2012 August


The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) is concerned about the negative impact of medical marijuana on youth. Adolescents are especially vulnerable to the many adverse developmental, cognitive, medical, psychiatric, and addictive effects of marijuana.1 Of particular concern to our field, adolescent marijuana users are more likely than adult users to develop marijuana dependence, and their heavy use is associated with increased incidence and worsened course of psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders.1-3 Furthermore, marijuana’s deleterious effects on cognition and brain development during adolescence may have lasting implications.4

The “medicalization” of smoked marijuana has distorted the perception of the known risks and purported benefits of this drug. Since certain states began permitting dispensing of medical marijuana, adolescents’ perceptions of the harmful effects of marijuana have decreased and marijuana use has increased significantly.5,6 There is also emerging evidence that adolescents are accessing medical marijuana for recreational use.7 Therefore AACAP urges more scientific evaluation and a risk:benefit analysis by interdisciplinary experts to determine whether there is any medical indication for marijuana dispensing given the potential harm to adolescents.8

In summary:
•Adolescents are especially vulnerable to adverse consequences of marijuana use.1-4
•Medical marijuana dispensing is associated with reduced perception of marijuana-related risks and increased rates of marijuana use among adolescents.5-7
•AACAP thus opposes medical marijuana dispensing to adolescents.

References:
1.Schneider, M. (2008). Puberty as a highly vulnerable developmental period for the consequences of cannabis exposure. Addiction Biology, 13(2), 253-263.
2.Hayatbakhsh, M. R., Najman, J. M., Jamrozik, K., Mamum, A. A., Alati, R., & Bor, W. (2007). Cannabis and anxiety and depression in young adults: a large prospective study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(3), 408-417.
3.Moore, T. H., Zammit, S., Lingford-Hughes, A., Barnes, T. R., Jones, P. B., Burke, M., & Lewis, G. (2007). Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet, 370(9584), 319-328.
4.Jager, G., & Ramsey, N. F. (2008). Long-term consequences of adolescent cannabis exposure on the development of cognition, brain structure and function: an overview of animal and human research. Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 1(2), 114-123.
5.Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (December 14, 2011). “Marijuana use continues to rise among U.S. teens, while alcohol use hits historic lows.” University of Michigan News Service: Ann Arbor, MI. Retrieved January 2, 2012, from http://www.monitoringthefuture.org
6.Wall, M. M., Poh, E., Cerda, M., Keyes, K. M., Galea, S., & Hasin, D. S. (2011). Adolescent marijuana use from 2002 to 2008: higher in states with medical marijuana laws, cause still unclear. Annals of Epidemiology, 21(9), 714-716.
7.Thurstone, C., Lieberman, S. A., & Schmiege, S. J. (2011). Medical marijuana diversion and associated problems in adolescent substance treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 118(2-3), 489-492.

8. REPORT 3 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (I-09) Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes (Resolutions 910, I-08; 921, I-08; and 229, A-09) (Reference Committee K) http://www.amaassn.org/resources/doc/csaph/i09csaph3ft.pdf

Source: AACAP Medical Marijuana Policy Statement June 11, 2012

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_statements/aacap_medical_marijuana_policy_statement

July 30, 2012

Physicians should take lead against efforts in Colorado, Washington and Oregon.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) opposes proposals to legalize marijuana anywhere in the United States, including three state measures on November 2012 ballots.

Legalization initiatives in Colorado, Washington and Oregon create unacceptable risks to public health, according to a white paper approved by the ASAM Board of Directors at its July 25 meeting. Physicians and other health professionals must learn more about the real health threats posed by marijuana use, all of which are made worse by legalization. Physicians should encourage public education about these facts and lead efforts against ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana, the report said.

ASAM is the nation’s foremost association of physicians dedicated to the diagnosis and treatment of the disease of addiction.

“ASAM has brought to bear its commitment to science and public health in taking a strong position against marijuana legalization,” said Robert DuPont, M.D., the report co-author, who is a former White House Drug Czar and former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). “ASAM can provide leadership to all physicians and all medical associations about the dangerous and seductive mirage of drug legalization, including marijuana legalization, as a so-called solution to serious health problems resulting from drug use.”

ASAM asserts that the significant public health problems and costs related to marijuana legalization are not well-understood by the public or policymakers. ASAM’s conclusion that marijuana legalization would threaten public health is based on the following:
•Marijuana use is neither safe nor harmless. Marijuana contains psychoactive cannabinoids which can produce a sense of discomfort and even paranoid thoughts in some users. Cannabinoids interact with brain circuits in comparable ways to opioids, cocaine and other addictive drugs. Marijuana use is associated with damage to specific organs and tissues and impairments to behavioral and brain functioning.
•Of greatest concern is marijuana use during adolescence—a time of ongoing brain development and heightened vulnerability to addiction. Research shows that heavy marijuana use decreases neurocognitive performance, with worse neurocognitive effects seen among those who begin marijuana use early.
•Marijuana is addictive. Repeated marijuana use is reinforcing because the drug increases activation of reward circuitry in the brain. Approximately 9% of people who try marijuana become dependent. For those who begin using the drug in their teens, approximately 17% become dependent. These figures are similar to alcohol dependence.
•Legalization would promote the public perception that marijuana is harmless at the same time that availability of the drug would grow exponentially. The rate of marijuana use and marijuana-related substance use disorders, including addiction, would increase.
•Increased marijuana addiction would heighten demand for substance use disorder treatment services, which already are inadequate for current needs.
•Marijuana use is associated with increased rates, and worsening symptoms, of psychosis. Increased marijuana use caused by legalization and increased access to high-potency marijuana could result in rising rates of psychotic illnesses.
•Marijuana-related crashes are major traffic safety threats; marijuana use doubles the risk of a crash. Research in Washington State showed that 12% of drivers killed in car crashes were positive for marijuana. Legalization would increase drugged driving.

Marijuana legalization will increase its availability to young people, who are the most at risk from this drug. Research shows that marijuana leads to a host of significant health, social, learning and behavioral problems in young users.

