarding, but stress is a reality – and for some, that stress can either exacerbate or trigger mental health challenges. More universities have recognized the mental toll that campus life can exact and have put supports in place. At the University of California, Los Angeles, Internet-based screenings and online mental health treatment are offered with one-on-one personal contact with “resilience peers.” The latter are not licensed counselors, but they are trained to listen and provide an outlet for stressed students. The online help teaches skills that are useful in combating anxiety and depression. The goal is to help as many students as fast as possible. “This program fundamentally changed who I am and how I approach my life,” said UCLA student Nivi Ahlawat. “I may not remember the structures of all the intermediates of the glycolysis pathway I learned in biochemistry class. But I’ll remember what I’ve learned about active listening, motivational interviewing, and mindfulness intervention for the rest of my life.” Meanwhile, Kent (Ohio) State University has provided mental health training to more than 700 students, faculty, and staff. And at Jefferson Community College in Watertown, N.Y., mental health help includes a “wraparound” model that provides aid to economically disadvantaged students whose stress includes putting food on the table for their children. The New York Times.

Sen. Richard Briggs, MD, has proposed a resolution that seeks to loosen the purses of insurance companies in Tennessee, with the aim of better coverage for those with mental health or substance use issues who are seeking treatment. In introducing the resolution, Dr. Briggs noted that, despite the opioid crisis in his state, there is an “undeniable difference in coverage for mental health and substance abuse services for Tennesseans suffering from substance use disorder or opioid use disorder,” compared with the way other traditional diseases are covered and insured. “Mental illness is an illness just like any other medical illness, and should be treated and reimbursed to physicians in the same manner,” said Dr. Briggs, a heart and lung surgeon who served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. NewsChannel 5 in Nashville.

“When I tell you I moved down to Miami for the weather, I really mean I moved to South Florida to escape my depression,” wrote Minhae Shim Roth. But for some, other factors get in the way. “The problem is that the heat and humidity can be so oppressive that people are forced indoors, negating the positive benefits of the sunshine,” said Daniel E. Jimenez, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Miami. Last year, more than 560,000 Floridians – or 3.5% of the state’s adults – reportedly contemplated suicide, statistics show. Those stats are comparable with those of New York state. One difference, however, is that people in Miami are less willing to talk about mental health challenges, Ms. Roth suggested. “It’s easy to believe living in the Magic City is like a booze-, drug-, and fun-filled party that never stops. This pervasive hedonistic reputation makes it unpopular and shameful to admit you’re depressed. Everyone’s having fun, so why aren’t you?” Ms. Roth wrote. Those who seek help face an understaffed and underfunded system where an appointment with a psychiatrist can take months to secure. Help needs to come in other forms, according to Ms. Roth, and include “compassion and empathy, public initiatives aimed at combating the stigma of mental illness, greater accessibility to mental health services, and readily available intervention tools.” Miami New Times.

Seven in 10 U.S. teens see anxiety and depression as major problems among their peers. The concerns cut across gender, racial and socioeconomic lines, according to a survey of 920 teens aged 13-17 years. The major reason for the anxiety and depression is school, with 61% of the respondents feeling pressure to excel academically. Girls were far more likely than boys to say they planned to attend a 4-year college (68% vs. 51%). About half of the teens surveyed viewed drug addiction and alcohol consumption as major problems among people their age. Pew Research Center.

Approximately 5% of patients with intellectual disability (ID) have a comorbid substance use disorder (SUD).¹ These patients frequently abuse alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, but are largely underdiagnosed and undertreated for SUDs. Treatment for SUDs in these patients is critical because substance abuse among patients with ID is associated with developing mood disorders, long-term health consequences, incarceration, and interpersonal instability.¹ To ensure that these often-marginalized patients are adequately assessed and treated for SUDs, consider the following 5 steps.

1. Perform screening tests. Unfortunately, no substance use screening tests are validated specifically for patients with ID. When presented with mainstream screening tools, patients with ID could produce false positives or false negatives for 2 reasons:

• Patients with ID are more likely to respond in the affirmative to screening questions that they do not understand.
• Many screening questionnaires assume that patients possess an amount of knowledge and cognitive ability to abstract information that patients with ID may lack.

Clinicians should therefore adapt screening questions to better match the cognitive and communicative abilities of their patients with ID by simplifying sentences, using graphics, and avoiding negative phrases and confrontation. For example, while all-encompassing, the term “alcohol” may be confusing for some patients. Instead of broadly asking a patient, “Do you drink alcoholic beverages?” it may be necessary to specifically ask, “Do you drink wine?” or “Do you drink beer?” Similarly, it may be insufficient to ask a patient, “Do you smoke marijuana?” Instead, use colloquial terms (ie, weed, reefer) to ensure that the patient knows which substance you mean. Screening questions can be complemented by ordering urine drug testing and obtaining collateral information from caregivers.²

2. Use approved medications to treat SUDs. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is underprescribed for patients with ID. Medication compliance in patients with ID may be a concern; however, many of these patients are compliant with treatment because they often live with family members, in group homes, or in other settings where their medications are administered to them.

Also, be mindful of whether your patient has epilepsy. This condition is common among patients with ID,³ and some MAT can lower the seizure threshold. When starting and titrating MAT, always monitor patients carefully for benefits and adverse effects.⁴

3. Make a thorough assessment before recommending Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings. While the 12-step recovery model has proven benefits, the typical structure of 12-step meetings is not conducive to all patients with ID. Only recommend such meetings to patients who have 60- to 90-minute attention spans and demonstrate the cognitive, communicative, literacy, and social skills to fully engage during the meetings.⁵

4. Employ motivational interviewing. Many patients with ID have cursory knowledge of the health risks associated with substance abuse, particularly those with mild ID. Motivational interviewing techniques that include health education may help produce favorable outcomes in these patients.⁶

Continue to: Provide ongoing support

5. Provide ongoing support. Remember that addiction is a chronic disease with a risk of relapse. Provide continuous support for patients with ID and comorbid SUDs throughout all phases of their recovery, and refer them to addiction specialists, pain specialists, or psychotherapists as appropriate.

Approximately 5% of patients with intellectual disability (ID) have a comorbid substance use disorder (SUD).¹ These patients frequently abuse alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, but are largely underdiagnosed and undertreated for SUDs. Treatment for SUDs in these patients is critical because substance abuse among patients with ID is associated with developing mood disorders, long-term health consequences, incarceration, and interpersonal instability.¹ To ensure that these often-marginalized patients are adequately assessed and treated for SUDs, consider the following 5 steps.

1. Perform screening tests. Unfortunately, no substance use screening tests are validated specifically for patients with ID. When presented with mainstream screening tools, patients with ID could produce false positives or false negatives for 2 reasons:

• Patients with ID are more likely to respond in the affirmative to screening questions that they do not understand.
• Many screening questionnaires assume that patients possess an amount of knowledge and cognitive ability to abstract information that patients with ID may lack.

Clinicians should therefore adapt screening questions to better match the cognitive and communicative abilities of their patients with ID by simplifying sentences, using graphics, and avoiding negative phrases and confrontation. For example, while all-encompassing, the term “alcohol” may be confusing for some patients. Instead of broadly asking a patient, “Do you drink alcoholic beverages?” it may be necessary to specifically ask, “Do you drink wine?” or “Do you drink beer?” Similarly, it may be insufficient to ask a patient, “Do you smoke marijuana?” Instead, use colloquial terms (ie, weed, reefer) to ensure that the patient knows which substance you mean. Screening questions can be complemented by ordering urine drug testing and obtaining collateral information from caregivers.²

2. Use approved medications to treat SUDs. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is underprescribed for patients with ID. Medication compliance in patients with ID may be a concern; however, many of these patients are compliant with treatment because they often live with family members, in group homes, or in other settings where their medications are administered to them.

