Addiction Medicine

For the first time, methamphetamines and cocaine have overtaken heroin and prescription opioids in illicit drug use involving fentanyl nationwide and in nearly every state, a new report suggested.

The use of methamphetamine among people who also use fentanyl reached a record high in 2023, urinary drug tests (UDTs) showed, while the use of prescription opioids in that same group reached an historic low. 

Investigators said the data offer further evidence that the US is experiencing a predicted “fourth wave” of the opioid crisis.

The report came on the heels of new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that showed the preferred method of fentanyl-related illicit drug use shifted from intravenous injection to smoking.

“The rise in cocaine and methamphetamine nationally does not seem to be driven by one or even a few regions of the country,” authors of the 2024 Health Signals Report wrote. “Stimulants are a serious national challenge emphasizing the need for continued progress on the national plan to address methamphetamine supply, use, and consequences.”

The report, published online on February 22 by San Diego–based drug testing lab Millennium Health, is an analysis of urine specimens from 4.1 million unique patients aged ≥ 18 years, collected in all 50 states from 2013 to 2023. 
 

A Year of Firsts

Last year, 60% of specimens that contained fentanyl also contained methamphetamine, an increase of 875% since 2015, according to Millennium’s report. It’s the first time that methamphetamine and cocaine were detected more often in urine drug tests than heroin and prescription opioids.

About a quarter of fentanyl-positive specimens also contained cocaine, 17% heroin and just 7% prescription opioids.

Almost all the fentanyl-positive specimens were positive for at least one additional substance; almost half contained three or more. Xylazine, an animal sedative known as “tranq,” was detected in nearly 14% of fentanyl-positive specimens.

“These combinations increase overdose vulnerability and may lessen responses to overdose reversal agents, making treatment as challenging as any time in history,” Millennium Senior VP and Chief Clinical Officer, Angela G. Huskey, PharmD, CPE, said in a statement.

The Millennium data back up what has been increasingly reported by the CDC and others. As reported in September by this news organization, in 2010, stimulants were co-involved in less than 1% of fentanyl overdose deaths. By 2021, stimulant-fentanyl use accounted for 32% of all fatal fentanyl overdoses.

In July 2023, the CDC reported a significant spike in overdose deaths involving cocaine or other psychostimulants and opioids from 2011 to 2021. In 2021, 79% of overdose deaths involving cocaine also involved an opioid and 66% of overdose deaths involving psychostimulants also involved an opioid, according to the CDC.

There were more overdose deaths from stimulants combined with opioids than from opioids alone in 2022, according to the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System, which includes reports from 30 jurisdictions.
 

Smoking Overtakes Injection

The route of administration for opioids and stimulants — whether used alone or in combination, has also changed, the CDC recently reported. In 2022, just 16% of overdose deaths involved injection drug use, down from 23% in 2020, according to the analysis, which included data from 28 jurisdictions. For deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl, just 12% of deaths involved IV drug use.

By 2022, “smoking was the most commonly documented route of use in overdose deaths,” CDC researchers wrote in their report. Almost a quarter of deaths that year involved smoking.

The increase in smoking was seen for all substances, including opioids, fentanyl and combinations of fentanyl and stimulants, reported the agency.

Users might be switching to smoking from injections because there is a perception of fewer adverse health effects such as abscesses, reduced cost and stigma, sense of more control over quantity consumed per use, and “a perception of reduced overdose risk,” the researchers wrote.

Smoking still “carries substantial overdose risk because of rapid drug absorption,” they added.

Some harm reduction programs are adapting to the change in use patterns by providing safer smoking supplies and by changing messaging to warn of the dangers associated with smoking drugs, the CDC report noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, methamphetamines and cocaine have overtaken heroin and prescription opioids in illicit drug use involving fentanyl nationwide and in nearly every state, a new report suggested.

The use of methamphetamine among people who also use fentanyl reached a record high in 2023, urinary drug tests (UDTs) showed, while the use of prescription opioids in that same group reached an historic low. 

Investigators said the data offer further evidence that the US is experiencing a predicted “fourth wave” of the opioid crisis.

The report came on the heels of new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that showed the preferred method of fentanyl-related illicit drug use shifted from intravenous injection to smoking.

“The rise in cocaine and methamphetamine nationally does not seem to be driven by one or even a few regions of the country,” authors of the 2024 Health Signals Report wrote. “Stimulants are a serious national challenge emphasizing the need for continued progress on the national plan to address methamphetamine supply, use, and consequences.”

The report, published online on February 22 by San Diego–based drug testing lab Millennium Health, is an analysis of urine specimens from 4.1 million unique patients aged ≥ 18 years, collected in all 50 states from 2013 to 2023. 
 

A Year of Firsts

Last year, 60% of specimens that contained fentanyl also contained methamphetamine, an increase of 875% since 2015, according to Millennium’s report. It’s the first time that methamphetamine and cocaine were detected more often in urine drug tests than heroin and prescription opioids.

About a quarter of fentanyl-positive specimens also contained cocaine, 17% heroin and just 7% prescription opioids.

Almost all the fentanyl-positive specimens were positive for at least one additional substance; almost half contained three or more. Xylazine, an animal sedative known as “tranq,” was detected in nearly 14% of fentanyl-positive specimens.

“These combinations increase overdose vulnerability and may lessen responses to overdose reversal agents, making treatment as challenging as any time in history,” Millennium Senior VP and Chief Clinical Officer, Angela G. Huskey, PharmD, CPE, said in a statement.

The Millennium data back up what has been increasingly reported by the CDC and others. As reported in September by this news organization, in 2010, stimulants were co-involved in less than 1% of fentanyl overdose deaths. By 2021, stimulant-fentanyl use accounted for 32% of all fatal fentanyl overdoses.

In July 2023, the CDC reported a significant spike in overdose deaths involving cocaine or other psychostimulants and opioids from 2011 to 2021. In 2021, 79% of overdose deaths involving cocaine also involved an opioid and 66% of overdose deaths involving psychostimulants also involved an opioid, according to the CDC.

There were more overdose deaths from stimulants combined with opioids than from opioids alone in 2022, according to the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System, which includes reports from 30 jurisdictions.
 

Smoking Overtakes Injection

The route of administration for opioids and stimulants — whether used alone or in combination, has also changed, the CDC recently reported. In 2022, just 16% of overdose deaths involved injection drug use, down from 23% in 2020, according to the analysis, which included data from 28 jurisdictions. For deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl, just 12% of deaths involved IV drug use.

By 2022, “smoking was the most commonly documented route of use in overdose deaths,” CDC researchers wrote in their report. Almost a quarter of deaths that year involved smoking.

The increase in smoking was seen for all substances, including opioids, fentanyl and combinations of fentanyl and stimulants, reported the agency.

Users might be switching to smoking from injections because there is a perception of fewer adverse health effects such as abscesses, reduced cost and stigma, sense of more control over quantity consumed per use, and “a perception of reduced overdose risk,” the researchers wrote.

Smoking still “carries substantial overdose risk because of rapid drug absorption,” they added.

Some harm reduction programs are adapting to the change in use patterns by providing safer smoking supplies and by changing messaging to warn of the dangers associated with smoking drugs, the CDC report noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, methamphetamines and cocaine have overtaken heroin and prescription opioids in illicit drug use involving fentanyl nationwide and in nearly every state, a new report suggested.

The use of methamphetamine among people who also use fentanyl reached a record high in 2023, urinary drug tests (UDTs) showed, while the use of prescription opioids in that same group reached an historic low. 

Investigators said the data offer further evidence that the US is experiencing a predicted “fourth wave” of the opioid crisis.

The report came on the heels of new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that showed the preferred method of fentanyl-related illicit drug use shifted from intravenous injection to smoking.

“The rise in cocaine and methamphetamine nationally does not seem to be driven by one or even a few regions of the country,” authors of the 2024 Health Signals Report wrote. “Stimulants are a serious national challenge emphasizing the need for continued progress on the national plan to address methamphetamine supply, use, and consequences.”

The report, published online on February 22 by San Diego–based drug testing lab Millennium Health, is an analysis of urine specimens from 4.1 million unique patients aged ≥ 18 years, collected in all 50 states from 2013 to 2023. 
 

A Year of Firsts

Last year, 60% of specimens that contained fentanyl also contained methamphetamine, an increase of 875% since 2015, according to Millennium’s report. It’s the first time that methamphetamine and cocaine were detected more often in urine drug tests than heroin and prescription opioids.