“Children who use marijuana are more likely to struggle in school, because it impairs their ability to concentrate and retain information during their peak learning years when their brains are developing,” said Andrea Barthwell, M.D., the report co-author who is a former ASAM president and former Deputy Director for Demand Reduction in the Office of National Drug Control Policy. “Even short-term use can cause problems with memory, learning, cognitive development and problem solving. Research shows a clear link between adolescent marijuana use and a decrease in academic achievement.”

ASAM has previously issued policy statements urging that people addicted to marijuana, like those addicted to any drug, should receive treatment rather than punishment for their illness. That position, however, makes no reference to the question of legalization, the report stated.

“ASAM believes that addiction should be primarily treated as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue,” said Stuart Gitlow, M.D., ASAM Acting President. “But that does not mean we would support a social experiment dramatically changing the legal status of marijuana and resulting in an upsurge in marijuana use. Health problems caused by marijuana would grow with increased use; marijuana addiction rates would undoubtedly rise. ASAM must oppose any public policy changes that would cause a significant increase in addictive substance use.”

Source: ASAM White Paper 26th July 2012

Recreational use of the club drug Ecstasy could cause memory problems, new research finds.

The research is the first study of Ecstasy users before they begin to use the drug regularly, which helps rule out alternative causes for the memory loss, said study leader Daniel Wagner, a psychologist at the University of Cologne in Germany.

“By measuring the cognitive function of people with no history of Ecstasy use and, one year later, identifying those who had used Ecstasy at least 10 times and re-measuring their performance, we have been able to start isolating the precise cognitive effects of this drug,” Wagner told LiveScience.

Ecstasy, or MDMA (shorthand for its tongue-twister of a chemical name, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) is a popular drug often taken at raves or techno clubs. In Europe, researchers estimate that about 5.6 percent of 15- to 34-year-olds have used the drug at some point. In the United States, about 5.7 percent of people have used Ecstasy at some point, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse .

The effects of the drug have been tough to pin down, however. Animal studies suggest that MDMA degrades the ends of brain cells that use the neurotransmitter serotonin to communicate. Studies in humans have hinted that Ecstasy use can harm memory and learning, but that research has been plagued with confounding variables such as other drug use or pre-existing differences between Ecstasy users and nonusers.

In 2009, the debate over Ecstasy’s effects claimed the job of David Nutt, a psychologist who once chaired the U.K. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The British government fired Nutt from that position after he said that LSD, cannabis and Ecstasy were not as harmful as other drugs, including alcohol.

Wagner and his colleagues focused their study on new users of Ecstasy. To qualify, people had to have some experience with the drug — making it more likely that they’d use it in the future — but could not have taken more than five pills in their lifetimes.

Of 149 participants who qualified, 109 returned 12 months later for a series of psychological tests, many focusing on memory. Of these, 43 participants used no other drugs other than MDMA and marijuana (there are very few Ecstasy users who don’t also use marijuana, the researchers wrote), and 23 had used more than 10 pills in the past year. It was this group that the researchers compared with nonusers.

Memory and Ecstasy

Among Ecstasy users, the researchers found a deterioration in a memory task called paired associates learning, in which people memorize pairs of words or objects so that the presentation of one triggers the recall of the other. None of the other cognitive tasks showed significant differences between users and nonusers, Wagner said. The specificity of the deficit suggests damage to the hippocampus, he said, the part of the brain that is crucial for memory formation and recall”Whether the impairments are permanent or reversible has yet to be investigated,” Wagner said.

The impact of the findings on future drug policy is also unclear.

“Given the specific memory impairments, our findings may raise concerns in regard to MDMA use, even in recreational amounts over a relatively short time period,” Wagner said. “On the other hand, we did not find any impairment on other cognitive domains, and we didn’t focus on other relevant domains like psychopathology or social problems.”

The researchers, who detail their findings online today (July 25) in the journal Addiction, plan a two-year follow-up study to investigate other effects of the drug.

Source: www.myhealthnewsdaily;26th July 2012

 

The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to ban medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, the culmination of years of controversy over the sale of pot here. Meanwhile, in Oakland, a federal crackdown closed the nation’s largest dispensary amid protests and demonstrations. But authorities rarely seem to address the real issue about marijuana in California: Is it good medicine?

Some proponents of medical marijuana argue that pot is “natural” and therefore better, or at least no worse, than legally prescribed drugs, which may be addictive and may carry dangerous side effects. But natural is not the standard for whether a drug is safe and effective.

Marijuana advocates also say that physicians who warn against marijuana merely want to push prescriptions. But just because some doctors practice bad medicine with legal drugs doesn’t make marijuana good medicine. In most cases, it isn’t.

Anyone who wants to get a medical marijuana card knows there are unscrupulous doctors who will give you a recommendation with few questions asked. Without doubt, medical marijuana hands a get-out-of-jail-free card to people who just want to get high. Those who get a card and indulge in the infrequent use of marijuana will probably experience few problems. But the situation is different with chronic marijuana use.

Marijuana acts on cannabinoid receptors in the brain. These receptors, which are the most prevalent in the nervous system, influence just about every bodily function, including memory, attention, disposition, arousal, motivation, perception, appetite and sleep.

Many chronic marijuana users insist that marijuana is not addictive the way alcohol and other drugs are. However, neuroscience, animal studies, clinical reports of withdrawal in humans and epidemiology all show that marijuana is potentially addictive.

As to its benefits, controlled clinical studies show they exist, but they are limited. Marijuana can effectively treat neuropathic pain, and it has been shown to improve appetite and reduce nausea in cancer and AIDS patients.

But other generally accepted ideas about marijuana’s effectiveness don’t hold up.

The Glaucoma Research Foundation disputes the idea that medical marijuana is good medicine for the disease. “The high dose of marijuana necessary to produce a clinically relevant effect,” the foundation’s website explains, makes it a poor choice for the treatment of glaucoma, especially given its “significant side effects” and the availability of safer effective drugs.

In addition, those who use marijuana to treat mental health symptoms might be surprised to learn that studies show it not only may not help such symptoms, it may cause them.