Also, be mindful of whether your patient has epilepsy. This condition is common among patients with ID,³ and some MAT can lower the seizure threshold. When starting and titrating MAT, always monitor patients carefully for benefits and adverse effects.⁴

3. Make a thorough assessment before recommending Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings. While the 12-step recovery model has proven benefits, the typical structure of 12-step meetings is not conducive to all patients with ID. Only recommend such meetings to patients who have 60- to 90-minute attention spans and demonstrate the cognitive, communicative, literacy, and social skills to fully engage during the meetings.⁵

4. Employ motivational interviewing. Many patients with ID have cursory knowledge of the health risks associated with substance abuse, particularly those with mild ID. Motivational interviewing techniques that include health education may help produce favorable outcomes in these patients.⁶

Continue to: Provide ongoing support

5. Provide ongoing support. Remember that addiction is a chronic disease with a risk of relapse. Provide continuous support for patients with ID and comorbid SUDs throughout all phases of their recovery, and refer them to addiction specialists, pain specialists, or psychotherapists as appropriate.

Approximately 5% of patients with intellectual disability (ID) have a comorbid substance use disorder (SUD).¹ These patients frequently abuse alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, but are largely underdiagnosed and undertreated for SUDs. Treatment for SUDs in these patients is critical because substance abuse among patients with ID is associated with developing mood disorders, long-term health consequences, incarceration, and interpersonal instability.¹ To ensure that these often-marginalized patients are adequately assessed and treated for SUDs, consider the following 5 steps.

1. Perform screening tests. Unfortunately, no substance use screening tests are validated specifically for patients with ID. When presented with mainstream screening tools, patients with ID could produce false positives or false negatives for 2 reasons:

• Patients with ID are more likely to respond in the affirmative to screening questions that they do not understand.
• Many screening questionnaires assume that patients possess an amount of knowledge and cognitive ability to abstract information that patients with ID may lack.

Clinicians should therefore adapt screening questions to better match the cognitive and communicative abilities of their patients with ID by simplifying sentences, using graphics, and avoiding negative phrases and confrontation. For example, while all-encompassing, the term “alcohol” may be confusing for some patients. Instead of broadly asking a patient, “Do you drink alcoholic beverages?” it may be necessary to specifically ask, “Do you drink wine?” or “Do you drink beer?” Similarly, it may be insufficient to ask a patient, “Do you smoke marijuana?” Instead, use colloquial terms (ie, weed, reefer) to ensure that the patient knows which substance you mean. Screening questions can be complemented by ordering urine drug testing and obtaining collateral information from caregivers.²

2. Use approved medications to treat SUDs. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is underprescribed for patients with ID. Medication compliance in patients with ID may be a concern; however, many of these patients are compliant with treatment because they often live with family members, in group homes, or in other settings where their medications are administered to them.

Also, be mindful of whether your patient has epilepsy. This condition is common among patients with ID,³ and some MAT can lower the seizure threshold. When starting and titrating MAT, always monitor patients carefully for benefits and adverse effects.⁴

3. Make a thorough assessment before recommending Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings. While the 12-step recovery model has proven benefits, the typical structure of 12-step meetings is not conducive to all patients with ID. Only recommend such meetings to patients who have 60- to 90-minute attention spans and demonstrate the cognitive, communicative, literacy, and social skills to fully engage during the meetings.⁵

4. Employ motivational interviewing. Many patients with ID have cursory knowledge of the health risks associated with substance abuse, particularly those with mild ID. Motivational interviewing techniques that include health education may help produce favorable outcomes in these patients.⁶

Continue to: Provide ongoing support

5. Provide ongoing support. Remember that addiction is a chronic disease with a risk of relapse. Provide continuous support for patients with ID and comorbid SUDs throughout all phases of their recovery, and refer them to addiction specialists, pain specialists, or psychotherapists as appropriate.

Editor’s note: Career Choices features a psychiatry resident/fellow interviewing a psychiatrist about why he or she has chosen a specific career path. The goal is to inform trainees about the various psychiatric career options, and to give them a feel for the pros and cons of the various paths.

In this Career Choices, Saeed Ahmed, MD, talked with Cornel Stanciu, MD. Dr. Stanciu is an addiction psychiatrist at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, where he is an Assistant Professor, and serves as the Director of Addiction Services at New Hampshire Hospital. He provides support to clinicians managing patients with addictive disorders in a multitude of settings, and also assists with policy making and delivery of addiction care at the state level. He is also the author of Deciphering the Addicted Brain, a guide to help families and the general public better understand addictive disorders.

Dr. Ahmed: What attracted you to pursue subspecialty training in addictive disorders?

Dr. Stanciu: In the early stages of my training, I frequently encountered individuals with medical and mental health disorders whose treatment was impacted by underlying substance use. I soon came to realize any attempts at (for example) managing hypertension in someone with cocaine use disorder, or managing schizophrenia in someone with ongoing cannabis use, were futile. Almost all of my patients receiving treatment for mental health disorders were dependent on tobacco or other substances, and most were interested in cessation. Through mentorship from addiction-trained residency faculty members, I was able to get a taste of the neurobiologic complexities of the disease, something that left me with a desire to develop a deeper understanding of the disease process. Witnessing strikingly positive outcomes with implementation of evidence-based treatment modalities further solidified my path to subspecialty training. Even during that early phase, because I expressed interest in managing these conditions, I was immediately put in a position to share and disseminate any newly acquired knowledge to other specialties as well as the public.

Dr. Ahmed: Could one manage addictive disorders with just general psychiatry training, and what are the differences between the different paths to certification that a resident could undertake?

Dr. Stanciu: Addictive disorders fall under the general umbrella of psychiatric care. Most individuals with these disorders exhibit some degree of mental illness. Medical school curriculum offers on average 2 hours of addiction-related didactics during 4 years. General psychiatry training programs vary significantly in the type of exposure to addiction—some residencies have an affiliated addiction fellowship, others have addiction-trained psychiatrists on staff, but most have none. Ultimately, there is great variability in the degree of comfort in working with individuals with addictive disorders post-residency. Being able to prescribe medications for the treatment of addictive disorders is very different from being familiar with the latest evidence-based recommendations and guidelines; the latter is unlikely to be gleaned simply though residency training. There are 2 routes to specialization after residency: addiction psychiatry, and addiction medicine. The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) recognized addiction psychiatry as a subspecialty in 1993. Since 1998, completion of a fellowship recognized through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has been required for board certification. There are almost 50 programs nationwide with approximately 150 spots. There is no match process for admissions; acceptance is based on a review of application documents and a personal interview. Upon completion of this 1 year of training, candidates sit for the certification exam, which is offered every other year.

Addiction medicine is a fairly new route initially intended to allow non-psychiatric specialties access to addictive disorders training and certification. This is offered through the American Board of Preventive Medicine. There are currently 2 routes to sitting for the exam: through completion of a 1-year addiction medicine fellowship, or through the “practice pathway” still available until 2020. To be eligible for the latter, individuals must provide documentation of clinical experience post-residency, which is quantified as number of hours spent treating patients with addictions, plus any additional courses or training, and must be endorsed by a certified addictionologist.

Continue to: What was your fellowship experience link...

Dr. Ahmed: What was your fellowship experience like, and what should one consider when choosing a program?

Dr. Stanciu: I completed my fellowship training through Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, and the experience was tremendously valuable. In evaluating programs, one of the starting points is whether you have interest in a formal research track, because several programs include an optional year for that. Most programs tend to provide exposure to the Veterans Affairs system. The 1 year should provide you with broad exposure to all possible settings, all addictive disorders and patient populations, and all treatment modalities, in addition to rigorous didactic sessions. The ideal program should include rotations through methadone treatment centers, intensive outpatient programs, pain and interdisciplinary clinics, detoxification units, and centers for treatment of adolescent and young adults, as well as general medical settings and infectious disease clinics. There should also be close collaboration with psychologists who can provide training in evidence-based therapeutic modalities. During this year, it is vital to expand your knowledge of the ethical and legal regulations of treatment programs, state and federal requirements, insurance complexities, and requirements for privacy and protection of health information. The size of these programs can vary significantly, which may limit the one-on-one time devoted to your training, which is something I personally valued. My faculty was very supportive of academic endeavors, providing guidance, funding, and encouragement for attending and presenting at conferences, publishing papers, and other academic pursuits. Additionally, faculty should be current with emerging literature and willing to develop or implement new protocols and evaluate new pharmacologic therapies.