About a quarter of fentanyl-positive specimens also contained cocaine, 17% heroin and just 7% prescription opioids.

Almost all the fentanyl-positive specimens were positive for at least one additional substance; almost half contained three or more. Xylazine, an animal sedative known as “tranq,” was detected in nearly 14% of fentanyl-positive specimens.

“These combinations increase overdose vulnerability and may lessen responses to overdose reversal agents, making treatment as challenging as any time in history,” Millennium Senior VP and Chief Clinical Officer, Angela G. Huskey, PharmD, CPE, said in a statement.

The Millennium data back up what has been increasingly reported by the CDC and others. As reported in September by this news organization, in 2010, stimulants were co-involved in less than 1% of fentanyl overdose deaths. By 2021, stimulant-fentanyl use accounted for 32% of all fatal fentanyl overdoses.

In July 2023, the CDC reported a significant spike in overdose deaths involving cocaine or other psychostimulants and opioids from 2011 to 2021. In 2021, 79% of overdose deaths involving cocaine also involved an opioid and 66% of overdose deaths involving psychostimulants also involved an opioid, according to the CDC.

There were more overdose deaths from stimulants combined with opioids than from opioids alone in 2022, according to the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System, which includes reports from 30 jurisdictions.
 

Smoking Overtakes Injection

The route of administration for opioids and stimulants — whether used alone or in combination, has also changed, the CDC recently reported. In 2022, just 16% of overdose deaths involved injection drug use, down from 23% in 2020, according to the analysis, which included data from 28 jurisdictions. For deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl, just 12% of deaths involved IV drug use.

By 2022, “smoking was the most commonly documented route of use in overdose deaths,” CDC researchers wrote in their report. Almost a quarter of deaths that year involved smoking.

The increase in smoking was seen for all substances, including opioids, fentanyl and combinations of fentanyl and stimulants, reported the agency.

Users might be switching to smoking from injections because there is a perception of fewer adverse health effects such as abscesses, reduced cost and stigma, sense of more control over quantity consumed per use, and “a perception of reduced overdose risk,” the researchers wrote.

Smoking still “carries substantial overdose risk because of rapid drug absorption,” they added.

Some harm reduction programs are adapting to the change in use patterns by providing safer smoking supplies and by changing messaging to warn of the dangers associated with smoking drugs, the CDC report noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of stimulant therapy by adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not associated with later prescription drug misuse (PDM), a new study showed. However, misuse of prescription stimulants during adolescence was associated with significantly higher odds of later PDM.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from 11,066 participants in the ongoing Monitoring the Future panel study (baseline cohort years 2005-2017), a multicohort US national longitudinal study of adolescents followed into adulthood, in which procedures and measures are kept consistent across time.
• Participants (ages 17 and 18 years, 51.7% female, 11.2% Black, 15.7% Hispanic, and 59.6% White) completed self-administered questionnaires, with biennial follow-up during young adulthood (ages 19-24 years).
• The questionnaires asked about the number of occasions (if any) in which respondents used a prescription drug (benzodiazepine, opioid, or stimulant) on their own, without a physician’s order.
• Baseline covariates included sex, race, ethnicity, grade point average during high school, parental education, past 2-week binge drinking, past-month cigarette use, and past-year marijuana use, as well as demographic factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 9.9% of participants reported lifetime stimulant therapy for ADHD, and 18.6% reported lifetime prescription stimulant misuse at baseline.
• Adolescents who received stimulant therapy for ADHD were less likely to report past-year prescription stimulant misuse as young adults compared with their same-age peers who did not receive stimulant therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99).
• The researchers found no significant differences between adolescents with or without lifetime stimulants in later incidence or prevalence of past-year PDM during young adulthood.
• The most robust predictor of prescription stimulant misuse during young adulthood was prescription stimulant misuse during adolescence; similarly, the most robust predictors of prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse during young adulthood were prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse (respectively) during adolescence.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings amplify accumulating evidence suggesting that careful monitoring and screening during adolescence could identify individuals who are at relatively greater risk for PDM and need more comprehensive substance use assessment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Sean Esteban McCabe, PhD, professor and director, Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 7 in Psychiatric Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Some subpopulations with higher rates of substance use, including youths who left school before completion and institutionalized populations, were excluded from the study, which may have led to an underestimation of PDM. Moreover, some potential confounders (eg, comorbid psychiatric conditions) were not assessed.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a research award from the US Food and Drug Administration and research awards from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the NIH. Dr. McCabe reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of stimulant therapy by adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not associated with later prescription drug misuse (PDM), a new study showed. However, misuse of prescription stimulants during adolescence was associated with significantly higher odds of later PDM.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from 11,066 participants in the ongoing Monitoring the Future panel study (baseline cohort years 2005-2017), a multicohort US national longitudinal study of adolescents followed into adulthood, in which procedures and measures are kept consistent across time.
• Participants (ages 17 and 18 years, 51.7% female, 11.2% Black, 15.7% Hispanic, and 59.6% White) completed self-administered questionnaires, with biennial follow-up during young adulthood (ages 19-24 years).
• The questionnaires asked about the number of occasions (if any) in which respondents used a prescription drug (benzodiazepine, opioid, or stimulant) on their own, without a physician’s order.
• Baseline covariates included sex, race, ethnicity, grade point average during high school, parental education, past 2-week binge drinking, past-month cigarette use, and past-year marijuana use, as well as demographic factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 9.9% of participants reported lifetime stimulant therapy for ADHD, and 18.6% reported lifetime prescription stimulant misuse at baseline.
• Adolescents who received stimulant therapy for ADHD were less likely to report past-year prescription stimulant misuse as young adults compared with their same-age peers who did not receive stimulant therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99).
• The researchers found no significant differences between adolescents with or without lifetime stimulants in later incidence or prevalence of past-year PDM during young adulthood.
• The most robust predictor of prescription stimulant misuse during young adulthood was prescription stimulant misuse during adolescence; similarly, the most robust predictors of prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse during young adulthood were prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse (respectively) during adolescence.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings amplify accumulating evidence suggesting that careful monitoring and screening during adolescence could identify individuals who are at relatively greater risk for PDM and need more comprehensive substance use assessment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Sean Esteban McCabe, PhD, professor and director, Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 7 in Psychiatric Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Some subpopulations with higher rates of substance use, including youths who left school before completion and institutionalized populations, were excluded from the study, which may have led to an underestimation of PDM. Moreover, some potential confounders (eg, comorbid psychiatric conditions) were not assessed.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a research award from the US Food and Drug Administration and research awards from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the NIH. Dr. McCabe reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of stimulant therapy by adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not associated with later prescription drug misuse (PDM), a new study showed. However, misuse of prescription stimulants during adolescence was associated with significantly higher odds of later PDM.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from 11,066 participants in the ongoing Monitoring the Future panel study (baseline cohort years 2005-2017), a multicohort US national longitudinal study of adolescents followed into adulthood, in which procedures and measures are kept consistent across time.
• Participants (ages 17 and 18 years, 51.7% female, 11.2% Black, 15.7% Hispanic, and 59.6% White) completed self-administered questionnaires, with biennial follow-up during young adulthood (ages 19-24 years).
• The questionnaires asked about the number of occasions (if any) in which respondents used a prescription drug (benzodiazepine, opioid, or stimulant) on their own, without a physician’s order.
• Baseline covariates included sex, race, ethnicity, grade point average during high school, parental education, past 2-week binge drinking, past-month cigarette use, and past-year marijuana use, as well as demographic factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 9.9% of participants reported lifetime stimulant therapy for ADHD, and 18.6% reported lifetime prescription stimulant misuse at baseline.
• Adolescents who received stimulant therapy for ADHD were less likely to report past-year prescription stimulant misuse as young adults compared with their same-age peers who did not receive stimulant therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99).
• The researchers found no significant differences between adolescents with or without lifetime stimulants in later incidence or prevalence of past-year PDM during young adulthood.
• The most robust predictor of prescription stimulant misuse during young adulthood was prescription stimulant misuse during adolescence; similarly, the most robust predictors of prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse during young adulthood were prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse (respectively) during adolescence.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings amplify accumulating evidence suggesting that careful monitoring and screening during adolescence could identify individuals who are at relatively greater risk for PDM and need more comprehensive substance use assessment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Sean Esteban McCabe, PhD, professor and director, Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 7 in Psychiatric Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Some subpopulations with higher rates of substance use, including youths who left school before completion and institutionalized populations, were excluded from the study, which may have led to an underestimation of PDM. Moreover, some potential confounders (eg, comorbid psychiatric conditions) were not assessed.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a research award from the US Food and Drug Administration and research awards from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the NIH. Dr. McCabe reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that administering an 8 mg dose of intranasal naloxone does not increase the odds of surviving an opioid overdose; a higher dose than the usual 4 mg may result in a greater risk for onset of opioid withdrawal symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the CDC presents data from a New York State Department of Health initiative.
• New York State Police troops administered either 8-mg or 4-mg doses of intranasal naloxone in response to suspected opiate overdose cases between March 2022 and August 2023.
• People who had died before the administration of the naloxone were excluded from the study.
• A total of 354 people were included in the study, 101 of whom received an 8-mg dose, while the others received the usual 4-mg dosage.
• Police officers documented the behavior and symptoms of people after receiving each dose, which could have included vomiting, disorientation, refusal to be transported to an emergency department, lethargy, and anger or combativeness.