Increased funding for research may lead to a better understanding of the impact cannabis has on our bodies, but for now the claims that the drug is effective in the treatment of multiple disorders as distinct as lupus and anxiety seem far-fetched at best. It seems more likely that for some people, getting high just makes them feel better, the way a drink or two might. You would be shocked, however, if in response to a diagnosis of lupus, your doctor suggested you “take two drinks and call me in the morning.”

And pot’s general ineffectiveness is only part of picture. It is not a neutral substance. Chronic marijuana use is associated with a number of well-documented health problems, including a variety of cancers in adults as well as in children who were exposed to the drug in utero.

As to its mental health effects, marijuana is linked to long-term psychiatric problems such as depression, anxiety and psychosis. “Marijuana often is regarded as a ‘soft drug’ with few harmful effects,” says Dr. Joseph M. Pierre, co-chief of the Schizophrenia Treatment Unit at the Department of Veterans Affairs’ West Los Angeles Healthcare Center. “However, this benign view is now being revised, along with mounting research demonstrating a clear association between cannabis and psychosis.”

If the lack of health benefits and manifest risks aren’t enough to raise doubts about medical marijuana, consider basic questions of quality and dose. Although medical marijuana sometimes comes from “cleaner” sources than say a drug cartel, independent labs have found mold, synthetic insecticides and other toxins in pot. Molds such as Aspergillus can be highly dangerous to immune-compromised patients. And there is no way to accurately judge what a proper dose of dispensary marijuana would be.

Habitual marijuana use is helpful for very few medical conditions. It can cause insidious changes in personality and attitude that are clear to everyone but the users themselves. There are nearly 400,000 emergency room visits per year due to marijuana use. Before we advocate for medical marijuana, and before another person doses himself with it, we have to ask: Is medical marijuana making us sick?

Dr. David Sack is a psychiatrist and addiction specialist. He is chief executive of Promises Treatment Centers and Elements Behavioral Health in Southern California.

Source: Dr.David Sack. CEO Promises Treatment Centers. Southern California USA

July 26th 2012

Say goodbye to the drug-fuelled raver and hello to the clean-living ecowarrior. Teenagers are changing and, for perhaps the first time in history, their parents approve.

Rates of drug- taking, drinking and smoking among children have plummeted in the past decade. Girls, it seems, are more likely to emulate the polite, studious Hermione Granger, played by Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films than wild-child party girls like Peaches Geldof in her heyday.

Among 11 to 15 year olds, the proportion who admitted to having taken drugs fell from 29 per cent in 2001 to 17 per cent in 2011. Regular smokers of at least one cigarette a week halved from one in 10 to one in 20. The number who said they had drunk alcohol in the past week was down from 26 per cent to 12 per cent.

Experts said a “profound shift” had taken place in the new generation’s attitude to drink and drugs. The findings were based on a survey of 6,500 children aged 11 to 15 at secondary schools in England, conducted between September and December 2011.

Tim Straughan, the chief executive of the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre, said: “The report shows pupils appear to be leading an increasingly clean-living lifestyle and are less likely to take drugs as well as cigarettes and alcohol. All of this material will be of immense interest to those who work with young people and aim to steer them towards a healthier way of life.”

Siobhan McCann, of the charity Drinkaware, said: “While the decline in the number of children trying alcohol is good news, the report still shows there are 360,000 young people who reported drinking alcohol in the past week alone. Parents are the biggest suppliers of alcohol to young people aged 10 to 17 and also the biggest influence on their child’s relationship with drink.”

Drug-taking, drinking and smoking increases with age, the study found. Among 11-year-olds, fewer than one in 30 said they had taken drugs in the past year, compared with almost one in four 15-year-olds.

Cannabis was the most popular drug but its use fell during the decade. In 2011, one in 13 young people said they had smoked it, compared with one in seven in 2001.

Drug use was found to be highest in southern England and lower in the Midlands and the North. The proportion of children saying they had smoked cigarettes at least once was the lowest since the survey was first carried out in 1982 – reflecting the pressure created by anti-smoking laws. Even so, one in five said they had tried cigarettes and one in 20 did so regularly.

In 2001, one in five teenagers said they drank alcohol at least once a week. By 2011, that proportion was down to one in 14. Miles Beale, of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, said: “The increase in the number of young people who have never drunk alcohol, and the fact those who do drink appear to be drinking less, suggests that the messages about the risks of underage consumption are being heard.”

‘Most of us think of our future, and drink won’t help’
Rosie Brighton, 13, Watford

“I know a few people my age that drink but not many. When you look at people that turn up for school hung-over, not caring and not getting the grades, it is off-putting. Most of us are working hard to get good exam results because we look at the high unemployment rates and think we’ll need all the help we can get. We’re thinking about our future, and drink is not going to help that.

“I don’t know anyone who smokes or takes drugs. A lot of people are afraid of how mad their parents would be if they were caught. I think health authorities and schools have to educate children about drugs early. I had my first lesson in school about drugs in Year 6, but have been made aware of the dangers by my mum.”

Source: The Independent July 2012

Since May 14, 1988, when 27 people died in the deadliest alcohol-impaired driving crash

in U.S. history, the country has had over 300,000 lives lost, millions injured and 200 law enforcement officers killed, all due to impaired driving.

Since 1988, there have been significant accomplishments such as the percentage of impaired driving fatalities to all highway fatalities dropping from 41% in 1988 to 31% in 2010. Also, the total number of impaired driving fatalities in 1988 was 18,611; in 2010 it was at 10,228.

Mr. Tucker from ONDCP observed that it is just as dangerous as alcohol-impaired driving,

citing such facts as:

    Approximately one in eight weekend, night time drivers tested positive for illicit drugs in 2007.

    In 2009, 1 in 3 drivers killed in a motor vehicle crash with a known drug test result tested positive for an illegal drug.

    Cannabinoids were reported in almost half (43%) of the fatally injured drivers aged 24 or younger who tested positive for drugs.

Source Mr. Benjamin Tucker, Deputy Director of State, Local, and Tribal Affairs for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). : NADCP 18th Annual Training Conference. DWI Courts Vo.5 Issue 4 July 2012

A large international study led by University of Adelaide researchers has found that women who use marijuana can more than double the risk of giving birth to a baby prematurely.