Dr. Ahmed: What are some of the career options and work settings for addiction psychiatrists?

Dr. Stanciu: Addiction psychiatrists work in numerous settings and various capacities. They can provide subspecialty care directly by seeing patients in outpatient clinics or inpatient addiction treatment centers for detoxification or rehabilitation, or they can work with dual-diagnosis populations in inpatient units. The expansion of telemedicine also holds promise for a role through virtual services. Indirectly, they can serve as a resource for expertise in the field through consultations in medical and psychiatric settings, or through policy making by working with the legislature and public health departments. Additionally, they can help create and integrate new knowledge into practice and educate future generations of physicians and the public.

Dr. Ahmed: What are some of the prevalent disorders and reasons for consultation that you encounter in your daily practice?

Continue to: Dr. Stanciu's response...

Dr. Stanciu: This can vary significantly depending on the setting, geographical region, and demographics of the population. My main non-administrative responsibilities are primarily consultative assisting clinicians at a 200-bed psychiatric hospital to address co-occurring addictive disorders. In short-term units, I am primarily asked to provide input on issues related to various toxidromes and withdrawals and the use of relapse prevention medications for alcohol use disorders as well as the use of buprenorphine or other forms of medication-assisted treatment. I work closely with licensed drug and alcohol counselors in implementing brief interventions as well as facilitating outpatient treatment referrals. Clinicians in longer term units may consult on issues related to pain management in individuals who have addictive disorders, the use of evidence-based pharmacologic agents to address cravings, or the use of relapse prevention medications for someone close to discharge. In terms of specific drugs of abuse, although opioids have recently received a tremendous amount of attention due to the visible costs through overdose deaths, the magnitude of individuals who are losing years of quality life through the use of alcohol and tobacco is significant, and hence this is a large portion of the conditions I encounter. I have also seen an abundance of marijuana use due to decreased perception of harm and increased access.

Dr. Ahmed: What are some of the challenges in working in this field?

Dr. Stanciu: Historically, funding for services has been an issue for clinicians working primarily with addictive disorders from the standpoint of reimbursement, patient access to evidence-based pharmacotherapy, and ability to collaborate with existing levels of care. In recent years, federal funding and policies have changed this, and after numerous studies have found increased cost savings, commercial insurances are providing coverage. A significant challenge also has been public stigma and dealing with a condition that is relapsing-remitting, poorly understood by other specialties and the general public, and sometimes labeled as a defect of character. Several efforts in education have lessened this; however, the impact still takes a toll on patients, who may feel ashamed of their disorder and sometimes are hesitant to take medications because they may believe that they are not “clean” if they depend on a medication for remission. Lastly, recent changes in marijuana policies make conversations about this drug quite difficult because patients often view it as harmless, and the laws governing legality and indications for therapeutic use are slightly ahead of the evidence.

Dr. Ahmed: In what direction do you believe the subspecialty is headed?

Dr. Stanciu: Currently, there are approximately 1,000 certified addiction psychiatrists for the 45 million Americans who have addictive disorders. Smoking and other forms of tobacco use pose significant threats to the 2020 Healthy People Tobacco Use objectives. There is a significant demand for addictionologists in both public and private sectors. As with mental health, demand exceeds supply, and efforts are underway to expand downstream education and increase access to specialists. Several federal laws have been put in place to remove barriers and expand access to care and have paved the way to a brighter future. One is the Affordable Care Act, which requires all insurances including Medicaid to cover the cost of treatment. Second is the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which ensures that the duration and dollar amount of coverage for substance use disorders is comparable to that of medical and surgical care.

Continue to: Another exciting possibility...

Another exciting possibility comes from the world of pharmaceuticals. Some medications have modest efficacy for addressing addictive disorders; however, historically these have been poorly utilized. Enhanced understanding of the neurobiology combined with increased insurance reimbursement should prompt research and new drug development. Some promising agents are already in the pipeline. Research into molecular and gene therapy as a way to better individualize care is also underway.

Going forward, I think we will also encounter a different landscape of drugs. Synthetic agents are emerging and increasing in popularity. Alarmingly, public perception of harm is decreasing. When it comes to cannabis use, I see a rise in pathologic use and the ramifications of this will have a drastic impact, particularly on patients with mental health conditions. We will need to undertake better efforts in monitoring, staying updated, and providing public education campaigns.

Dr. Ahmed: What advice do you have for trainees contemplating subspecialty training in addiction psychiatry?

Dr. Stanciu: I cannot emphasize enough the importance of mentorship. The American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry has a robust system for connecting mentees with mentors at all stages in their careers. This can be extremely helpful, especially in situations where the residency program does not have addiction-trained faculty or rotations through treatment centers. Joining such an organization also grants you access to resources that can help further your enthusiasm. Those interested should also familiarize themselves with currently available pharmacotherapeutic treatments that have evidence supporting efficacy for various addictive disorders, and begin to incorporate these medications into general mental health practice, along with attempts at motivational interviewing. For example, begin discussing naltrexone with patients who have comorbid alcohol use disorders and are interested in reducing their drinking; and varenicline with patients who smoke and are interested in quitting. The outcomes should automatically elicit an interest in pursuing further training in the field!

Editor’s note: Career Choices features a psychiatry resident/fellow interviewing a psychiatrist about why he or she has chosen a specific career path. The goal is to inform trainees about the various psychiatric career options, and to give them a feel for the pros and cons of the various paths.

In this Career Choices, Saeed Ahmed, MD, talked with Cornel Stanciu, MD. Dr. Stanciu is an addiction psychiatrist at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, where he is an Assistant Professor, and serves as the Director of Addiction Services at New Hampshire Hospital. He provides support to clinicians managing patients with addictive disorders in a multitude of settings, and also assists with policy making and delivery of addiction care at the state level. He is also the author of Deciphering the Addicted Brain, a guide to help families and the general public better understand addictive disorders.

Dr. Ahmed: What attracted you to pursue subspecialty training in addictive disorders?

Dr. Stanciu: In the early stages of my training, I frequently encountered individuals with medical and mental health disorders whose treatment was impacted by underlying substance use. I soon came to realize any attempts at (for example) managing hypertension in someone with cocaine use disorder, or managing schizophrenia in someone with ongoing cannabis use, were futile. Almost all of my patients receiving treatment for mental health disorders were dependent on tobacco or other substances, and most were interested in cessation. Through mentorship from addiction-trained residency faculty members, I was able to get a taste of the neurobiologic complexities of the disease, something that left me with a desire to develop a deeper understanding of the disease process. Witnessing strikingly positive outcomes with implementation of evidence-based treatment modalities further solidified my path to subspecialty training. Even during that early phase, because I expressed interest in managing these conditions, I was immediately put in a position to share and disseminate any newly acquired knowledge to other specialties as well as the public.

Dr. Ahmed: Could one manage addictive disorders with just general psychiatry training, and what are the differences between the different paths to certification that a resident could undertake?

Dr. Stanciu: Addictive disorders fall under the general umbrella of psychiatric care. Most individuals with these disorders exhibit some degree of mental illness. Medical school curriculum offers on average 2 hours of addiction-related didactics during 4 years. General psychiatry training programs vary significantly in the type of exposure to addiction—some residencies have an affiliated addiction fellowship, others have addiction-trained psychiatrists on staff, but most have none. Ultimately, there is great variability in the degree of comfort in working with individuals with addictive disorders post-residency. Being able to prescribe medications for the treatment of addictive disorders is very different from being familiar with the latest evidence-based recommendations and guidelines; the latter is unlikely to be gleaned simply though residency training. There are 2 routes to specialization after residency: addiction psychiatry, and addiction medicine. The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) recognized addiction psychiatry as a subspecialty in 1993. Since 1998, completion of a fellowship recognized through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has been required for board certification. There are almost 50 programs nationwide with approximately 150 spots. There is no match process for admissions; acceptance is based on a review of application documents and a personal interview. Upon completion of this 1 year of training, candidates sit for the certification exam, which is offered every other year.