TAKEAWAY:

• Survival rates were nearly identical regardless of intranasal naloxone dosage: 99% of people who received 8 mg compared with 99.2% of those who received 4 mg of the drug.
• Opioid withdrawal signs, including vomiting, were more prevalent among 8 mg naloxone recipients (37.6%) than among 4 mg recipients (19.4%) (risk ratio [RR], 2.51; P < .001).
• Police officers documented that people who received 8 mg were more frequently displayed anger or combativeness after revival than those who received the lower dose (RR, 1.42; P = .37).

IN PRACTICE:

The study “suggests that there are no benefits to law enforcement administration of higher-dose naloxone ... even in light of the increased prevalence of synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, in the drug supply.”

SOURCE:

Emily R. Payne, MSPH, of the New York State Department of Health, was the lead author of the study published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on February 8, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size of people receiving 8-mg doses was not equal to that of those receiving the usual dosage. Medical professionals did not report on the symptoms and behavior of people after receiving naloxone, law enforcement workers did, and may not have accurately captured what was occurring. In addition, researchers lacked complete data on the substances people used before an overdose, and the results may only be generalizable to New York State.

DISCLOSURES:

Study author Sharon Stancliff reported institutional support from the New York State Stewardship Funding Harm Reduction. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that administering an 8 mg dose of intranasal naloxone does not increase the odds of surviving an opioid overdose; a higher dose than the usual 4 mg may result in a greater risk for onset of opioid withdrawal symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the CDC presents data from a New York State Department of Health initiative.
• New York State Police troops administered either 8-mg or 4-mg doses of intranasal naloxone in response to suspected opiate overdose cases between March 2022 and August 2023.
• People who had died before the administration of the naloxone were excluded from the study.
• A total of 354 people were included in the study, 101 of whom received an 8-mg dose, while the others received the usual 4-mg dosage.
• Police officers documented the behavior and symptoms of people after receiving each dose, which could have included vomiting, disorientation, refusal to be transported to an emergency department, lethargy, and anger or combativeness.

TAKEAWAY:

• Survival rates were nearly identical regardless of intranasal naloxone dosage: 99% of people who received 8 mg compared with 99.2% of those who received 4 mg of the drug.
• Opioid withdrawal signs, including vomiting, were more prevalent among 8 mg naloxone recipients (37.6%) than among 4 mg recipients (19.4%) (risk ratio [RR], 2.51; P < .001).
• Police officers documented that people who received 8 mg were more frequently displayed anger or combativeness after revival than those who received the lower dose (RR, 1.42; P = .37).

IN PRACTICE:

The study “suggests that there are no benefits to law enforcement administration of higher-dose naloxone ... even in light of the increased prevalence of synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, in the drug supply.”

SOURCE:

Emily R. Payne, MSPH, of the New York State Department of Health, was the lead author of the study published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on February 8, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size of people receiving 8-mg doses was not equal to that of those receiving the usual dosage. Medical professionals did not report on the symptoms and behavior of people after receiving naloxone, law enforcement workers did, and may not have accurately captured what was occurring. In addition, researchers lacked complete data on the substances people used before an overdose, and the results may only be generalizable to New York State.

DISCLOSURES:

Study author Sharon Stancliff reported institutional support from the New York State Stewardship Funding Harm Reduction. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that administering an 8 mg dose of intranasal naloxone does not increase the odds of surviving an opioid overdose; a higher dose than the usual 4 mg may result in a greater risk for onset of opioid withdrawal symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the CDC presents data from a New York State Department of Health initiative.
• New York State Police troops administered either 8-mg or 4-mg doses of intranasal naloxone in response to suspected opiate overdose cases between March 2022 and August 2023.
• People who had died before the administration of the naloxone were excluded from the study.
• A total of 354 people were included in the study, 101 of whom received an 8-mg dose, while the others received the usual 4-mg dosage.
• Police officers documented the behavior and symptoms of people after receiving each dose, which could have included vomiting, disorientation, refusal to be transported to an emergency department, lethargy, and anger or combativeness.

TAKEAWAY:

• Survival rates were nearly identical regardless of intranasal naloxone dosage: 99% of people who received 8 mg compared with 99.2% of those who received 4 mg of the drug.
• Opioid withdrawal signs, including vomiting, were more prevalent among 8 mg naloxone recipients (37.6%) than among 4 mg recipients (19.4%) (risk ratio [RR], 2.51; P < .001).
• Police officers documented that people who received 8 mg were more frequently displayed anger or combativeness after revival than those who received the lower dose (RR, 1.42; P = .37).

IN PRACTICE:

The study “suggests that there are no benefits to law enforcement administration of higher-dose naloxone ... even in light of the increased prevalence of synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, in the drug supply.”

SOURCE:

Emily R. Payne, MSPH, of the New York State Department of Health, was the lead author of the study published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on February 8, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size of people receiving 8-mg doses was not equal to that of those receiving the usual dosage. Medical professionals did not report on the symptoms and behavior of people after receiving naloxone, law enforcement workers did, and may not have accurately captured what was occurring. In addition, researchers lacked complete data on the substances people used before an overdose, and the results may only be generalizable to New York State.

DISCLOSURES:

Study author Sharon Stancliff reported institutional support from the New York State Stewardship Funding Harm Reduction. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adolescents with severe obesity who undergo bariatric surgery may have a continuing need for mental health treatment and an increased risk for alcohol use disorder after the procedure.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on the mental health of 1554 adolescents (75% women) with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery in Sweden between 2007 and 2017.
• At the time of surgery, the mean age was 19.0 years, and the mean body mass index was 43.7.
• A general population reference group of 15,540 adolescents was created by matching 10 comparators each to adolescents in the surgery group by age, sex, and country of residence.
• Information on psychiatric healthcare use and filled psychiatric drug prescriptions for 5 years before surgery and the first 10 years after surgery were obtained from national registers.
• The number of visits for self-harm and substance use disorder and the number of filled prescriptions for any psychiatric drug, antidepressants, and anxiolytics were other outcomes of interest.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years before surgery, the prevalence of psychiatric healthcare visits (prevalence difference [Δ], 3.7%) and of psychiatric drug use (Δ, 6.2%) was higher in the surgery vs reference group.
• The preoperative trajectories continued and grew post-surgery, with the differences in psychiatric healthcare visits (Δ, ~12%) and psychiatric drug use (Δ, 20.4%) between the groups peaking at 9 and 10 years post surgery, respectively.
• A low prevalence of healthcare visits for substance use disorder in both groups grew to about 5% of adolescents in the surgery group after 10 years, driven primarily by alcohol use, compared with about 1% of adolescents in the reference group (Δ, 4.3%).
• Surgery is an obesity treatment, leading to sustainable weight loss, cardiometabolic health, and physical quality of life, but mental health improvements cannot be expected at the group level.