Preterm or premature birth – at least three weeks before a baby’s due date – can result in serious and life-threatening health problems for the baby, and an increased risk of health problems in later life, such as heart disease and diabetes.

A study of more than 3000 pregnant women in Adelaide, Australia and Auckland, New Zealand has detailed the most common risk factors for preterm birth. The results have been published online today in the journal PLoS ONE.

The research team, led by Professor Gus Dekker from the University of Adelaide’s Robinson Institute and the Lyell McEwin Hospital, found that the greatest risks for spontaneous preterm birth included:

* Strong family history of low birth weight babies (almost six times the risk);
* Use of marijuana prior to pregnancy (more than double the risk);
* Having a mother with a history of pre-eclampsia (more than double the risk);
* Having a history of vaginal bleeds (more than double the risk);
* Having a mother with diabetes type 1 or 2 (more than double the risk).

The team also found that the greatest risk factors involved in the preterm rupture of membranes leading to birth included:
* Mild hypertension not requiring treatment (almost 10 times the risk);
* Family history of recurrent gestational diabetes (eight times the risk);
* Receiving some forms of hormonal fertility treatment (almost four times the risk);
* Having a body mass index of less than 20 (more than double the risk).

“Our study has found that the risk factors for both forms of preterm birth vary greatly, with a wide variety of health conditions and histories impacting on preterm birth,” says Professor Dekker, who is the lead author of the study.

“Better understanding the risk factors involved in preterm birth moves us another step forward in potentially developing a test – genetic or otherwise – that will help us to predict with greater accuracy the risk of preterm birth. Our ultimate aim is to safeguard the lives of babies and their health in the longer term,” he says.

This study has been funded by the Premier’s Science and Research Fund (South Australian Government) and the New Enterprise Research Fund, Auckland NZ.

Source: University of Adelaide 7/17/2012

Concerned that this might on balance cause more deaths by limiting an effective treatment for opiate addiction, an expert panel convened by the US government has changed its mind on whether the risk of a fatal heart attack potentially posed by methadone justifies routine electrocardiogram screening of patients.

Summary

The QT interval (or QTc as corrected for the heart rate) is an indicator of heart function derived from electrocardiogram measures. It refers to the delay between two phases of the electrical activity of the heart which drives it in pumping blood round the body. The health risks associated with a prolonged interval are not clear. It can lead to torsades de pointes, a potentially life threatening heart attack, but some medications prolong the interval yet rarely cause this condition, and it can occur even when the interval is normal. The risk threshold has been set variously at for example 450ms (0.45 seconds) for men and 460ms to 470ms for women or 450ms for both, though it is generally accepted that intervals greater than 500ms pose a significant risk of torsades de pointes.

Some studies have reported that methadone may contribute to the elongation of the QT interval, heightening the risk of torsades de pointes. In response the US government convened an expert panel to assess the risk to patients and make recommendations to enhance their cardiac safety. The featured article is the latest report of that panel, superseding an earlier version.

The panel framed its recommendations on the understanding that methadone must remain widely available because it has been associated with an overall reduction in deaths, there are few therapeutic alternatives, and it is cost-effective. Treatment providers are encouraged to consider the report and take action to the extent that they are clinically, administratively, and financially able to do so, but nothing in the report is intended to create a legal standard of care or accreditation requirement, or to interfere with the judgment of the clinicians treating the patients.

Main findings

Based on evidence published in the peer-reviewed literature, the panel concluded that both oral and intravenous methadone are not just associated with QT prolongation but actually cause it. Prolongation to over 500ms is thought to confer a significant risk of heart arrhythmias. In all but one study of methadone maintenance treatment, a QT of this level was seen in 2% of patients. Taken in the aggregate, the evidence also supports the view that as methadone doses increase, so too does the likelihood of significant QT prolongation.

The panel’s recommendations

Panel members agreed that their recommendations must preserve patients’ access to addiction treatment. Among patients with QT prolongation related to relatively high doses of methadone, it is unclear to what degree reducing doses would risk them relapsing [to illicit opiate use], but higher doses are associated with better treatment retention and better outcomes.

The Panel affirmed that methadone can be used with reasonable assurance that it is effective and that its benefits exceed its risks, providing that the potential for QT prolongation is recognised, that patients receive electrocardiogram screening at indicated intervals, and that appropriate clinical action is taken in the presence of significant QT prolongation.

Panel members agreed that, to the extent possible, every opioid treatment programme should have a cardiac risk management plan with the following elements:
• Clinical assessment: Intake assessments should include: a complete medication history; personal and family history of structural heart disease; any personal history of arrhythmia or syncope (fainting); and use of QT-prolonging medications or illicit drugs such as cocaine which also have this effect.
• Electrocardiogram assessment: Largely due to concerns over the resource implications and its effectiveness in achieving meaningful reductions in methadone-associated cardiac events, panel members and ex officio members could not agree whether to recommend routine electrocardiogram screening within the first 30 days of treatment. However, they did agree that a baseline electrocardiogram at the time of admission and within 30 days should be performed on patients with significant risk factors for QT prolongation. Among these patients, additional tests should be performed annually or whenever the methadone dose exceeds 120mg a day. In addition to scheduled electrocardiograms, any patient who experiences unexplained syncope or generalised seizures should be tested. If marked QT prolongation is documented, torsades de pointes should be suspected and the patient hospitalised for monitoring through telemetry.
• Risk stratification: If the QT interval is over 450ms but less than 500ms, methadone may be initiated or continued, accompanied by a risk-benefit discussion with the patient and more frequent monitoring. For methadone-maintained patients with marked QT prolongation of 500ms or more, strong consideration should be given to adopting a risk minimisation strategy, such as reducing the methadone dose, eliminating other contributing factors, transitioning the patient to an alternative treatment such as buprenorphine, or discontinuing methadone treatment.