Addiction medicine is a fairly new route initially intended to allow non-psychiatric specialties access to addictive disorders training and certification. This is offered through the American Board of Preventive Medicine. There are currently 2 routes to sitting for the exam: through completion of a 1-year addiction medicine fellowship, or through the “practice pathway” still available until 2020. To be eligible for the latter, individuals must provide documentation of clinical experience post-residency, which is quantified as number of hours spent treating patients with addictions, plus any additional courses or training, and must be endorsed by a certified addictionologist.

Continue to: What was your fellowship experience link...

Dr. Ahmed: What was your fellowship experience like, and what should one consider when choosing a program?

Dr. Stanciu: I completed my fellowship training through Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, and the experience was tremendously valuable. In evaluating programs, one of the starting points is whether you have interest in a formal research track, because several programs include an optional year for that. Most programs tend to provide exposure to the Veterans Affairs system. The 1 year should provide you with broad exposure to all possible settings, all addictive disorders and patient populations, and all treatment modalities, in addition to rigorous didactic sessions. The ideal program should include rotations through methadone treatment centers, intensive outpatient programs, pain and interdisciplinary clinics, detoxification units, and centers for treatment of adolescent and young adults, as well as general medical settings and infectious disease clinics. There should also be close collaboration with psychologists who can provide training in evidence-based therapeutic modalities. During this year, it is vital to expand your knowledge of the ethical and legal regulations of treatment programs, state and federal requirements, insurance complexities, and requirements for privacy and protection of health information. The size of these programs can vary significantly, which may limit the one-on-one time devoted to your training, which is something I personally valued. My faculty was very supportive of academic endeavors, providing guidance, funding, and encouragement for attending and presenting at conferences, publishing papers, and other academic pursuits. Additionally, faculty should be current with emerging literature and willing to develop or implement new protocols and evaluate new pharmacologic therapies.

Dr. Ahmed: What are some of the career options and work settings for addiction psychiatrists?

Dr. Stanciu: Addiction psychiatrists work in numerous settings and various capacities. They can provide subspecialty care directly by seeing patients in outpatient clinics or inpatient addiction treatment centers for detoxification or rehabilitation, or they can work with dual-diagnosis populations in inpatient units. The expansion of telemedicine also holds promise for a role through virtual services. Indirectly, they can serve as a resource for expertise in the field through consultations in medical and psychiatric settings, or through policy making by working with the legislature and public health departments. Additionally, they can help create and integrate new knowledge into practice and educate future generations of physicians and the public.

Dr. Ahmed: What are some of the prevalent disorders and reasons for consultation that you encounter in your daily practice?

Continue to: Dr. Stanciu's response...

Dr. Stanciu: This can vary significantly depending on the setting, geographical region, and demographics of the population. My main non-administrative responsibilities are primarily consultative assisting clinicians at a 200-bed psychiatric hospital to address co-occurring addictive disorders. In short-term units, I am primarily asked to provide input on issues related to various toxidromes and withdrawals and the use of relapse prevention medications for alcohol use disorders as well as the use of buprenorphine or other forms of medication-assisted treatment. I work closely with licensed drug and alcohol counselors in implementing brief interventions as well as facilitating outpatient treatment referrals. Clinicians in longer term units may consult on issues related to pain management in individuals who have addictive disorders, the use of evidence-based pharmacologic agents to address cravings, or the use of relapse prevention medications for someone close to discharge. In terms of specific drugs of abuse, although opioids have recently received a tremendous amount of attention due to the visible costs through overdose deaths, the magnitude of individuals who are losing years of quality life through the use of alcohol and tobacco is significant, and hence this is a large portion of the conditions I encounter. I have also seen an abundance of marijuana use due to decreased perception of harm and increased access.

Dr. Ahmed: What are some of the challenges in working in this field?

Dr. Stanciu: Historically, funding for services has been an issue for clinicians working primarily with addictive disorders from the standpoint of reimbursement, patient access to evidence-based pharmacotherapy, and ability to collaborate with existing levels of care. In recent years, federal funding and policies have changed this, and after numerous studies have found increased cost savings, commercial insurances are providing coverage. A significant challenge also has been public stigma and dealing with a condition that is relapsing-remitting, poorly understood by other specialties and the general public, and sometimes labeled as a defect of character. Several efforts in education have lessened this; however, the impact still takes a toll on patients, who may feel ashamed of their disorder and sometimes are hesitant to take medications because they may believe that they are not “clean” if they depend on a medication for remission. Lastly, recent changes in marijuana policies make conversations about this drug quite difficult because patients often view it as harmless, and the laws governing legality and indications for therapeutic use are slightly ahead of the evidence.

Dr. Ahmed: In what direction do you believe the subspecialty is headed?

Dr. Stanciu: Currently, there are approximately 1,000 certified addiction psychiatrists for the 45 million Americans who have addictive disorders. Smoking and other forms of tobacco use pose significant threats to the 2020 Healthy People Tobacco Use objectives. There is a significant demand for addictionologists in both public and private sectors. As with mental health, demand exceeds supply, and efforts are underway to expand downstream education and increase access to specialists. Several federal laws have been put in place to remove barriers and expand access to care and have paved the way to a brighter future. One is the Affordable Care Act, which requires all insurances including Medicaid to cover the cost of treatment. Second is the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which ensures that the duration and dollar amount of coverage for substance use disorders is comparable to that of medical and surgical care.

Continue to: Another exciting possibility...

Another exciting possibility comes from the world of pharmaceuticals. Some medications have modest efficacy for addressing addictive disorders; however, historically these have been poorly utilized. Enhanced understanding of the neurobiology combined with increased insurance reimbursement should prompt research and new drug development. Some promising agents are already in the pipeline. Research into molecular and gene therapy as a way to better individualize care is also underway.

Going forward, I think we will also encounter a different landscape of drugs. Synthetic agents are emerging and increasing in popularity. Alarmingly, public perception of harm is decreasing. When it comes to cannabis use, I see a rise in pathologic use and the ramifications of this will have a drastic impact, particularly on patients with mental health conditions. We will need to undertake better efforts in monitoring, staying updated, and providing public education campaigns.

Dr. Ahmed: What advice do you have for trainees contemplating subspecialty training in addiction psychiatry?

Dr. Stanciu: I cannot emphasize enough the importance of mentorship. The American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry has a robust system for connecting mentees with mentors at all stages in their careers. This can be extremely helpful, especially in situations where the residency program does not have addiction-trained faculty or rotations through treatment centers. Joining such an organization also grants you access to resources that can help further your enthusiasm. Those interested should also familiarize themselves with currently available pharmacotherapeutic treatments that have evidence supporting efficacy for various addictive disorders, and begin to incorporate these medications into general mental health practice, along with attempts at motivational interviewing. For example, begin discussing naltrexone with patients who have comorbid alcohol use disorders and are interested in reducing their drinking; and varenicline with patients who smoke and are interested in quitting. The outcomes should automatically elicit an interest in pursuing further training in the field!

Editor’s note: Career Choices features a psychiatry resident/fellow interviewing a psychiatrist about why he or she has chosen a specific career path. The goal is to inform trainees about the various psychiatric career options, and to give them a feel for the pros and cons of the various paths.

In this Career Choices, Saeed Ahmed, MD, talked with Cornel Stanciu, MD. Dr. Stanciu is an addiction psychiatrist at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, where he is an Assistant Professor, and serves as the Director of Addiction Services at New Hampshire Hospital. He provides support to clinicians managing patients with addictive disorders in a multitude of settings, and also assists with policy making and delivery of addiction care at the state level. He is also the author of Deciphering the Addicted Brain, a guide to help families and the general public better understand addictive disorders.