IN PRACTICE:

“Adolescent patients should be informed of the increased risk for alcohol use disorder and that they might continue needing mental health treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Gustaf Bruze, PhD, from the Department of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, and Kajsa Jarvholm, PhD, from the Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, led this study, which was published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings may have limited generalizability to other settings, as the study was performed in Sweden with a predominantly White population undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in a universally accessible healthcare system. Moreover, there was a shortage of nonsurgically treated adolescents with severe obesity for comparison. Patients undergoing surgery may have easier access to healthcare than the general population, which could account for an increase in healthcare visits.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare. Two authors were the current or previous director of the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, participating in advisory boards and educational activities, and having other ties with Ethicon Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adolescents with severe obesity who undergo bariatric surgery may have a continuing need for mental health treatment and an increased risk for alcohol use disorder after the procedure.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on the mental health of 1554 adolescents (75% women) with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery in Sweden between 2007 and 2017.
• At the time of surgery, the mean age was 19.0 years, and the mean body mass index was 43.7.
• A general population reference group of 15,540 adolescents was created by matching 10 comparators each to adolescents in the surgery group by age, sex, and country of residence.
• Information on psychiatric healthcare use and filled psychiatric drug prescriptions for 5 years before surgery and the first 10 years after surgery were obtained from national registers.
• The number of visits for self-harm and substance use disorder and the number of filled prescriptions for any psychiatric drug, antidepressants, and anxiolytics were other outcomes of interest.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years before surgery, the prevalence of psychiatric healthcare visits (prevalence difference [Δ], 3.7%) and of psychiatric drug use (Δ, 6.2%) was higher in the surgery vs reference group.
• The preoperative trajectories continued and grew post-surgery, with the differences in psychiatric healthcare visits (Δ, ~12%) and psychiatric drug use (Δ, 20.4%) between the groups peaking at 9 and 10 years post surgery, respectively.
• A low prevalence of healthcare visits for substance use disorder in both groups grew to about 5% of adolescents in the surgery group after 10 years, driven primarily by alcohol use, compared with about 1% of adolescents in the reference group (Δ, 4.3%).
• Surgery is an obesity treatment, leading to sustainable weight loss, cardiometabolic health, and physical quality of life, but mental health improvements cannot be expected at the group level.

IN PRACTICE:

“Adolescent patients should be informed of the increased risk for alcohol use disorder and that they might continue needing mental health treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Gustaf Bruze, PhD, from the Department of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, and Kajsa Jarvholm, PhD, from the Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, led this study, which was published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings may have limited generalizability to other settings, as the study was performed in Sweden with a predominantly White population undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in a universally accessible healthcare system. Moreover, there was a shortage of nonsurgically treated adolescents with severe obesity for comparison. Patients undergoing surgery may have easier access to healthcare than the general population, which could account for an increase in healthcare visits.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare. Two authors were the current or previous director of the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, participating in advisory boards and educational activities, and having other ties with Ethicon Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adolescents with severe obesity who undergo bariatric surgery may have a continuing need for mental health treatment and an increased risk for alcohol use disorder after the procedure.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on the mental health of 1554 adolescents (75% women) with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery in Sweden between 2007 and 2017.
• At the time of surgery, the mean age was 19.0 years, and the mean body mass index was 43.7.
• A general population reference group of 15,540 adolescents was created by matching 10 comparators each to adolescents in the surgery group by age, sex, and country of residence.
• Information on psychiatric healthcare use and filled psychiatric drug prescriptions for 5 years before surgery and the first 10 years after surgery were obtained from national registers.
• The number of visits for self-harm and substance use disorder and the number of filled prescriptions for any psychiatric drug, antidepressants, and anxiolytics were other outcomes of interest.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years before surgery, the prevalence of psychiatric healthcare visits (prevalence difference [Δ], 3.7%) and of psychiatric drug use (Δ, 6.2%) was higher in the surgery vs reference group.
• The preoperative trajectories continued and grew post-surgery, with the differences in psychiatric healthcare visits (Δ, ~12%) and psychiatric drug use (Δ, 20.4%) between the groups peaking at 9 and 10 years post surgery, respectively.
• A low prevalence of healthcare visits for substance use disorder in both groups grew to about 5% of adolescents in the surgery group after 10 years, driven primarily by alcohol use, compared with about 1% of adolescents in the reference group (Δ, 4.3%).
• Surgery is an obesity treatment, leading to sustainable weight loss, cardiometabolic health, and physical quality of life, but mental health improvements cannot be expected at the group level.

IN PRACTICE:

“Adolescent patients should be informed of the increased risk for alcohol use disorder and that they might continue needing mental health treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Gustaf Bruze, PhD, from the Department of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, and Kajsa Jarvholm, PhD, from the Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, led this study, which was published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings may have limited generalizability to other settings, as the study was performed in Sweden with a predominantly White population undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in a universally accessible healthcare system. Moreover, there was a shortage of nonsurgically treated adolescents with severe obesity for comparison. Patients undergoing surgery may have easier access to healthcare than the general population, which could account for an increase in healthcare visits.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare. Two authors were the current or previous director of the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, participating in advisory boards and educational activities, and having other ties with Ethicon Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with stimulant use disorder (SUD), even slight reductions in drug use can lessen depression and reduce cravings, a new analysis showed.

Abstinence has long been the overall goal of SUD treatment, the investigators noted. The findings from this pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials support what investigators noted was a growing recognition that reducing stimulant use can lead to better outcomes.

“This study provides evidence that reducing the overall use of drugs is important and clinically meaningful,” study author Mehdi Farokhnia, MD, MPH, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, North Bethesda, Maryland, wrote in a press release. “This shift may open opportunities for medication development that can help individuals achieve these improved outcomes, even if complete abstinence is not immediately achievable or wanted.”

The findings were published online on January 10, 2024, in Addiction.
 

Not the Only Indicator of Success

To compare clinical indicators of improvement among those with SUDs who achieved abstinence or reduced their use, investigators pooled data from 13 randomized clinical trials with more than 2000 patients seeking treatment for cocaine or methamphetamine use disorders at centers in the United States from 2001 to 2017.

The trials used similar study protocols, including similar eligibility criteria, recruitment methods, and outcome measures. Participants were 18 or older and met criteria for methamphetamine or cocaine dependence at the beginning of each trial.

Among the participants, 1196 sought treatment for cocaine use disorder and 866 for methamphetamine use disorder. Of those, just 1487 had outcomes available by the end of the trial.

Most participants had no change in the level of use or increased their use through the trial (68%) or transitioned from low (1-4 days a month) to high (5 or more days a month) frequency use.

Nearly one third of participants (32%) stopped or reduced drug use, including 18% who cut down on stimulant use and 14% who abstained altogether.

Participants using methamphetamine were more likely to be in the abstinence vs reduced use category (21.3% vs 13.9%, respectively), whereas participants using cocaine were less likely to be in the abstinence vs reduced use category (9.1% vs 20.9%).

Those who reached abstinence showed better clinical improvement than those who reduced use on most clinical measures (P < .009).

However, there were no significant differences between groups on the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) psychiatric problems subscale and cravings for secondary drugs.

“Our findings suggest that reduced frequency of stimulant use is also associated with improved psychosocial functioning,” the authors wrote. “These findings suggest the need to re-evaluate the traditional approach of exclusively relying on total abstinence as the only indicator of successful treatment, a goal that may not be achievable for all patients, especially after one treatment episode.”

Those who reduced drug intake showed a significant association with nearly all clinical indicators of improvement (P < .010) compared with those who didn’t, except for the ASI psychiatric problems subscale and family/social relationship domains of the Problem Free Functioning scale, and HIV risk behavior.

Study limitations included short follow-up time in most trials and follow-up measures were based only on urine drug screens. There were also a substantial number of missing assessment points.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Health. There were no reported disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with stimulant use disorder (SUD), even slight reductions in drug use can lessen depression and reduce cravings, a new analysis showed.

Abstinence has long been the overall goal of SUD treatment, the investigators noted. The findings from this pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials support what investigators noted was a growing recognition that reducing stimulant use can lead to better outcomes.

“This study provides evidence that reducing the overall use of drugs is important and clinically meaningful,” study author Mehdi Farokhnia, MD, MPH, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, North Bethesda, Maryland, wrote in a press release. “This shift may open opportunities for medication development that can help individuals achieve these improved outcomes, even if complete abstinence is not immediately achievable or wanted.”

The findings were published online on January 10, 2024, in Addiction.
 

Not the Only Indicator of Success

To compare clinical indicators of improvement among those with SUDs who achieved abstinence or reduced their use, investigators pooled data from 13 randomized clinical trials with more than 2000 patients seeking treatment for cocaine or methamphetamine use disorders at centers in the United States from 2001 to 2017.

The trials used similar study protocols, including similar eligibility criteria, recruitment methods, and outcome measures. Participants were 18 or older and met criteria for methamphetamine or cocaine dependence at the beginning of each trial.