Methadone-related cardiac risk should be mentioned in the informed consent document presented to patients at intake, and patients should receive plain-language educational materials explaining this risk. Medical staff too should be educated about the risks posed by a prolonged QT interval and trained in assessing patients for risk of torsades de pointes and other cardiac problems.

The panel acknowledged that acting on these conclusions will challenge many opioid addiction treatment programmes. Identifying clinically relevant QT prolongation remains difficult, given the variability of electrocardiogram machine measurements and the difficulty of defining the precise risk a prolonged QT portends for any given individual. Programmes will find it a challenge to integrate cardiac arrhythmia risk assessment into the care of opioid-addicted patients without reducing access to vital addiction treatment services. The panel was also aware that not all methadone maintenance treatment providers can administer an electrocardiogram to every patient in all the circumstances they recommended. Opioid addiction treatment programmes and other providers are encouraged to consider implementing these conclusions to the extent that they are practically or financially capable of doing so.

Source: Martin J.A., Campbell A., Killip T. et al.
Journal of Addictive Diseases: 2011, 30, p. 283–306.

 

Toxic chemicals used to rid rodents from illicit marijuana gardens in the Sierra Nevada range and elsewhere in California may have inadvertently poisoned dozens of vulnerable weasel-like mammals called fishers, according to a new study released today.

Biologists from UC Davis, the nonprofit Integral Ecology Research Center, and state and federal land agencies found that nearly 80 percent of a sample size of fishers found dead in the wild were exposed directly or indirectly to anticoagulant rodenticides – rat poison. They point to illegal marijuana cultivation as a likely culprit for the introduction of the chemicals to remote areas where the animals live.

Fishers are members of the weasel family and formerly ranged across the northern forests of North America. But logging and fur trappers lured by their once-valuable pelts drove the fishers’ numbers down, wiping them out in some parts of the United States. The sample group of the rare animals, which could be listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act, were found over a five-year period ending in 2011 in Northern California and in the southern Sierra Nevada range. Some of the dead animals were found in remote wilderness areas with no roads or campground access.

The study, which documented exposure to such poisons in fishers for the first time, raises questions about the threat to other rare forest predators, such as the Sierra Nevada red fox, wolverine, gray wolf and various owl species. It also raises questions about the long-term environmental impacts from marijuana gardens treated with the poisons, which have become increasingly toxic as rodents build resistance to the chemicals. Nearly all of the fishers that died after coming into contact with the anticoagulants were exposed to highly toxic versions of the chemical.

Mourad Gabriel, a doctoral candidate at UC Davis and the study’s lead author, said in an interview that researchers were surprised to see such high levels of the chemicals in carnivores, which, he said, “really opened a can of worms,” including possible exposure to humans.

“To humans, the threat is [the poisons used in marijuana gardens] can go into other species such as game resources for humans,” he said. “It does pose a risk.

Drug enforcement authorities worry that the toxic chemicals could harm humans in more insidious ways – by smoking or ingesting marijuana that has been contaminated by rat poison, insecticides and other chemicals that ward off pests. Tommy LaNier, who directs the White House-funded National Marijuana Initiative, said other studies may be conducted to look at the long-term effects of chemicals sprayed on or applied near marijuana plants.

“This study is a real breakthrough on the effects of anticoagulants on wildlife,” he said. “The animals bleed to death, their internal organs turn to mush. … It’s a terrible death.”

The authors also warn that the use of the common rat poisons may need to be regulated further so only pest control professionals can use them. Some scientific studies have found anticoagulants in mountain lions and bobcats, but those incidents occurred in places with human development, either in urban areas or rural or agricultural land.

The authors point out that the deaths occurred within a short time period – from mid-April to mid-May, which is when marijuana gardens are often planted and seedlings are particularly susceptible to rodent damage. The chemicals are often placed near irrigation lines and hoses to prevent rodents from chewing through them.

“Our findings demonstrate that anticoagulant rodenticides, which were not previously investigated in fishers or other remote forest carnivores, are a cause of mortality and may represent a conservation threat to these isolated California populations,” the authors write. “Because we do not know the long-term ecological ramifications of these toxicants left on site long after marijuana grows are dismantled, heightened efforts should be focused on the removal of these toxicants at these and adjacent areas at the time of dismantling.”

State and federal land managers report that marijuana gardens on public lands have become an increasing problem over the past decade or so, with growers pushing into seemingly inaccessible terrain.

Authorities in California and elsewhere have long aimed to link illicit marijuana gardens on public lands with environmental damage – from diverting water resources and producing copious waste to trampling native vegetation and killing bears and other wildlife that may threaten the gardens, or the gardeners.

As part of the nation’s intelligence community funding authorization for 2012, federal lawmakers last year directed top intelligence officials to consult with public land managers on how to address the issue of illegal grows, including the use of spy satellites and other equipment if necessary.

Yet, as California struggles with the issue of marijuana cultivation on public lands amid its budget crisis, such damage may linger for years as the state’s park system doesn’t have designated funds to clean up grow sites.

“We do not have a Department budget at the State level that is set aside and identified as funding to go toward marijuana eradication and the cleanup of pot gardens,” California State Parks spokesman Roy Stearns wrote in an email. “If the Districts and Sector have a garden and wish to take action, they must find the money in their existing budget to do the work.”

Source: recorder@portervillerecorder.com July 16, 2012

 

Filed under: USA :

 

Public lands and wildlife destroyed by marijuana grows in the USA -11 pot grow sites raided – dangers to human food chain of toxic chemicals.

Officers with the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department cleared more than 106,000 marijuana plants worth an estimated $319 million over the week and a half. Most of the gardens were in the hills above Porterville.

The sheriff’s department announced Saturday that over the previous 10 days day, detectives from the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department S.T.E.P. Unit completed several months of investigations by conducting marijuana grow site raid/eradication operations on public and private lands throughout the mountainous areas of Tulare County.

Four men are in custody.

Officers raided 11 marijuana gardens over the period. While the four suspects were apprehended in various grow sites during raids, additional suspects fled into the thick underbrush and steep terrain and have not been apprehended.