Dr. Ahmed: What attracted you to pursue subspecialty training in addictive disorders?

Dr. Stanciu: In the early stages of my training, I frequently encountered individuals with medical and mental health disorders whose treatment was impacted by underlying substance use. I soon came to realize any attempts at (for example) managing hypertension in someone with cocaine use disorder, or managing schizophrenia in someone with ongoing cannabis use, were futile. Almost all of my patients receiving treatment for mental health disorders were dependent on tobacco or other substances, and most were interested in cessation. Through mentorship from addiction-trained residency faculty members, I was able to get a taste of the neurobiologic complexities of the disease, something that left me with a desire to develop a deeper understanding of the disease process. Witnessing strikingly positive outcomes with implementation of evidence-based treatment modalities further solidified my path to subspecialty training. Even during that early phase, because I expressed interest in managing these conditions, I was immediately put in a position to share and disseminate any newly acquired knowledge to other specialties as well as the public.

Dr. Ahmed: Could one manage addictive disorders with just general psychiatry training, and what are the differences between the different paths to certification that a resident could undertake?

Dr. Stanciu: Addictive disorders fall under the general umbrella of psychiatric care. Most individuals with these disorders exhibit some degree of mental illness. Medical school curriculum offers on average 2 hours of addiction-related didactics during 4 years. General psychiatry training programs vary significantly in the type of exposure to addiction—some residencies have an affiliated addiction fellowship, others have addiction-trained psychiatrists on staff, but most have none. Ultimately, there is great variability in the degree of comfort in working with individuals with addictive disorders post-residency. Being able to prescribe medications for the treatment of addictive disorders is very different from being familiar with the latest evidence-based recommendations and guidelines; the latter is unlikely to be gleaned simply though residency training. There are 2 routes to specialization after residency: addiction psychiatry, and addiction medicine. The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) recognized addiction psychiatry as a subspecialty in 1993. Since 1998, completion of a fellowship recognized through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has been required for board certification. There are almost 50 programs nationwide with approximately 150 spots. There is no match process for admissions; acceptance is based on a review of application documents and a personal interview. Upon completion of this 1 year of training, candidates sit for the certification exam, which is offered every other year.

Addiction medicine is a fairly new route initially intended to allow non-psychiatric specialties access to addictive disorders training and certification. This is offered through the American Board of Preventive Medicine. There are currently 2 routes to sitting for the exam: through completion of a 1-year addiction medicine fellowship, or through the “practice pathway” still available until 2020. To be eligible for the latter, individuals must provide documentation of clinical experience post-residency, which is quantified as number of hours spent treating patients with addictions, plus any additional courses or training, and must be endorsed by a certified addictionologist.

Continue to: What was your fellowship experience link...

Dr. Ahmed: What was your fellowship experience like, and what should one consider when choosing a program?

Dr. Stanciu: I completed my fellowship training through Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, and the experience was tremendously valuable. In evaluating programs, one of the starting points is whether you have interest in a formal research track, because several programs include an optional year for that. Most programs tend to provide exposure to the Veterans Affairs system. The 1 year should provide you with broad exposure to all possible settings, all addictive disorders and patient populations, and all treatment modalities, in addition to rigorous didactic sessions. The ideal program should include rotations through methadone treatment centers, intensive outpatient programs, pain and interdisciplinary clinics, detoxification units, and centers for treatment of adolescent and young adults, as well as general medical settings and infectious disease clinics. There should also be close collaboration with psychologists who can provide training in evidence-based therapeutic modalities. During this year, it is vital to expand your knowledge of the ethical and legal regulations of treatment programs, state and federal requirements, insurance complexities, and requirements for privacy and protection of health information. The size of these programs can vary significantly, which may limit the one-on-one time devoted to your training, which is something I personally valued. My faculty was very supportive of academic endeavors, providing guidance, funding, and encouragement for attending and presenting at conferences, publishing papers, and other academic pursuits. Additionally, faculty should be current with emerging literature and willing to develop or implement new protocols and evaluate new pharmacologic therapies.

Dr. Ahmed: What are some of the career options and work settings for addiction psychiatrists?

Dr. Stanciu: Addiction psychiatrists work in numerous settings and various capacities. They can provide subspecialty care directly by seeing patients in outpatient clinics or inpatient addiction treatment centers for detoxification or rehabilitation, or they can work with dual-diagnosis populations in inpatient units. The expansion of telemedicine also holds promise for a role through virtual services. Indirectly, they can serve as a resource for expertise in the field through consultations in medical and psychiatric settings, or through policy making by working with the legislature and public health departments. Additionally, they can help create and integrate new knowledge into practice and educate future generations of physicians and the public.

Dr. Ahmed: What are some of the prevalent disorders and reasons for consultation that you encounter in your daily practice?

Continue to: Dr. Stanciu's response...

Dr. Stanciu: This can vary significantly depending on the setting, geographical region, and demographics of the population. My main non-administrative responsibilities are primarily consultative assisting clinicians at a 200-bed psychiatric hospital to address co-occurring addictive disorders. In short-term units, I am primarily asked to provide input on issues related to various toxidromes and withdrawals and the use of relapse prevention medications for alcohol use disorders as well as the use of buprenorphine or other forms of medication-assisted treatment. I work closely with licensed drug and alcohol counselors in implementing brief interventions as well as facilitating outpatient treatment referrals. Clinicians in longer term units may consult on issues related to pain management in individuals who have addictive disorders, the use of evidence-based pharmacologic agents to address cravings, or the use of relapse prevention medications for someone close to discharge. In terms of specific drugs of abuse, although opioids have recently received a tremendous amount of attention due to the visible costs through overdose deaths, the magnitude of individuals who are losing years of quality life through the use of alcohol and tobacco is significant, and hence this is a large portion of the conditions I encounter. I have also seen an abundance of marijuana use due to decreased perception of harm and increased access.

Dr. Ahmed: What are some of the challenges in working in this field?

Dr. Stanciu: Historically, funding for services has been an issue for clinicians working primarily with addictive disorders from the standpoint of reimbursement, patient access to evidence-based pharmacotherapy, and ability to collaborate with existing levels of care. In recent years, federal funding and policies have changed this, and after numerous studies have found increased cost savings, commercial insurances are providing coverage. A significant challenge also has been public stigma and dealing with a condition that is relapsing-remitting, poorly understood by other specialties and the general public, and sometimes labeled as a defect of character. Several efforts in education have lessened this; however, the impact still takes a toll on patients, who may feel ashamed of their disorder and sometimes are hesitant to take medications because they may believe that they are not “clean” if they depend on a medication for remission. Lastly, recent changes in marijuana policies make conversations about this drug quite difficult because patients often view it as harmless, and the laws governing legality and indications for therapeutic use are slightly ahead of the evidence.

Dr. Ahmed: In what direction do you believe the subspecialty is headed?

Dr. Stanciu: Currently, there are approximately 1,000 certified addiction psychiatrists for the 45 million Americans who have addictive disorders. Smoking and other forms of tobacco use pose significant threats to the 2020 Healthy People Tobacco Use objectives. There is a significant demand for addictionologists in both public and private sectors. As with mental health, demand exceeds supply, and efforts are underway to expand downstream education and increase access to specialists. Several federal laws have been put in place to remove barriers and expand access to care and have paved the way to a brighter future. One is the Affordable Care Act, which requires all insurances including Medicaid to cover the cost of treatment. Second is the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which ensures that the duration and dollar amount of coverage for substance use disorders is comparable to that of medical and surgical care.

Continue to: Another exciting possibility...

Another exciting possibility comes from the world of pharmaceuticals. Some medications have modest efficacy for addressing addictive disorders; however, historically these have been poorly utilized. Enhanced understanding of the neurobiology combined with increased insurance reimbursement should prompt research and new drug development. Some promising agents are already in the pipeline. Research into molecular and gene therapy as a way to better individualize care is also underway.

