Addiction

Key topics

Overdose prevention services should be offered through HIV care

National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow explains the need to leverage the successes of HIV care to prevent overdose deaths. HIV and substance use are inextricably linked. An analysis of the New York City HIV surveillance registry found that in 2017, rates of overdose deaths for people with HIV were more than double overall overdose death rates for the city, but that 98% of those who died of overdose had been linked to HIV care after their HIV diagnosis and that more than three-quarters had been retained in care. This highlights an overlooked opportunity to save lives. Drug overdose claims more lives of people with HIV than HIV-related illness. Volkow says 81% of people who received an HIV diagnosis in 2019 in the U.S. were linked to HIV care within a month, 66% received care and 50% were retained in care. It is sometimes hard to reach people who use drugs with substance use treatment or harm reduction, but when people with HIV seek and receive treatment for HIV, it presents a promising opportunity to deliver addiction services. Delivering naloxone and overdose education in HIV care settings is a relatively easy way to prevent overdose deaths.

Source: We should leverage the successes of HIV care to prevent overdose mortality (National Institute on Drug Abuse)

Hemp legalization opened the door to intoxicating products

Lawmakers who backed hemp legalization in the 2018 Farm Bill expected the plant to be used for textiles and nonintoxicating supplements. They did not realize that, with some chemistry, hemp can get you high. People anywhere in the U.S. can use hemp-derived THC without breaking federal law. Hemp and marijuana are varieties of the same plant species. Marijuana is defined by its high content of delta-9 THC. Hemp contains very little delta-9 THC but can contain a large amount of CBD, a cannabinoid that does not get you high. The Controlled Substances Act explicitly outlawed both hemp and marijuana. The Farm Bill defines hemp in a way that allows the plant and products made with it as long as they contain less than 0.3% delta-9 THC, making it seemingly legal to convert CBD into delta-8 THC as long as the process started with a plant that contained less than 0.3% delta-9 THC. The Farm Bill also appears to authorize the creation of hemp-based delta-9 THC products as long as the total delta-9 content is 0.3% or less of the product’s dry weight. The hemp-derived cannabinoid industry is now worth billions of dollars, and hemp-derived intoxicants are available at vape shops and gas stations, but they are not regulated.

Source: Congress Accidentally Legalized Weed Six Years Ago (The Atlantic)

Federal news

Expanded access to methadone is needed

National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow highlights the need to expand access to methadone. Only a fraction of people who could benefit from medications for opioid use disorder receive them, due to a combination of structural and attitudinal barriers. In 2023, the federal government eliminated the waiver requirement for buprenorphine. This year, it changed methadone regulations to make permanent the increased take-home doses of methadone established during the COVID emergency, along with other provisions aimed to broaden access. Changes implemented during COVID have not been associated with adverse outcomes, and patients reported significant benefits. Recent trials of models of methadone dispensing in settings other than methadone clinics have not supported concerns that making methadone more widely available will lead to harms. Data suggest that counseling is not essential for reducing overdoses or retaining patients in care, though it can be beneficial for some. It will also be critical to pursue other ways that methadone can safely be made more available to a wider range of patients.

Source: Guest Editorial: To Address the Fentanyl Crisis, Greater Access to Methadone Is Needed (American Society of Addiction Medicine)

CDC defends overdose prevention work before House committee

Several top Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee to defend their agency’s programs. The hearing comes after House Republicans passed a budget that would cut CDC funding by 22%. Republicans claimed the agency has failed to fulfill its responsibilities and lost the public’s trust. Republicans accused the CDC of straying from its core mission of keeping the public healthy and said the agency is spending too much time on programs some GOP lawmakers deemed unnecessary or duplicative. The CDC program directors pushed back, citing work they deemed critical to public health. They emphasized three areas of focus – improving readiness and response to disease outbreaks, improving mental health and supporting young families. Allison Arwady, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which would be eliminated under the proposed funding bill, spoke about why the center’s work on overdose prevention is necessary.