Approximately 106,525 live marijuana plants were seized. The sheriff’s department said if allowed to fully mature each of these plants would yield in excess of one pound of usable marijuana bud with a street value over $3,000 per pound, thus the total value of
$319,587,000 of marijuana was destroyed.

The operations were conducted with the assistance of Federal Officers from the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s C.E.R.T. program (Cannabis Eradication & Reclamation Teams.)

In addition to the marijuana plants seized, detectives also seized several firearms, ammunition for various pistols, rifles and shotguns and multiple pounds of fertilizer, pesticides and rat poison. Carcasses of various animals were discovered in several of the grow sites, including one of an endangered Ring-Tailed Cat and evidence of a bear cub being shot by growers on U.S. Forest lands.

Detectives and federal officers removed trash, water hose, pesticides and fertilizers from the public land gardens and restored as much of the natural streams and creeks which had been diverted by growers as possible (a process known as reclamation.) Additional work will be done on these areas to restore them to their natural state after the marijuana season, to lessen the danger to workers on those projects.

This article comes to us courtesy of California Watch.

 

Filed under: USA :

Glial cells, not neurons, are responsible for marijuana-induced forgetfulness.

Until recently, most scientists believed that neurons were the all-important brain cells controlling mental functions and that the surrounding glial cells were little more than neuron supporters and “glue.” Now research published in March in Cell reveals that astrocytes, a type of glia, have a principal role in working memory. And the scientists made the discovery by getting mice stoned.

Marijuana impairs working memory—the short-term memory we use to hold on to and process thoughts. Think of the classic stoner who, midsentence, forgets the point he was making. Although such stupor might give recreational users the giggles, people using the drug for medical reasons might prefer to maintain their cognitive capacity.

To study how marijuana impairs working memory, Giovanni Marsicano of the University of Bordeaux in France and his colleagues removed cannabinoid receptors—proteins that respond to marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient THC—from neurons in mice. These mice, it turned out, were just as forgetful as regular mice when given THC: they were equally poor at memorizing the position of a hidden platform in a water pool. When the receptors were removed from astrocytes, however, the mice could find the platform just fine while on THC.

The results suggest that the role of glia in mental activity has been overlooked. Although research in recent years has revealed that glia are implicated in many unconscious processes and diseases [see “The Hidden Brain,” by R. Douglas Fields; Scientific American Mind, May/June 2011], this is one of the first studies to suggest that glia play a key role in conscious thought. “It’s very likely that astrocytes have many more functions than we thought,” Marsicano says. “Certainly their role in cognition is now being revealed.”

Unlike THC’s effect on memory, its pain-relieving property appears to work through neurons. In theory, therefore, it might be possible to design THC-type drugs that target neurons—but not glia—and offer pain relief without the forgetfulness

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=marijuana-reveals-memory-mechanism&WT.mc_id=SA_2012.07.16


New research from BioMed Central’s journal Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, and reported in Medical News Today, found a link between traumatic childhood experience, especially for women, and adult smoking patterns. Researchers suggest that treatment and strategies to stop smoking need to take into account the psychological effects of childhood trauma.

Traumatic childhood experiences can range from emotional, physical, and sexual abuse to neglect and household dysfunction and affect a large range of people. In one of the largest studies of adverse childhood experiences (ACE), more than 60 percent of adults reported a history of at least one event. ACEs are thought to have a long term effect on the development of children and can lead to unhealthy coping behavior later in life.

Since psychiatric disorders, including depression and anxiety, are known to increase the risk of smoking, researchers across the U.S. collaborated to investigate the effects of psychological distress on the relationship between ACE and current adult smoking. The ACE
questionnaire was completed by over 7000 people, about half of whom were women.

Even after adjusting the data for factors known to affect a person’s propensity for smoking, such as their parents smoking during the subject’s childhood, and whether or not they had drunk alcohol in the previous month), women who had been physically or emotionally abused were 1.4 times more likely to smoke. Having had a parent in prison during childhood doubled chances of women smoking.

“Since ACEs increase the risk of psychological distress for both men and women, it seemed intuitive that an individual experiencing an ACE will be more likely to be a tobacco cigarette smoker. However, in our study, ACEs only increased the risk of smoking among women. Given this, men who have experienced childhood trauma may have different coping mechanisms than their female counterparts,” notes Dr Tara Strine, who led this study.

Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/247797.php. July 2012

Filed under: Nicotine,Youth :

A new method of drug testing developed by researchers at RTI International makes it possible to detect a wider range of synthetically produced ‘designer’ drugs.

Designer drugs — which include the currently popular products known as “spice” or “bath salts” — are a new form of drugs that are easy to manufacture and difficult to recognize using traditional testing methods.
Traditional tests, which use targeted mass spectrometry to match a compound’s chemical makeup with that of a known drug, can’t identify many of these new synthetic drugs.
Because these substances are continually being developed, many of them are not yet classified as illegal, but they provide a similar high as the traditional substance they are imitating.
RTI’s new method has the potential to aid law enforcement in the detection and control of this growing area of drug abuse.
Instead of relying on an exact match, RTI’s approach looks more generally for compounds whose fractional mass — the compound’s molecular weight that lies to the right of the decimal point — is similar to that of a known drug.
“Detecting designer drugs is challenging because as bans on specific compounds go into effect, manufacturers can substitute a closely related substance, creating a constantly moving target,” said Megan Grabenauer, Ph.D., a research chemist at RTI and lead
investigator of the study. “But while the structure of designer drugs can be altered to avoid detection, the fractional mass stays relatively stable, making it a useful marker for identification.”
In a pilot study, published in the July 3 issue of Analytical Chemistry, researchers tested 32 herbal incense samples for synthetic cannabinoids, which produce psychotropic effects
similar to those of cannabis but with more common and severe side effects, which include agitation, hallucinations, seizures and panic attacks.
Using high-resolution mass spectrometry and mass defect filtering, the researchers analyzed the fractional masses of all components in each sample to determine if any of them were similar to that of JWH-018 (0.1858 Dalton), a banned synthetic cannabinoid.
The researchers found that each of the samples contained at least one synthetic cannabinoid and some contained multiple types. Several were unexpected new compounds that would have been missed by traditional tests.
“The benefit to this approach over traditional targeted analyses is that it gives insight into the identities of components of an unknown sample,” said Brian Thomas, Ph.D., senior director of Analytical Chemistry and Pharmaceutics at RTI and one of the paper’s co-authors. “Additional tests must be run for confirmation, but the method provides valuable information about the compound’s possible identity, and a starting place for selection of an appropriate reference standard.”