Going forward, I think we will also encounter a different landscape of drugs. Synthetic agents are emerging and increasing in popularity. Alarmingly, public perception of harm is decreasing. When it comes to cannabis use, I see a rise in pathologic use and the ramifications of this will have a drastic impact, particularly on patients with mental health conditions. We will need to undertake better efforts in monitoring, staying updated, and providing public education campaigns.

Dr. Ahmed: What advice do you have for trainees contemplating subspecialty training in addiction psychiatry?

Dr. Stanciu: I cannot emphasize enough the importance of mentorship. The American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry has a robust system for connecting mentees with mentors at all stages in their careers. This can be extremely helpful, especially in situations where the residency program does not have addiction-trained faculty or rotations through treatment centers. Joining such an organization also grants you access to resources that can help further your enthusiasm. Those interested should also familiarize themselves with currently available pharmacotherapeutic treatments that have evidence supporting efficacy for various addictive disorders, and begin to incorporate these medications into general mental health practice, along with attempts at motivational interviewing. For example, begin discussing naltrexone with patients who have comorbid alcohol use disorders and are interested in reducing their drinking; and varenicline with patients who smoke and are interested in quitting. The outcomes should automatically elicit an interest in pursuing further training in the field!

The correlation between parental nonmedical prescription opioid use and offspring use should be considered in targeted efforts to reduce adolescent use, reported Pamela C. Griesler, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, and her associates.

BackyardProduction/Thinkstock

Given the significant link between parental and adolescent smoking and adolescent nonmedical prescription opioid (NMPO) use, smoking also should be included in targeted interventions, they wrote in Pediatrics.

Dr. Griesler and her colleagues noted that there actually are three classes of factors influencing the association between parent and adolescent NMPO use: phenotypic heritability, parental role modeling, and parental socialization and other environmental influences.

In the first known study to explore the relationship of parent-adolescent NMPO use within a nationally representative sampling of parent-child dyads taken from the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health, Dr. Griesler and her colleagues examined the intergenerational association of lifetime NMPO use among 35,000 parent-adolescent dyads (21,200 mothers, 13,800 fathers). Of the 35,000 children aged 12-17 years included in the sample, 90% were biological, 8% were stepchildren, and 2% were adopted.

Given the absence of previous studies exploring the relationship between parent-adolescent NMPO use, Dr. Griesler and her associates used established findings for smoking and substance use to hypothesize that there would be stronger associations for mothers than fathers, daughters than sons, and for whites than African Americans.

The investigators posed three questions that formed the basis of their research: 1) What is the association between lifetime parental and child NMPO use? 2) What is the unique association between parental and child NMPO use, controlling for other factors? 3) Do parental/adolescent NMPO use associations differ by parent/child gender and race and/or ethnicity?

About 14% of parents reported ever using an NMPO; fathers (14%) had slightly higher rates of usage than mothers (13%), and white parents had higher rates of use (16%) than African American (10%) or Hispanic (9%) parents. Among adolescents, 9% reported ever having used an NMPO; this included similar rates for boys (9%) and girls (9%), as well as whites (9%), Hispanics (9%), and African Americans (8%). Use increased with age over time, from 4% among 12-year-olds to 15% among 17-year-olds.

SOURCE: Griesler PC et al. Pediatrics. 2019;143(3):e20182354.

The correlation between parental nonmedical prescription opioid use and offspring use should be considered in targeted efforts to reduce adolescent use, reported Pamela C. Griesler, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, and her associates.

BackyardProduction/Thinkstock

Given the significant link between parental and adolescent smoking and adolescent nonmedical prescription opioid (NMPO) use, smoking also should be included in targeted interventions, they wrote in Pediatrics.

Dr. Griesler and her colleagues noted that there actually are three classes of factors influencing the association between parent and adolescent NMPO use: phenotypic heritability, parental role modeling, and parental socialization and other environmental influences.

In the first known study to explore the relationship of parent-adolescent NMPO use within a nationally representative sampling of parent-child dyads taken from the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health, Dr. Griesler and her colleagues examined the intergenerational association of lifetime NMPO use among 35,000 parent-adolescent dyads (21,200 mothers, 13,800 fathers). Of the 35,000 children aged 12-17 years included in the sample, 90% were biological, 8% were stepchildren, and 2% were adopted.

Given the absence of previous studies exploring the relationship between parent-adolescent NMPO use, Dr. Griesler and her associates used established findings for smoking and substance use to hypothesize that there would be stronger associations for mothers than fathers, daughters than sons, and for whites than African Americans.

The investigators posed three questions that formed the basis of their research: 1) What is the association between lifetime parental and child NMPO use? 2) What is the unique association between parental and child NMPO use, controlling for other factors? 3) Do parental/adolescent NMPO use associations differ by parent/child gender and race and/or ethnicity?

About 14% of parents reported ever using an NMPO; fathers (14%) had slightly higher rates of usage than mothers (13%), and white parents had higher rates of use (16%) than African American (10%) or Hispanic (9%) parents. Among adolescents, 9% reported ever having used an NMPO; this included similar rates for boys (9%) and girls (9%), as well as whites (9%), Hispanics (9%), and African Americans (8%). Use increased with age over time, from 4% among 12-year-olds to 15% among 17-year-olds.

SOURCE: Griesler PC et al. Pediatrics. 2019;143(3):e20182354.

The correlation between parental nonmedical prescription opioid use and offspring use should be considered in targeted efforts to reduce adolescent use, reported Pamela C. Griesler, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, and her associates.

BackyardProduction/Thinkstock

Given the significant link between parental and adolescent smoking and adolescent nonmedical prescription opioid (NMPO) use, smoking also should be included in targeted interventions, they wrote in Pediatrics.

Dr. Griesler and her colleagues noted that there actually are three classes of factors influencing the association between parent and adolescent NMPO use: phenotypic heritability, parental role modeling, and parental socialization and other environmental influences.

In the first known study to explore the relationship of parent-adolescent NMPO use within a nationally representative sampling of parent-child dyads taken from the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health, Dr. Griesler and her colleagues examined the intergenerational association of lifetime NMPO use among 35,000 parent-adolescent dyads (21,200 mothers, 13,800 fathers). Of the 35,000 children aged 12-17 years included in the sample, 90% were biological, 8% were stepchildren, and 2% were adopted.

Given the absence of previous studies exploring the relationship between parent-adolescent NMPO use, Dr. Griesler and her associates used established findings for smoking and substance use to hypothesize that there would be stronger associations for mothers than fathers, daughters than sons, and for whites than African Americans.

The investigators posed three questions that formed the basis of their research: 1) What is the association between lifetime parental and child NMPO use? 2) What is the unique association between parental and child NMPO use, controlling for other factors? 3) Do parental/adolescent NMPO use associations differ by parent/child gender and race and/or ethnicity?

About 14% of parents reported ever using an NMPO; fathers (14%) had slightly higher rates of usage than mothers (13%), and white parents had higher rates of use (16%) than African American (10%) or Hispanic (9%) parents. Among adolescents, 9% reported ever having used an NMPO; this included similar rates for boys (9%) and girls (9%), as well as whites (9%), Hispanics (9%), and African Americans (8%). Use increased with age over time, from 4% among 12-year-olds to 15% among 17-year-olds.

SOURCE: Griesler PC et al. Pediatrics. 2019;143(3):e20182354.

BONITA SPRINGS, FLA. – Reductions in alcohol use bring about significant improvement in adverse consequences, mental health status, and quality of life, even if the reductions do not reach the level of abstinence, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.

The findings, experts say, demonstrate how a fixation on abstinence or elimination of all heavy drinking – the endpoints the Food and Drug Administration now require in pivotal clinical trials on alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatments – is shortsighted and can unnecessarily discourage people with alcohol use disorder from pursuing treatment.