Source: CDC Defense (Politico); CDC fields GOP criticism at E&C hearing (Politico)

Task force releases recommendations to protect youth from social media harms

The federal Kids Online Health and Safety Task Force released a report with recommendations and best practices for safer social media and online platform use for youth. The report provides a summary of the risks and benefits of social media on the health, safety and privacy of young people; best practices for parents and caregivers; recommended practices for industry; a research agenda; and suggested future work, including for the federal government. In collaboration with the Task Force, the Center of Excellence on Social Media and Youth Mental Health is launching a variety of new web content, including best practices resources; age-based handouts for parents that pediatricians and others can distribute at well-check visits; new clinical case examples for pediatricians and other clinicians demonstrating how to integrate conversations about media use into health consultations with teens; and expanded content for teens. The report outlines 10 recommended practices for online service providers.

Source: Kids Online Health and Safety Task Force Announces Recommendations and Best Practices for Safe Internet Use (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration)

FDA allows sale of tobacco-flavored Vuse e-cigarettes

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized sales of certain tobacco-flavored Vuse Alto e-cigarette products from R.J. Reynolds. Vuse is the top-selling e-cigarette brand in the country, comprising more than 40% of the market. The marketing authorization applies to six tobacco-flavored pods, which are sealed, prefilled and nonrefillable. Last year, the FDA banned the sale of Vuse Alto menthol and fruit-flavored e-cigarettes, citing increasing popularity among kids.

Source: FDA allows sale of best-selling tobacco e-cigarette Vuse (The Hill)

State and local news

Montana plans to install harm reduction vending machines

Montana health officials are considering a new strategy to make naloxone more accessible. Drawing on a pool of behavioral health funds set aside by lawmakers in 2023, health officials have proposed installing two dozen naloxone and fentanyl test strip vending machines around the state at behavioral health drop-in centers and service locations for homeless people. The $400,000 plan to build, stock and maintain 24 vending machines for a year has not yet been approved by the governor. Different versions of the harm reduction vending machine model are being tried in at least 33 states, becoming increasingly popular especially in places with hard-to-reach populations. Some local public health groups in Montana have already begun using vending machines to distribute free naloxone, drug testing strips and other supplies, using public grants or private philanthropy, but these would be the first vending machines in Montana being directly funded by the state.

Source: Montana’s Plan To Curb Opioid Overdoses Includes Vending Machines (KFF Health News)

Iowa providing $13 million to expand addiction treatment and recovery housing

Iowa Governor Reynolds announced that the state’s opioid treatment and recovery providers can begin applying for $13 million in grants to expand or improve facilities or develop sober living housing options. The funding opportunities were announced in May as part of a larger $17.5 million investment to help address the opioid crisis. The $10 million Iowa Opioid Treatment and Recovery Infrastructure Grant will assist opioid treatment and recovery providers with physical infrastructure and capacity building. The Iowa Recovery Housing Fund includes $3 million for grants for nonprofit organizations to develop sober recovery housing. The grants leverage federal American Rescue Plan Act funds. An additional $1.5 million will be used for programs focused on prevention, including a $1 million education initiative for health care providers to support opioid-alternative pain management and $500,000 for a comprehensive multimedia opioid overdose prevention campaign. The remaining $3 million will support the completion of a residential addiction treatment center for adolescents.

Source: Gov. Reynolds announces grant funding, education programs to support opioid prevention, treatment and recovery (Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds)

LAPPA releases model state laws to minimize harms of incarceration

The Legislative Analysis and Public Policy Association released two pieces of model state legislation. The first would require a state department of health and human services to apply for a Medicaid Reentry Section 1115 demonstration waiver to allow a state Medicaid program to cover pre-release services for Medicaid-eligible incarcerated individuals for up to 90 days prior to release and to require the department to conduct comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of the demonstration if the waiver is approved. The second is focused on reducing collateral consequences of conviction. It would establish a process for the identification, collection and publication of collateral consequences that impact individuals convicted of crimes; establish a process by which an individual can obtain a certificate of relief from certain collateral consequences before records are eligible to be sealed or expunged; establish mechanisms for the automatic sealing and expungement, as well as a process for petitioning; prohibit certain entities from inquiring into an individual’s criminal history; etc.