Source: RTI International (2012, July 12). Advanced drug testing method detects ‘spice’ drugs.


A change in the formula of the frequently abused prescription painkiller OxyContin has many abusers switching to a drug that is potentially more dangerous, according to researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

The formula change makes inhaling or injecting the opioid drug more difficult, so many users are switching to heroin, the scientists report in the July 12 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

For nearly three years, the investigators have been collecting information from patients entering treatment for drug abuse. More than 2,500 patients from 150 treatment centers in 39 states have answered survey questions about their drug use with a particular focus on the reformulation of OxyContin. The widely prescribed pain-killing drug originally was thought to be part of the solution to the abuse of opioid drugs because OxyContin was designed to be released into the system slowly, thus not contributing to an immediate “high.” But drug abusers could evade the slow-release mechanism by crushing the pills and inhaling the powder, or by dissolving the pills in water and injecting the solution, getting an immediate rush as large amounts of oxycodone entered the system all at once.

In addition, because OxyContin was designed to be a slow-release form of the generic oxycodone, the pills contained large amounts of the drug, making it even more attractive to abusers. Standard oxycodone tablets contained smaller amounts of the drug and did not produce as big a rush when inhaled or injected.
Then in 2010, a new formulation of the drug was introduced. The new pills were much more difficult to crush and dissolved more slowly. The idea, according to principal investigator Theodore J. Cicero, PhD, was to make the drug less attractive to illicit users who wanted to experience an immediate high.

“Our data show that OxyContin use by inhalation or intravenous administration has dropped significantly since that abuse-deterrent formulation came onto the market,” says Cicero, a professor of neuropharmacology in psychiatry. “In that sense, the new formulation was very successful.”

The researchers still are analyzing data, but Cicero says they wanted to make their findings public as quickly as possible. The new report appears as a letter to the editor in the journal. Although he found that many users stopped using OxyContin, they didn’t stop using drugs.

“The most unexpected, and probably detrimental, effect of the abuse-deterrent formulation was that it contributed to a huge surge in the use of heroin, which is like OxyContin in that it also is inhaled or injected,” he says. “We’re now seeing reports from across the country of large quantities of heroin appearing in suburbs and rural areas. Unable to use OxyContin easily, which was a very popular drug in suburban and rural areas, drug abusers who prefer snorting or IV drug administration now have shifted either to more potent opioids, if they can find them, or to heroin.”

Since the researchers started gathering data from patients admitted to drug treatment centers, the number of users who selected OxyContin as their primary drug of abuse has decreased from 35.6 percent of respondents before the release of the abuse-deterrent formulation to 12.8 percent now.

When users answered a question about which opioid they used to get high “in the past 30 days at least once,” OxyContin fell from 47.4 percent of respondents to 30 percent. During the same time period, reported use of heroin nearly doubled.
In addition to answering a confidential questionnaire when admitted to a drug treatment program, more than 125 of the study subjects also agreed to longer phone interviews during which they discussed their drug use and the impact of the new OxyContin formulation on their individual choices.

“When we asked if they had stopped using OxyContin, the normal response was ‘yes,'” Cicero says. “And then when we asked about what drug they were using now, most said something like: ‘Because of the decreased availability of OxyContin, I switched to heroin.'”

These findings may explain why so many law enforcement officials around the country are reporting increases in heroin use, Cicero says. He compares attempts to limit illicit drug use to a levee holding back floodwaters. Where the new formulation of OxyContin may have made it harder for abusers to use that particular drug, the “water” of illicit drug use simply has sought out other weak spots in the “levee” of drug policy.

“This trend toward increases in heroin use is important enough that we want to get the word out to physicians, regulatory officials and the public, so they can be aware of what’s happening,” he says. “Heroin is a very dangerous drug, and dealers always ‘cut’ the drug with something, with the result that some users will overdose. As users switch to heroin, overdoses may become more common.”
Funding for this research comes from the Denver Health and Hospital Authority, which provided an unrestricted research grant to fund the Survey of Key Informants’ Patients (SKIP) Program, a component of the RADARS (Researched Abuse, Diversion and Addition-Related Surveillance) System.

Source: . Effect of Abuse-Deterrent Formulation of OxyContin. New England Journal of Medicine, 2012; 367 (2): 187 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1204141


A NIDA-supported clinical trial, the Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human
Experimental Research (MOTHER) study, has found buprenorphine to be a safe and effective alternative to methadone for treating opioid dependence during pregnancy. Women who received either medication experienced similar rates of pregnancy complications and gave birth to infants who were comparable on key indicators of neonatal health and development. Moreover, the infants born to women who received buprenorphine had milder symptoms of neonatal opioid withdrawal than those born to women who received methadone.

Methadone and buprenorphine maintenance therapy are both widely used to help individuals with opioid dependence achieve and sustain abstinence. Methadone has been the standard of care for the past 40 years for opioid-dependent pregnant women.

However, interest is growing in the possible use of buprenorphine, a more recently approved medication, as another option for the treatment of opioid addiction during pregnancy.

“Our findings suggest that buprenorphine treatment during pregnancy has some advantages for infants compared with methadone and is equally safe,” says Dr. Hendrée JonesExternal link, please review our disclaimer., who led the multicenter study while at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and is now at RTI International.

A Rigorous Trial Design
Methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) enhances an opioid-dependent woman’s chances for a trouble-free pregnancy and a healthy baby. Compared with continued opioid abuse, MMT lowers her risk of developing infectious diseases, including hepatitis and HIV; of experiencing pregnancy complications, including spontaneous abortion and miscarriages; and of having a child with challenges including low birth weight and neurobehavioral problems.