“We need to think a little differently, or a little out of the box, from the way we’ve been thinking in the past,” said Raymond F. Anton, MD, professor of psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston and chair of the Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative (ACTIVE), a group advocating for a new endpoint that recognizes the benefits of lesser reductions in alcohol intake.

In a new analysis using data from the COMBINE study, researchers looked at the associations between reduction in World Health Organization drinking risk levels of alcohol consumption and clinically meaningful outcomes among people in treatment.

There are four levels: very high (more than 7.1 14-g drinks a day for men and more than 4.3 for women); high (4.3-7.1 or 2.9-4.3, respectively); moderate (2.9-4.3 or 1.4-2.9); and low (less than 2.9 or less than 1.4).

Researchers assessed responses to treatment with acamprosate, naltrexone, and psychological intervention in patients an average of 44 years old with 71% of their days being heavy drinking days. They found significant improvement in consequences tied to drinking, according to the Drinker Inventory of Consequences, and in mental health according to the Short Form Health Survey and the WHO Quality of Life assessment – even when the improvement was only by one WHO risk level – or just a few drinks a day – and did not involve abstaining (P less than .001 for all improvement categories).

“Reductions in WHO drinking risk levels are predictive of clinical benefit” or how the patient feels and functions, said Daniel Falk, PhD, health scientist administrator at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

The ACTIVE group he chairs, Dr. Anton said, is proposing that the FDA add a new endpoint for phase 3 trials: percentage of subjects who attain a 1- or 2-level reduction in WHO drinking risk levels.

Stephanie O’Malley, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., said a 30-year-old with a moderate drinking problem – occasionally missing a family function, but never letting it interfere with work, say – might be turned off by a treatment plan that preaches abstinence, she said. Varenicline, for example, results in abstinence just 7% of the time, with some risk of suicidality and nausea. That person might not want to stop drinking entirely for the rest of his or her life, but could benefit by reducing the drinking, she said.

But 55% of the time, varenicline produces a reduction of one level of risk, which is associated with clinically meaningful results. That will sound much more appealing to a prospective patient, she said.

“From a clinical perspective, these WHO outcomes have some advantages,” she said. “I think you’re going to, one, encourage more people to accept treatment, and … be more optimistic about the outcomes.”

Dr. Anton reported consulting and/or funding from Alkermes, Allergan, Indivior, Insys Life Epigenetics, and Laboratori Farmaceutico CT. Dr. O’Malley reported consulting and/or funding from Alkermes, Amygdala, Indivior, Mistubishi Tanabe, Opiant, and other sources. Dr. Falk reported no disclosures.

BONITA SPRINGS, FLA. – Reductions in alcohol use bring about significant improvement in adverse consequences, mental health status, and quality of life, even if the reductions do not reach the level of abstinence, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.

The findings, experts say, demonstrate how a fixation on abstinence or elimination of all heavy drinking – the endpoints the Food and Drug Administration now require in pivotal clinical trials on alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatments – is shortsighted and can unnecessarily discourage people with alcohol use disorder from pursuing treatment.

“We need to think a little differently, or a little out of the box, from the way we’ve been thinking in the past,” said Raymond F. Anton, MD, professor of psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston and chair of the Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative (ACTIVE), a group advocating for a new endpoint that recognizes the benefits of lesser reductions in alcohol intake.

In a new analysis using data from the COMBINE study, researchers looked at the associations between reduction in World Health Organization drinking risk levels of alcohol consumption and clinically meaningful outcomes among people in treatment.

There are four levels: very high (more than 7.1 14-g drinks a day for men and more than 4.3 for women); high (4.3-7.1 or 2.9-4.3, respectively); moderate (2.9-4.3 or 1.4-2.9); and low (less than 2.9 or less than 1.4).

Researchers assessed responses to treatment with acamprosate, naltrexone, and psychological intervention in patients an average of 44 years old with 71% of their days being heavy drinking days. They found significant improvement in consequences tied to drinking, according to the Drinker Inventory of Consequences, and in mental health according to the Short Form Health Survey and the WHO Quality of Life assessment – even when the improvement was only by one WHO risk level – or just a few drinks a day – and did not involve abstaining (P less than .001 for all improvement categories).

“Reductions in WHO drinking risk levels are predictive of clinical benefit” or how the patient feels and functions, said Daniel Falk, PhD, health scientist administrator at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

The ACTIVE group he chairs, Dr. Anton said, is proposing that the FDA add a new endpoint for phase 3 trials: percentage of subjects who attain a 1- or 2-level reduction in WHO drinking risk levels.

Stephanie O’Malley, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., said a 30-year-old with a moderate drinking problem – occasionally missing a family function, but never letting it interfere with work, say – might be turned off by a treatment plan that preaches abstinence, she said. Varenicline, for example, results in abstinence just 7% of the time, with some risk of suicidality and nausea. That person might not want to stop drinking entirely for the rest of his or her life, but could benefit by reducing the drinking, she said.

But 55% of the time, varenicline produces a reduction of one level of risk, which is associated with clinically meaningful results. That will sound much more appealing to a prospective patient, she said.

“From a clinical perspective, these WHO outcomes have some advantages,” she said. “I think you’re going to, one, encourage more people to accept treatment, and … be more optimistic about the outcomes.”

Dr. Anton reported consulting and/or funding from Alkermes, Allergan, Indivior, Insys Life Epigenetics, and Laboratori Farmaceutico CT. Dr. O’Malley reported consulting and/or funding from Alkermes, Amygdala, Indivior, Mistubishi Tanabe, Opiant, and other sources. Dr. Falk reported no disclosures.

BONITA SPRINGS, FLA. – Reductions in alcohol use bring about significant improvement in adverse consequences, mental health status, and quality of life, even if the reductions do not reach the level of abstinence, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.

The findings, experts say, demonstrate how a fixation on abstinence or elimination of all heavy drinking – the endpoints the Food and Drug Administration now require in pivotal clinical trials on alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatments – is shortsighted and can unnecessarily discourage people with alcohol use disorder from pursuing treatment.

“We need to think a little differently, or a little out of the box, from the way we’ve been thinking in the past,” said Raymond F. Anton, MD, professor of psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston and chair of the Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative (ACTIVE), a group advocating for a new endpoint that recognizes the benefits of lesser reductions in alcohol intake.

In a new analysis using data from the COMBINE study, researchers looked at the associations between reduction in World Health Organization drinking risk levels of alcohol consumption and clinically meaningful outcomes among people in treatment.

There are four levels: very high (more than 7.1 14-g drinks a day for men and more than 4.3 for women); high (4.3-7.1 or 2.9-4.3, respectively); moderate (2.9-4.3 or 1.4-2.9); and low (less than 2.9 or less than 1.4).

Researchers assessed responses to treatment with acamprosate, naltrexone, and psychological intervention in patients an average of 44 years old with 71% of their days being heavy drinking days. They found significant improvement in consequences tied to drinking, according to the Drinker Inventory of Consequences, and in mental health according to the Short Form Health Survey and the WHO Quality of Life assessment – even when the improvement was only by one WHO risk level – or just a few drinks a day – and did not involve abstaining (P less than .001 for all improvement categories).

“Reductions in WHO drinking risk levels are predictive of clinical benefit” or how the patient feels and functions, said Daniel Falk, PhD, health scientist administrator at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

The ACTIVE group he chairs, Dr. Anton said, is proposing that the FDA add a new endpoint for phase 3 trials: percentage of subjects who attain a 1- or 2-level reduction in WHO drinking risk levels.

Stephanie O’Malley, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., said a 30-year-old with a moderate drinking problem – occasionally missing a family function, but never letting it interfere with work, say – might be turned off by a treatment plan that preaches abstinence, she said. Varenicline, for example, results in abstinence just 7% of the time, with some risk of suicidality and nausea. That person might not want to stop drinking entirely for the rest of his or her life, but could benefit by reducing the drinking, she said.

But 55% of the time, varenicline produces a reduction of one level of risk, which is associated with clinically meaningful results. That will sound much more appealing to a prospective patient, she said.