Among the participants, 1196 sought treatment for cocaine use disorder and 866 for methamphetamine use disorder. Of those, just 1487 had outcomes available by the end of the trial.

Most participants had no change in the level of use or increased their use through the trial (68%) or transitioned from low (1-4 days a month) to high (5 or more days a month) frequency use.

Nearly one third of participants (32%) stopped or reduced drug use, including 18% who cut down on stimulant use and 14% who abstained altogether.

Participants using methamphetamine were more likely to be in the abstinence vs reduced use category (21.3% vs 13.9%, respectively), whereas participants using cocaine were less likely to be in the abstinence vs reduced use category (9.1% vs 20.9%).

Those who reached abstinence showed better clinical improvement than those who reduced use on most clinical measures (P < .009).

However, there were no significant differences between groups on the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) psychiatric problems subscale and cravings for secondary drugs.

“Our findings suggest that reduced frequency of stimulant use is also associated with improved psychosocial functioning,” the authors wrote. “These findings suggest the need to re-evaluate the traditional approach of exclusively relying on total abstinence as the only indicator of successful treatment, a goal that may not be achievable for all patients, especially after one treatment episode.”

Those who reduced drug intake showed a significant association with nearly all clinical indicators of improvement (P < .010) compared with those who didn’t, except for the ASI psychiatric problems subscale and family/social relationship domains of the Problem Free Functioning scale, and HIV risk behavior.

Study limitations included short follow-up time in most trials and follow-up measures were based only on urine drug screens. There were also a substantial number of missing assessment points.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Health. There were no reported disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with stimulant use disorder (SUD), even slight reductions in drug use can lessen depression and reduce cravings, a new analysis showed.

Abstinence has long been the overall goal of SUD treatment, the investigators noted. The findings from this pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials support what investigators noted was a growing recognition that reducing stimulant use can lead to better outcomes.

“This study provides evidence that reducing the overall use of drugs is important and clinically meaningful,” study author Mehdi Farokhnia, MD, MPH, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, North Bethesda, Maryland, wrote in a press release. “This shift may open opportunities for medication development that can help individuals achieve these improved outcomes, even if complete abstinence is not immediately achievable or wanted.”

The findings were published online on January 10, 2024, in Addiction.
 

Not the Only Indicator of Success

To compare clinical indicators of improvement among those with SUDs who achieved abstinence or reduced their use, investigators pooled data from 13 randomized clinical trials with more than 2000 patients seeking treatment for cocaine or methamphetamine use disorders at centers in the United States from 2001 to 2017.

The trials used similar study protocols, including similar eligibility criteria, recruitment methods, and outcome measures. Participants were 18 or older and met criteria for methamphetamine or cocaine dependence at the beginning of each trial.

Among the participants, 1196 sought treatment for cocaine use disorder and 866 for methamphetamine use disorder. Of those, just 1487 had outcomes available by the end of the trial.

Most participants had no change in the level of use or increased their use through the trial (68%) or transitioned from low (1-4 days a month) to high (5 or more days a month) frequency use.

Nearly one third of participants (32%) stopped or reduced drug use, including 18% who cut down on stimulant use and 14% who abstained altogether.

Participants using methamphetamine were more likely to be in the abstinence vs reduced use category (21.3% vs 13.9%, respectively), whereas participants using cocaine were less likely to be in the abstinence vs reduced use category (9.1% vs 20.9%).

Those who reached abstinence showed better clinical improvement than those who reduced use on most clinical measures (P < .009).

However, there were no significant differences between groups on the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) psychiatric problems subscale and cravings for secondary drugs.

“Our findings suggest that reduced frequency of stimulant use is also associated with improved psychosocial functioning,” the authors wrote. “These findings suggest the need to re-evaluate the traditional approach of exclusively relying on total abstinence as the only indicator of successful treatment, a goal that may not be achievable for all patients, especially after one treatment episode.”

Those who reduced drug intake showed a significant association with nearly all clinical indicators of improvement (P < .010) compared with those who didn’t, except for the ASI psychiatric problems subscale and family/social relationship domains of the Problem Free Functioning scale, and HIV risk behavior.

Study limitations included short follow-up time in most trials and follow-up measures were based only on urine drug screens. There were also a substantial number of missing assessment points.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Health. There were no reported disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Legalization of recreational and medical cannabis is not associated with a reduction in opioid prescriptions or overall opioid overdose mortality, a new study suggested. However, investigators did find that recreational cannabis laws may be tied to a potential reduction in synthetic opioid deaths.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed state-level data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other databases (2006-2020) on the number of opioid prescriptions (per 100,000 persons).
• Prescription opioids included buprenorphine (except products to treat opioid use disorder), codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, propoxyphene, tapentadol, and tramadol.
• Researchers used regression analyses to account for poverty rates and real gross domestic product and a generalized difference-in-differences method that accounted for staggered implementation of cannabis laws.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the full study period, 13 states legalized recreational cannabis and 23 legalized medical cannabis.
• No statistically significant association was found between recreational cannabis laws and opioid prescriptions (3.08 fewer prescriptions per 100 persons; P = .17) or overall opioid overdose mortality (3.05 fewer deaths per 100,000; P = .24).
• The changes in outcomes associated with medical cannabis laws were larger in magnitude than those for recreational cannabis laws but also not statistically significant (3.54 additional prescriptions per 100 persons; P = .17 and 3.09 additional deaths per 100,000; P = .07).
• A potential reduction was found in synthetic opioid deaths associated specifically with states that had recreational cannabis laws (4.9 fewer deaths per 100,000; P = .04), but there were no differences in overdose deaths with other opioids.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results contrast with recent studies that suggested that recreational and medical cannabis legalization are associated with reductions in opioid prescriptions and medical cannabis legalization is associated with an increase in opioid mortality,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Hai V. Nguyen, PhD, of the School of Pharmacy, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Canada, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on January 19, 2024, in JAMA Health Forum.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Legalization of recreational and medical cannabis is not associated with a reduction in opioid prescriptions or overall opioid overdose mortality, a new study suggested. However, investigators did find that recreational cannabis laws may be tied to a potential reduction in synthetic opioid deaths.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed state-level data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other databases (2006-2020) on the number of opioid prescriptions (per 100,000 persons).
• Prescription opioids included buprenorphine (except products to treat opioid use disorder), codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, propoxyphene, tapentadol, and tramadol.
• Researchers used regression analyses to account for poverty rates and real gross domestic product and a generalized difference-in-differences method that accounted for staggered implementation of cannabis laws.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the full study period, 13 states legalized recreational cannabis and 23 legalized medical cannabis.
• No statistically significant association was found between recreational cannabis laws and opioid prescriptions (3.08 fewer prescriptions per 100 persons; P = .17) or overall opioid overdose mortality (3.05 fewer deaths per 100,000; P = .24).
• The changes in outcomes associated with medical cannabis laws were larger in magnitude than those for recreational cannabis laws but also not statistically significant (3.54 additional prescriptions per 100 persons; P = .17 and 3.09 additional deaths per 100,000; P = .07).
• A potential reduction was found in synthetic opioid deaths associated specifically with states that had recreational cannabis laws (4.9 fewer deaths per 100,000; P = .04), but there were no differences in overdose deaths with other opioids.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results contrast with recent studies that suggested that recreational and medical cannabis legalization are associated with reductions in opioid prescriptions and medical cannabis legalization is associated with an increase in opioid mortality,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Hai V. Nguyen, PhD, of the School of Pharmacy, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Canada, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on January 19, 2024, in JAMA Health Forum.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Legalization of recreational and medical cannabis is not associated with a reduction in opioid prescriptions or overall opioid overdose mortality, a new study suggested. However, investigators did find that recreational cannabis laws may be tied to a potential reduction in synthetic opioid deaths.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed state-level data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other databases (2006-2020) on the number of opioid prescriptions (per 100,000 persons).
• Prescription opioids included buprenorphine (except products to treat opioid use disorder), codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, propoxyphene, tapentadol, and tramadol.
• Researchers used regression analyses to account for poverty rates and real gross domestic product and a generalized difference-in-differences method that accounted for staggered implementation of cannabis laws.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the full study period, 13 states legalized recreational cannabis and 23 legalized medical cannabis.
• No statistically significant association was found between recreational cannabis laws and opioid prescriptions (3.08 fewer prescriptions per 100 persons; P = .17) or overall opioid overdose mortality (3.05 fewer deaths per 100,000; P = .24).
• The changes in outcomes associated with medical cannabis laws were larger in magnitude than those for recreational cannabis laws but also not statistically significant (3.54 additional prescriptions per 100 persons; P = .17 and 3.09 additional deaths per 100,000; P = .07).
• A potential reduction was found in synthetic opioid deaths associated specifically with states that had recreational cannabis laws (4.9 fewer deaths per 100,000; P = .04), but there were no differences in overdose deaths with other opioids.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results contrast with recent studies that suggested that recreational and medical cannabis legalization are associated with reductions in opioid prescriptions and medical cannabis legalization is associated with an increase in opioid mortality,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Hai V. Nguyen, PhD, of the School of Pharmacy, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Canada, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on January 19, 2024, in JAMA Health Forum.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To curb alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), alcohol consumption should be avoided among those with underlying obesity, chronic hepatitis C infection, hepatitis B virus infection, or a history of gastric bypass, according to a new clinical guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology.