Along with these benefits, MMT may also produce a serious adverse effect. Like most drugs, methadone enters fetal circulation via the placenta. The fetus becomes dependent on the medication during gestation and typically experiences withdrawal when it separates from the placental circulation at birth. The symptoms of withdrawal, known as neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) include hypersensitivity and hyperirritability, tremors, vomiting, respiratory difficulties, poor sleep, and low-grade fevers. Newborns with NAS often require hospitalization and treatment, during which they receive medication (often morphine) in tapering doses to relieve their symptoms while their bodies adapt to becoming opioid-free.

The MOTHER researchers hypothesized that buprenorphine maintenance could yield methadone’s advantages for pregnant women with less neonatal distress. Buprenorphine, like methadone, reduces opioid craving and alleviates withdrawal symptoms without the safety and health risks related to acquiring and abusing drugs. Therapeutic dosing with buprenorphine, as with methadone, avoids the extreme fluctuations in opioid blood concentrations that occur in opioid abuse and place physiological stress on both the mother and the fetus. However, unlike methadone, buprenorphine is a partial rather than full opioid and so might cause less severe fetal opioid dependence than methadone therapy.

The MOTHER study recruited women as they sought treatment for opioid dependence at six treatment centers in the United States
and one in Austria. All the women were 6 to 30 weeks pregnant. The research team initiated treatment with morphine for each woman, stabilized her dose, and then followed with the daily administration of buprenorphine therapy or MMT for the remainder
of her pregnancy. Throughout the trial, the team increased each woman’s medication dosage as needed to ease withdrawal symptoms.

The study incorporated design features to ensure that its findings would be valid. Among the most notable were measures taken to prevent biases that might arise if staff and participants knew which medication a woman was getting.

To treat the participants without knowing which medication each woman was receiving, the study physicians wrote all prescriptions in pairs, one for each medication, in equivalent strengths. Study pharmacists matched the patient’s name and ID number to her medication group and filled only the prescription for the medication she was taking.

Each day, participants dissolved seven tablets under their tongues and then swallowed a syrup. If a woman was in the buprenorphine group, one or more of her tablets contained that medication, depending on her prescribed dosage, while the rest of the tablets and the syrup were placebos. If a woman was in the methadone group, the syrup contained that medication in her prescribed strength and the tablets all were placebos. In this way, each woman’s complement of medications appeared identical to that of every other participant. The placebo tablets and syrup were crafted to look, taste, and smell like the active medications.

As Good For Mothers, Better for Infants
Of 175 women who started a study medication, 131 continued until they gave birth. Those who received MMT and those given buprenorphine experienced similar pregnancy courses and outcomes. The two groups of women did not differ significantly in maternal weight gain, positive drug screens at birth, percentage of abnormal fetal presentations or need for Cesarean section, need for analgesia during delivery, or serious medical complications at delivery.

As the MOTHER researchers had hypothesized, the infants whose mothers were treated with buprenorphine experienced milder NAS than those infants exposed to methadone (see graph). Whereas most infants in both groups required morphine to control NAS, the buprenorphine group, on average, needed only 11 percent as much, finished its taper in less than half the time, and remained in the hospital roughly half as long as the infants exposed to methadone.

At Dr. Gabriele Fischer’s Medical University of Vienna site in Austria, three women became pregnant for a second time during the time MOTHER was enrolling participants. This development allowed researchers to compare the two medications’ relative safety and efficacy in individual women as well as across groups. During her second pregnancy, each of the three women took the alternative medication to the one she took in her first pregnancy. In each instance, the child born following buprenorphine treatment exhibited milder NAS symptoms than the one born following methadone treatment. This result suggests that differences in the effects of the two medications, rather than women’s individual differences in physiology, underlie the group findings.

“Buprenorphine may be a good option for pregnant women, particularly those who are new to treatment or who become pregnant
while on this medication,” says Dr. Jones. “If a patient is on methadone maintenance and stable, however, she should remain on methadone.”

MOTHER researchers observed that although the women in their buprenorphine and methadone groups benefited equally from treatment, the drop-out rate was higher in the buprenorphine group (33 vs. 18 percent). This difference was not statistically
significant. The researchers speculate that if it is meaningful, it may be owing to factors other than different responses to the two medications. They surmise that the experimental treatment protocols may have moved patients from morphine to buprenorphine too rapidly, causing discomfort, or that buprenorphine may have been easier than methadone to discontinue when women decided to become abstinent.

The MOTHER study did not include women with some substance use disorders that are commonly comorbid with opioid abuse.

“Future studies should compare neonatal abstinence syndrome, birth outcomes, and maternal outcomes of these two medications for pregnant women who also abuse alcohol and benzodiazepines,” Dr. Jones says.

“The field also needs data on neonatal outcomes when pregnant women are treated with buprenorphine combined with naloxone, the current first-line form of buprenorphine therapy for opioid dependence,” Dr. Jones notes. The MOTHER study administered buprenorphine without naloxone to avoid exposing the fetus to a second medication with potential adverse effects.

“Research challenges remaining after this brilliant study are to determine the factors that resulted in the differential drop-out rates between the two medications,” says Dr. Loretta P. Finnegan, who did pioneering work in the assessment and treatment of NAS. “Additionally, researchers need to conduct followup research on these children to determine the longer term significance of the differences in newborn withdrawal symptoms.” Dr. Finnegan, now president of Finnegan Consulting, was formerly the medical advisor to the director of the Office of Research on Women’s Health at the National Institutes of Health.

“Neonatal abstinence syndrome is a terrible experience for infants, and there is a great need to improve care for this condition,” says Dr. Jamie Biswas of NIDA’s Division of Pharmacotherapies and Medical Consequences of Drug Abuse. “Dr. Jones’ study is a superb contribution to this area of clinical research, and the robust results should provide more treatment options for a syndrome that affects thousands of infants each year.”

Sources:
Unger, A., et al. Randomized controlled trials in pregnancy: Scientific and ethical aspects. Exposure to different opioid
medications during pregnancy in an intra-individual comparison. Addiction 106(7):1355–1362, 2011. Abstract Available


Back to top of page - Back to Papers

Powered by WordPress