“From a clinical perspective, these WHO outcomes have some advantages,” she said. “I think you’re going to, one, encourage more people to accept treatment, and … be more optimistic about the outcomes.”

Dr. Anton reported consulting and/or funding from Alkermes, Allergan, Indivior, Insys Life Epigenetics, and Laboratori Farmaceutico CT. Dr. O’Malley reported consulting and/or funding from Alkermes, Amygdala, Indivior, Mistubishi Tanabe, Opiant, and other sources. Dr. Falk reported no disclosures.

E-cigarettes might be more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine replacement therapy, results of a randomized study of almost 900 adults suggest.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

Rates of abstinence at 1 year were 18% for adults who used refillable e-cigarettes to wean themselves off smoking, according to the reported results, compared with about 10% for those who tried nicotine replacement therapies.

“This is particularly noteworthy given that nicotine replacement was used under expert guidance, with access to the full range of nicotine replacement products, and with 88.1% of participants using combination treatments,” said investigator Peter Hajek, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London, and his coauthors in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings contrast with those of earlier studies, which showed a lesser effect of e-cigarettes as a stop-smoking strategy, Dr. Hajek and coauthors wrote.

In previous studies, participants used first-generation cartridge-based e-cigarettes, while in the present study, they were given second-generation refillable e-cigarettes and free choice of e-liquids, the authors noted. Moreover, those previous studies provided limited face-to-face support, they said, but this study included weekly behavioral support for at least 4 weeks in both the e-cigarette and nicotine replacement groups.

The randomized study by Dr. Hajek and his colleagues included 886 adults in the United Kingdom attending stop-smoking services provided by the U.K. National Health Service. They were randomized to receive either an e-cigarette starter pack and one bottle of nicotine-containing e-liquid, or 3 months’ worth of nicotine replacement products of their own choosing. At the 52-week validation visits, the study participants received about the equivalence of about $26 U.S. dollars for their travel and time.

Abstinence from smoking at 52 weeks, which was verified by measuring expired carbon monoxide levels, was achieved in 18.0% of the e-cigarette group and 9.9% of the nicotine replacement group (relative risk, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.58; P less than .001), according to the report.

However, the rate of continued e-cigarette use was “fairly high,” investigators wrote. Eighty percent of the e-cigarette group was still using their assigned product at 52 weeks, compared with just 9% in the nicotine replacement group.

“This can be seen as problematic if e-cigarette use for a year signals long-term use, which may pose as-yet-unknown health risks,” they said.

Tobacco withdrawal symptoms were less severe and satisfaction ratings were higher with e-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy, similar to what had been observed in previous studies, investigators said.

They cited several limitations. For example, product assignments were not blinded. However, the investigators said they tried to “limit expectation effects by recruiting only participants with no strong product preference.”

Dr. Hajek reported grants and fees from Pfizer unrelated to the present study. Coauthors reported disclosures related to Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson, along with grants from the U.K. National Institute for Health Research.
 

SOURCE: Hajek P et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:629-37. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808779.

E-cigarettes might be more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine replacement therapy, results of a randomized study of almost 900 adults suggest.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

Rates of abstinence at 1 year were 18% for adults who used refillable e-cigarettes to wean themselves off smoking, according to the reported results, compared with about 10% for those who tried nicotine replacement therapies.

“This is particularly noteworthy given that nicotine replacement was used under expert guidance, with access to the full range of nicotine replacement products, and with 88.1% of participants using combination treatments,” said investigator Peter Hajek, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London, and his coauthors in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings contrast with those of earlier studies, which showed a lesser effect of e-cigarettes as a stop-smoking strategy, Dr. Hajek and coauthors wrote.

In previous studies, participants used first-generation cartridge-based e-cigarettes, while in the present study, they were given second-generation refillable e-cigarettes and free choice of e-liquids, the authors noted. Moreover, those previous studies provided limited face-to-face support, they said, but this study included weekly behavioral support for at least 4 weeks in both the e-cigarette and nicotine replacement groups.

The randomized study by Dr. Hajek and his colleagues included 886 adults in the United Kingdom attending stop-smoking services provided by the U.K. National Health Service. They were randomized to receive either an e-cigarette starter pack and one bottle of nicotine-containing e-liquid, or 3 months’ worth of nicotine replacement products of their own choosing. At the 52-week validation visits, the study participants received about the equivalence of about $26 U.S. dollars for their travel and time.

Abstinence from smoking at 52 weeks, which was verified by measuring expired carbon monoxide levels, was achieved in 18.0% of the e-cigarette group and 9.9% of the nicotine replacement group (relative risk, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.58; P less than .001), according to the report.

However, the rate of continued e-cigarette use was “fairly high,” investigators wrote. Eighty percent of the e-cigarette group was still using their assigned product at 52 weeks, compared with just 9% in the nicotine replacement group.

“This can be seen as problematic if e-cigarette use for a year signals long-term use, which may pose as-yet-unknown health risks,” they said.

Tobacco withdrawal symptoms were less severe and satisfaction ratings were higher with e-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy, similar to what had been observed in previous studies, investigators said.

They cited several limitations. For example, product assignments were not blinded. However, the investigators said they tried to “limit expectation effects by recruiting only participants with no strong product preference.”

Dr. Hajek reported grants and fees from Pfizer unrelated to the present study. Coauthors reported disclosures related to Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson, along with grants from the U.K. National Institute for Health Research.
 

SOURCE: Hajek P et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:629-37. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808779.

E-cigarettes might be more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine replacement therapy, results of a randomized study of almost 900 adults suggest.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

Rates of abstinence at 1 year were 18% for adults who used refillable e-cigarettes to wean themselves off smoking, according to the reported results, compared with about 10% for those who tried nicotine replacement therapies.

“This is particularly noteworthy given that nicotine replacement was used under expert guidance, with access to the full range of nicotine replacement products, and with 88.1% of participants using combination treatments,” said investigator Peter Hajek, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London, and his coauthors in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings contrast with those of earlier studies, which showed a lesser effect of e-cigarettes as a stop-smoking strategy, Dr. Hajek and coauthors wrote.

In previous studies, participants used first-generation cartridge-based e-cigarettes, while in the present study, they were given second-generation refillable e-cigarettes and free choice of e-liquids, the authors noted. Moreover, those previous studies provided limited face-to-face support, they said, but this study included weekly behavioral support for at least 4 weeks in both the e-cigarette and nicotine replacement groups.

The randomized study by Dr. Hajek and his colleagues included 886 adults in the United Kingdom attending stop-smoking services provided by the U.K. National Health Service. They were randomized to receive either an e-cigarette starter pack and one bottle of nicotine-containing e-liquid, or 3 months’ worth of nicotine replacement products of their own choosing. At the 52-week validation visits, the study participants received about the equivalence of about $26 U.S. dollars for their travel and time.

Abstinence from smoking at 52 weeks, which was verified by measuring expired carbon monoxide levels, was achieved in 18.0% of the e-cigarette group and 9.9% of the nicotine replacement group (relative risk, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.58; P less than .001), according to the report.

However, the rate of continued e-cigarette use was “fairly high,” investigators wrote. Eighty percent of the e-cigarette group was still using their assigned product at 52 weeks, compared with just 9% in the nicotine replacement group.

“This can be seen as problematic if e-cigarette use for a year signals long-term use, which may pose as-yet-unknown health risks,” they said.

Tobacco withdrawal symptoms were less severe and satisfaction ratings were higher with e-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy, similar to what had been observed in previous studies, investigators said.

They cited several limitations. For example, product assignments were not blinded. However, the investigators said they tried to “limit expectation effects by recruiting only participants with no strong product preference.”

Dr. Hajek reported grants and fees from Pfizer unrelated to the present study. Coauthors reported disclosures related to Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson, along with grants from the U.K. National Institute for Health Research.
 

SOURCE: Hajek P et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:629-37. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808779.