In addition, health systems need to overcome barriers to treating alcohol use disorder (AUD) and commit to creating a multidisciplinary care model with behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapy for patients.

Experts were convened to develop these guidelines because it was “imperative to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based blueprint for how to care for patients, as well as guide prevention and research efforts in the field of ALD for the coming years,” said the first author, Loretta Jophlin, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

“In recent years, perhaps fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol use has been normalized in an increasing number of situations,” she said. “Drinking was normalized as a coping mechanism to deal with many of the sorrows we experienced during the pandemic, including loss of purposeful work and social isolation, and many more people are struggling with AUD. So many aspects of our culture have been inundated by the presence of alcohol use, and we need to work hard to denormalize this, first focusing on at-risk populations.”

The guideline was published in the January issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Updating ALD Recommendations

With ALD as the most common cause of advanced hepatic disease and a frequent indicator of eventual liver transplantation, the rising incidence of alcohol use during the past decade has led to rapid growth in ALD-related healthcare burdens, the guideline authors wrote.

In particular, those with ALD tend to present at an advanced stage and progress faster, which can lead to progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. This can include alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), which often presents with a rapid onset or worsening of jaundice and can lead to acute or chronic liver failure.

To update the guideline, Dr. Jophlin and colleagues analyzed data based on a patient-intervention-comparison-outcome format, resulting in 34 key concepts or statements and 21 recommendations.

Among them, the authors recommended screening and treating AUD with the goal of helping patients who have not yet developed significant liver injury and preventing progression to advanced stages of ALD, particularly among at-risk groups who have had an increasing prevalence of severe AUD, including women, younger people, and Hispanic and American Indian patients.

“So many patients are still told to ‘stop drinking’ or ‘cut back’ but are provided no additional resources. Without offering referrals to treatment programs or pharmacologic therapies to assist in abstinence, many patients are not successful,” Dr. Jophlin said. “We hope these guidelines empower providers to consider selected [Food and Drug Administration]-approved medications, well-studied off-label therapies, and nonpharmacologic interventions to aid their patients’ journeys to abstinence and hopefully avert the progression of ALD.”

In addition, the guidelines provide recommendations for AH treatment. In patients with severe AH, the authors offered strong recommendations against the use of pentoxifylline and prophylactic antibiotics, and in support of corticosteroid therapy and intravenous N-acetyl cysteine as an adjuvant to corticosteroids.

Liver transplantation, which may be recommended for carefully selected patients, is being performed at many centers but remains relatively controversial, Dr. Jophlin said.

“Questions remain about ideal patient selection as center practices vary considerably, yet we have started to realize the impacts of relapse after transplantation,” she said. “The guidelines highlight the knowns and unknowns in this area and will hopefully serve as a catalyst for the dissemination of centers’ experiences and the development of a universal set of ethically sound, evidence-based guidelines to be used by all transplant centers.”
 

Policy Implications

Dr. Jophlin and colleagues noted the importance of policy aimed at alcohol use reduction, multidisciplinary care for AUD and ALD, and additional research around severe AH.

“As a practicing transplant hepatologist and medical director of a liver transplant program in the heart of Bourbon country, I am a part of just one healthcare team experiencing ALD, particularly AH, as a mass casualty event. Healthcare teams are fighting an unrelenting fire that the alcohol industry is pouring gasoline on,” Dr. Jophlin said. “It is imperative that healthcare providers have a voice in the policies that shape this preventable disease. We hope these guidelines inspire practitioners to explore our influence on how alcohol is regulated, marketed, and distributed.”

Additional interventions and public policy considerations could help reduce alcohol-related morbidity and mortality at a moment when the characteristics of those who present with AUD appear to be evolving.

“The typical person I’m seeing now is not someone who has been drinking heavily for decades. Rather, it’s a young person who has been drinking heavily for many months or a couple of years,” said James Burton, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Colorado Hospital’s Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

Dr. Burton, who wasn’t involved with the guideline, noted it’s become more common for people to drink multiple alcoholic drinks per day for multiple times per week. Patients often don’t think it’s a problem, even as he discusses their liver-related issues.

“We can’t just keep living and working the way we were 10 years ago,” he said. “We’ve got to change how we approach treatment. We have to treat liver disease and AUD.”

The guideline was supported by several National Institutes of Health grants and an American College of Gastroenterology faculty development grant. The authors declared potential competing interests with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Burton reported no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To curb alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), alcohol consumption should be avoided among those with underlying obesity, chronic hepatitis C infection, hepatitis B virus infection, or a history of gastric bypass, according to a new clinical guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology.

In addition, health systems need to overcome barriers to treating alcohol use disorder (AUD) and commit to creating a multidisciplinary care model with behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapy for patients.

Experts were convened to develop these guidelines because it was “imperative to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based blueprint for how to care for patients, as well as guide prevention and research efforts in the field of ALD for the coming years,” said the first author, Loretta Jophlin, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

“In recent years, perhaps fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol use has been normalized in an increasing number of situations,” she said. “Drinking was normalized as a coping mechanism to deal with many of the sorrows we experienced during the pandemic, including loss of purposeful work and social isolation, and many more people are struggling with AUD. So many aspects of our culture have been inundated by the presence of alcohol use, and we need to work hard to denormalize this, first focusing on at-risk populations.”

The guideline was published in the January issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Updating ALD Recommendations

With ALD as the most common cause of advanced hepatic disease and a frequent indicator of eventual liver transplantation, the rising incidence of alcohol use during the past decade has led to rapid growth in ALD-related healthcare burdens, the guideline authors wrote.

In particular, those with ALD tend to present at an advanced stage and progress faster, which can lead to progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. This can include alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), which often presents with a rapid onset or worsening of jaundice and can lead to acute or chronic liver failure.

To update the guideline, Dr. Jophlin and colleagues analyzed data based on a patient-intervention-comparison-outcome format, resulting in 34 key concepts or statements and 21 recommendations.

Among them, the authors recommended screening and treating AUD with the goal of helping patients who have not yet developed significant liver injury and preventing progression to advanced stages of ALD, particularly among at-risk groups who have had an increasing prevalence of severe AUD, including women, younger people, and Hispanic and American Indian patients.

“So many patients are still told to ‘stop drinking’ or ‘cut back’ but are provided no additional resources. Without offering referrals to treatment programs or pharmacologic therapies to assist in abstinence, many patients are not successful,” Dr. Jophlin said. “We hope these guidelines empower providers to consider selected [Food and Drug Administration]-approved medications, well-studied off-label therapies, and nonpharmacologic interventions to aid their patients’ journeys to abstinence and hopefully avert the progression of ALD.”

In addition, the guidelines provide recommendations for AH treatment. In patients with severe AH, the authors offered strong recommendations against the use of pentoxifylline and prophylactic antibiotics, and in support of corticosteroid therapy and intravenous N-acetyl cysteine as an adjuvant to corticosteroids.

Liver transplantation, which may be recommended for carefully selected patients, is being performed at many centers but remains relatively controversial, Dr. Jophlin said.

“Questions remain about ideal patient selection as center practices vary considerably, yet we have started to realize the impacts of relapse after transplantation,” she said. “The guidelines highlight the knowns and unknowns in this area and will hopefully serve as a catalyst for the dissemination of centers’ experiences and the development of a universal set of ethically sound, evidence-based guidelines to be used by all transplant centers.”
 

Policy Implications

Dr. Jophlin and colleagues noted the importance of policy aimed at alcohol use reduction, multidisciplinary care for AUD and ALD, and additional research around severe AH.

“As a practicing transplant hepatologist and medical director of a liver transplant program in the heart of Bourbon country, I am a part of just one healthcare team experiencing ALD, particularly AH, as a mass casualty event. Healthcare teams are fighting an unrelenting fire that the alcohol industry is pouring gasoline on,” Dr. Jophlin said. “It is imperative that healthcare providers have a voice in the policies that shape this preventable disease. We hope these guidelines inspire practitioners to explore our influence on how alcohol is regulated, marketed, and distributed.”

Additional interventions and public policy considerations could help reduce alcohol-related morbidity and mortality at a moment when the characteristics of those who present with AUD appear to be evolving.

“The typical person I’m seeing now is not someone who has been drinking heavily for decades. Rather, it’s a young person who has been drinking heavily for many months or a couple of years,” said James Burton, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Colorado Hospital’s Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

Dr. Burton, who wasn’t involved with the guideline, noted it’s become more common for people to drink multiple alcoholic drinks per day for multiple times per week. Patients often don’t think it’s a problem, even as he discusses their liver-related issues.

“We can’t just keep living and working the way we were 10 years ago,” he said. “We’ve got to change how we approach treatment. We have to treat liver disease and AUD.”

The guideline was supported by several National Institutes of Health grants and an American College of Gastroenterology faculty development grant. The authors declared potential competing interests with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Burton reported no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To curb alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), alcohol consumption should be avoided among those with underlying obesity, chronic hepatitis C infection, hepatitis B virus infection, or a history of gastric bypass, according to a new clinical guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology.

In addition, health systems need to overcome barriers to treating alcohol use disorder (AUD) and commit to creating a multidisciplinary care model with behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapy for patients.

Experts were convened to develop these guidelines because it was “imperative to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based blueprint for how to care for patients, as well as guide prevention and research efforts in the field of ALD for the coming years,” said the first author, Loretta Jophlin, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

“In recent years, perhaps fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol use has been normalized in an increasing number of situations,” she said. “Drinking was normalized as a coping mechanism to deal with many of the sorrows we experienced during the pandemic, including loss of purposeful work and social isolation, and many more people are struggling with AUD. So many aspects of our culture have been inundated by the presence of alcohol use, and we need to work hard to denormalize this, first focusing on at-risk populations.”

The guideline was published in the January issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Updating ALD Recommendations

With ALD as the most common cause of advanced hepatic disease and a frequent indicator of eventual liver transplantation, the rising incidence of alcohol use during the past decade has led to rapid growth in ALD-related healthcare burdens, the guideline authors wrote.

In particular, those with ALD tend to present at an advanced stage and progress faster, which can lead to progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. This can include alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), which often presents with a rapid onset or worsening of jaundice and can lead to acute or chronic liver failure.

To update the guideline, Dr. Jophlin and colleagues analyzed data based on a patient-intervention-comparison-outcome format, resulting in 34 key concepts or statements and 21 recommendations.

Among them, the authors recommended screening and treating AUD with the goal of helping patients who have not yet developed significant liver injury and preventing progression to advanced stages of ALD, particularly among at-risk groups who have had an increasing prevalence of severe AUD, including women, younger people, and Hispanic and American Indian patients.

“So many patients are still told to ‘stop drinking’ or ‘cut back’ but are provided no additional resources. Without offering referrals to treatment programs or pharmacologic therapies to assist in abstinence, many patients are not successful,” Dr. Jophlin said. “We hope these guidelines empower providers to consider selected [Food and Drug Administration]-approved medications, well-studied off-label therapies, and nonpharmacologic interventions to aid their patients’ journeys to abstinence and hopefully avert the progression of ALD.”

In addition, the guidelines provide recommendations for AH treatment. In patients with severe AH, the authors offered strong recommendations against the use of pentoxifylline and prophylactic antibiotics, and in support of corticosteroid therapy and intravenous N-acetyl cysteine as an adjuvant to corticosteroids.

Liver transplantation, which may be recommended for carefully selected patients, is being performed at many centers but remains relatively controversial, Dr. Jophlin said.

“Questions remain about ideal patient selection as center practices vary considerably, yet we have started to realize the impacts of relapse after transplantation,” she said. “The guidelines highlight the knowns and unknowns in this area and will hopefully serve as a catalyst for the dissemination of centers’ experiences and the development of a universal set of ethically sound, evidence-based guidelines to be used by all transplant centers.”
 

Policy Implications

Dr. Jophlin and colleagues noted the importance of policy aimed at alcohol use reduction, multidisciplinary care for AUD and ALD, and additional research around severe AH.

“As a practicing transplant hepatologist and medical director of a liver transplant program in the heart of Bourbon country, I am a part of just one healthcare team experiencing ALD, particularly AH, as a mass casualty event. Healthcare teams are fighting an unrelenting fire that the alcohol industry is pouring gasoline on,” Dr. Jophlin said. “It is imperative that healthcare providers have a voice in the policies that shape this preventable disease. We hope these guidelines inspire practitioners to explore our influence on how alcohol is regulated, marketed, and distributed.”

Additional interventions and public policy considerations could help reduce alcohol-related morbidity and mortality at a moment when the characteristics of those who present with AUD appear to be evolving.

“The typical person I’m seeing now is not someone who has been drinking heavily for decades. Rather, it’s a young person who has been drinking heavily for many months or a couple of years,” said James Burton, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Colorado Hospital’s Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

Dr. Burton, who wasn’t involved with the guideline, noted it’s become more common for people to drink multiple alcoholic drinks per day for multiple times per week. Patients often don’t think it’s a problem, even as he discusses their liver-related issues.

“We can’t just keep living and working the way we were 10 years ago,” he said. “We’ve got to change how we approach treatment. We have to treat liver disease and AUD.”

The guideline was supported by several National Institutes of Health grants and an American College of Gastroenterology faculty development grant. The authors declared potential competing interests with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Burton reported no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released documents show that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that cannabis has a legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.

The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.

The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation. 

Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.

“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.

In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016. 

Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer. 

“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
 

Credible Medical Use

The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.

Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted. 

The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”

The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.

Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.” 

Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.

“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
 

Opposition in Congress 

It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.

“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.

The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”

The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.

He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”

“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released documents show that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that cannabis has a legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.

The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.

The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation. 

Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.

“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.

In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016. 

Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer. 

“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
 

Credible Medical Use

The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.

Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted. 

The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”

The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.

Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.” 

Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.

“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
 

Opposition in Congress 

It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.

“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.

The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”

The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.

He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”

“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released documents show that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that cannabis has a legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.

The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.

The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation. 

Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.

“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.

In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016. 

Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer. 

“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
 

Credible Medical Use

The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.

Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted. 

The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”

The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.

Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.” 

Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.

“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
 

Opposition in Congress 

It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.

“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.

The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”

The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.

He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”

“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At the request of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Emergent BioSolutions has extended the shelf life of the rapid opioid overdose reversal agent, naloxone (4 mg) nasal spray (Narcan), from 3 to 4 years.

Naloxone is “an important tool” in addressing opioid overdoses, and this extension supports the FDA’s “efforts to ensure more OTC naloxone products remain available to the public,” Marta Sokolowska, PhD, with the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

Naloxone nasal spray was first approved by the FDA in 2015 as a prescription drug. Last spring, the agency approved the drug for over-the-counter use.

The FDA approved an initial shelf-life extension for naloxone nasal spray (from 2 to 3 years) in August 2020.

The shelf-life extension to 4 years applies only to naloxone (4 mg) nasal spray products produced after January 17, 2024.

“The shelf life of products that were produced and distributed prior to this announcement is not affected and remains unchanged. Prescribers, patients, and caregivers are advised to continue to abide by the expiration date printed on each product’s packaging and within the product’s labeling,” the FDA advised.

“FDA’s request for this shelf-life extension is a testament to the agency’s continuing progress toward implementing the FDA Overdose Prevention Framework, which provides our vision to undertake impactful, creative actions to encourage harm reduction and innovation in reducing controlled substance-related overdoses and deaths,” the agency said.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, from 1999 to 2021, nearly 645,000 people died from an overdose involving any opioid, including prescription and illicit opioids.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At the request of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Emergent BioSolutions has extended the shelf life of the rapid opioid overdose reversal agent, naloxone (4 mg) nasal spray (Narcan), from 3 to 4 years.

Naloxone is “an important tool” in addressing opioid overdoses, and this extension supports the FDA’s “efforts to ensure more OTC naloxone products remain available to the public,” Marta Sokolowska, PhD, with the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

Naloxone nasal spray was first approved by the FDA in 2015 as a prescription drug. Last spring, the agency approved the drug for over-the-counter use.

The FDA approved an initial shelf-life extension for naloxone nasal spray (from 2 to 3 years) in August 2020.

The shelf-life extension to 4 years applies only to naloxone (4 mg) nasal spray products produced after January 17, 2024.

“The shelf life of products that were produced and distributed prior to this announcement is not affected and remains unchanged. Prescribers, patients, and caregivers are advised to continue to abide by the expiration date printed on each product’s packaging and within the product’s labeling,” the FDA advised.

“FDA’s request for this shelf-life extension is a testament to the agency’s continuing progress toward implementing the FDA Overdose Prevention Framework, which provides our vision to undertake impactful, creative actions to encourage harm reduction and innovation in reducing controlled substance-related overdoses and deaths,” the agency said.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, from 1999 to 2021, nearly 645,000 people died from an overdose involving any opioid, including prescription and illicit opioids.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At the request of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Emergent BioSolutions has extended the shelf life of the rapid opioid overdose reversal agent, naloxone (4 mg) nasal spray (Narcan), from 3 to 4 years.

Naloxone is “an important tool” in addressing opioid overdoses, and this extension supports the FDA’s “efforts to ensure more OTC naloxone products remain available to the public,” Marta Sokolowska, PhD, with the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

Naloxone nasal spray was first approved by the FDA in 2015 as a prescription drug. Last spring, the agency approved the drug for over-the-counter use.

The FDA approved an initial shelf-life extension for naloxone nasal spray (from 2 to 3 years) in August 2020.

The shelf-life extension to 4 years applies only to naloxone (4 mg) nasal spray products produced after January 17, 2024.

“The shelf life of products that were produced and distributed prior to this announcement is not affected and remains unchanged. Prescribers, patients, and caregivers are advised to continue to abide by the expiration date printed on each product’s packaging and within the product’s labeling,” the FDA advised.

“FDA’s request for this shelf-life extension is a testament to the agency’s continuing progress toward implementing the FDA Overdose Prevention Framework, which provides our vision to undertake impactful, creative actions to encourage harm reduction and innovation in reducing controlled substance-related overdoses and deaths,” the agency said.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, from 1999 to 2021, nearly 645,000 people died from an overdose involving any opioid, including prescription and illicit opioids.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Deaths caused by both substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increased substantially in the United States between 1999 and 2019, with the most pronounced rise among women, American Indians, younger people, rural residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants, results of new research suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, researchers collected data on deaths within the United States where both SU and CVD (SU+CVD) were a contributing or an underlying cause and gathered information on location of death (medical facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility), demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, age), and region (urban-rural, state).
• Researchers determined crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population, identified trends in AAMR using annual percent change (APC) and calculated the weighted average of APCs (AAPCs).
• Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636,572 deaths related to CVD+SU, 75.6% of which were among men and 70.6% among non-Hispanic White individuals, with 65% related to alcohol, and where location of death was available, 47.7% occurred in medical facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall SU+CVD-related AAMR from 1999 to 2019 was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.3-14.3) per 100,000 individuals, with the rate being higher in men (22.5) than in women (6.8) and highest in American Indians or Alaska Natives (37.7) compared with other races/ethnicities.
• Rural areas had higher SU+CVD-related AAMR (15.2; 95% CI, 15.1-15.3) than urban areas, with the District of Columbia having the highest AAMR geographically (25.4), individuals aged 55-69 years having the highest rate agewise (25.1), and alcohol accounting for the highest rate (9.09) among substance types.
• Temporal trends show that the overall SU+CVD-related AAMR increased from 9.9 in 1999 to 21.4 in 2019, a rate that started accelerating in 2012, with an AAPC of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.7-4.3); increases were across all ethnicities and age groups and were particularly pronounced among women (4.8%; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
• Cannabis had the highest AAPC of all substances (12.7%), but stimulants had an APC of 21.4 (95% CI, 20.0-22.8) from 2009 to 2019, a period during which stimulants were the fastest-growing substance abuse category.

IN PRACTICE:

These new results identify high-risk groups, which “is crucial for prioritizing preventive measures aiming to reduce substance use and cardiovascular disease-related mortality in these populations,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, and Jakrin Kewcharoen, MD, Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, were co-first authors of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

TOPLINE:

Deaths caused by both substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increased substantially in the United States between 1999 and 2019, with the most pronounced rise among women, American Indians, younger people, rural residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants, results of new research suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, researchers collected data on deaths within the United States where both SU and CVD (SU+CVD) were a contributing or an underlying cause and gathered information on location of death (medical facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility), demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, age), and region (urban-rural, state).
• Researchers determined crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population, identified trends in AAMR using annual percent change (APC) and calculated the weighted average of APCs (AAPCs).
• Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636,572 deaths related to CVD+SU, 75.6% of which were among men and 70.6% among non-Hispanic White individuals, with 65% related to alcohol, and where location of death was available, 47.7% occurred in medical facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall SU+CVD-related AAMR from 1999 to 2019 was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.3-14.3) per 100,000 individuals, with the rate being higher in men (22.5) than in women (6.8) and highest in American Indians or Alaska Natives (37.7) compared with other races/ethnicities.
• Rural areas had higher SU+CVD-related AAMR (15.2; 95% CI, 15.1-15.3) than urban areas, with the District of Columbia having the highest AAMR geographically (25.4), individuals aged 55-69 years having the highest rate agewise (25.1), and alcohol accounting for the highest rate (9.09) among substance types.
• Temporal trends show that the overall SU+CVD-related AAMR increased from 9.9 in 1999 to 21.4 in 2019, a rate that started accelerating in 2012, with an AAPC of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.7-4.3); increases were across all ethnicities and age groups and were particularly pronounced among women (4.8%; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
• Cannabis had the highest AAPC of all substances (12.7%), but stimulants had an APC of 21.4 (95% CI, 20.0-22.8) from 2009 to 2019, a period during which stimulants were the fastest-growing substance abuse category.

IN PRACTICE:

These new results identify high-risk groups, which “is crucial for prioritizing preventive measures aiming to reduce substance use and cardiovascular disease-related mortality in these populations,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, and Jakrin Kewcharoen, MD, Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, were co-first authors of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

TOPLINE:

Deaths caused by both substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increased substantially in the United States between 1999 and 2019, with the most pronounced rise among women, American Indians, younger people, rural residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants, results of new research suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, researchers collected data on deaths within the United States where both SU and CVD (SU+CVD) were a contributing or an underlying cause and gathered information on location of death (medical facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility), demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, age), and region (urban-rural, state).
• Researchers determined crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population, identified trends in AAMR using annual percent change (APC) and calculated the weighted average of APCs (AAPCs).
• Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636,572 deaths related to CVD+SU, 75.6% of which were among men and 70.6% among non-Hispanic White individuals, with 65% related to alcohol, and where location of death was available, 47.7% occurred in medical facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall SU+CVD-related AAMR from 1999 to 2019 was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.3-14.3) per 100,000 individuals, with the rate being higher in men (22.5) than in women (6.8) and highest in American Indians or Alaska Natives (37.7) compared with other races/ethnicities.
• Rural areas had higher SU+CVD-related AAMR (15.2; 95% CI, 15.1-15.3) than urban areas, with the District of Columbia having the highest AAMR geographically (25.4), individuals aged 55-69 years having the highest rate agewise (25.1), and alcohol accounting for the highest rate (9.09) among substance types.
• Temporal trends show that the overall SU+CVD-related AAMR increased from 9.9 in 1999 to 21.4 in 2019, a rate that started accelerating in 2012, with an AAPC of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.7-4.3); increases were across all ethnicities and age groups and were particularly pronounced among women (4.8%; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
• Cannabis had the highest AAPC of all substances (12.7%), but stimulants had an APC of 21.4 (95% CI, 20.0-22.8) from 2009 to 2019, a period during which stimulants were the fastest-growing substance abuse category.

IN PRACTICE:

These new results identify high-risk groups, which “is crucial for prioritizing preventive measures aiming to reduce substance use and cardiovascular disease-related mortality in these populations,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, and Jakrin Kewcharoen, MD, Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, were co-first authors of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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