Source: Model Medicaid Reentry Section 1115 Demonstration Waiver Act; Model Relief from Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act (Legislative Analysis and Public Policy Association)

Other news in addiction policy

Mobile treatment vans can help expand methadone access

Some public health experts hope that mobile treatment programs will help increase access to methadone. Addiction experts say methadone is particularly important as the strength of street fentanyl has lessened the effectiveness of other medications and approaches for some. The mobile vans were approved by the federal government in 2021, lifting a moratorium on their use that had been in place since 2007. Their goal is to reach some of the millions of Americans with opioid use disorder that methadone clinics cannot. While the vans make treatment more accessible, the cost and ongoing restrictions limit the number of people that they can help, as well. Constructing and outfitting a methadone van costs about $375,000. They have to replicate the high-security environments of clinics, with a security guard, 360-degree cameras and a safe for the medication. There are now 42 vans registered nationally, though not all are operational yet.

Source: https://drugfree.org/drug-and-alcohol-news/policy-news-roundup-july-25-2024/

Filed under: Addiction,Crime/Violence/Prison,Heroin/Methadone,Latest News,Prevention and Intervention,Treatment and Addiction,USA,Youth :

This story was originally published by Mountain State Spotlight. Get stories like this delivered to your email inbox once a week; sign up for the free newsletter at mountainstatespotlight.org/newsletter

CHARLESTON — Dr. Rahul Gupta is back in West Virginia. The state’s former health officer has ventured west of Washington this week, hosting seven public discussions in Martinsburg and Charleston as part of his new role as White House Office of Drug Control Policy Director.

Over the last three years, Gupta and the Biden administration have taken significant steps to address the country’s devastating overdose crisis. They’ve promoted harm reduction aggressively, even finding ways to test out hard-sell, evidence-based strategies like safe injection sites.

Still, the addiction crisis continues to ravage U.S. families, especially in Gupta’s former state. Last year, about four West Virginians died of a drug overdose every day.

As the nation’s “drug czar,” Gupta is in a better position to advocate for addiction-related changes than just about anyone else.

Here are five steps the federal government could take to help abate West Virginia’s overdose crisis.

Change opioid treatment program restrictions

West Virginia has policies and regulations that restrict access to opioid addiction treatment. The state makes it difficult for some people with opioid use disorders to receive medications like methadone, which is considered a “gold standard” of treatment. Since 2007, West Virginia has limited the number of methadone clinics, the only places methadone can be prescribed to treat addiction, to nine locations.

But while that’s a state law, federal law is the reason methadone can only be prescribed for treating substance use disorder at these clinics.

People who research addiction have called on Congress to change this policy to allow doctors to prescribe methadone for addiction treatment outside of specialized clinics. Because West Virginia’s moratorium is focused on methadone clinics and not the medication itself, that type of change could make the treatment more accessible to state residents.

Last winter, when Gupta was asked in an interview about a federal bill that would accomplish parts of this goal, he stopped short of endorsing the proposed legislation. Instead, he said it’s important for Congress to “let the science and the data guide policy-making.”

Change restrictions on treatment for methamphetamine addiction

A decade ago, less than 5% of West Virginia fatal overdoses were related to methamphetamine. But that’s changed dramatically; last year, more than 50% of the state’s nearly 1,400 drug deaths involved meth.

That presents a difficult public health problem for West Virginia. Scientists have yet to develop reliable medications for treating methamphetamine addiction.

Of the available treatments, the most effective options are behavior training programs, also known as contingency management. These types of programs reward people regularly with money or other incentives for abstaining from a drug.

Dr. Philip Chan, an addiction and infectious disease researcher at Brown University, said if he could provide patients with $400 to $500 every two to three months, it would be more effective at keeping them from using meth. But the federal government caps contingency management payments at $75 a year.

Repeal the federal funding ban for syringes and needles

West Virginia has many restrictions around needle exchanges. In 2021, the Legislature passed a law that forces syringe service programs to offer a variety of other harm reduction services, and it instructs them to deny service to those who don’t have valid state IDs or return their used needles.

The additional requirements led many programs across the state to shutter. For the ones that remain, restrictions at the national level make it even more difficult to operate.

Needle exchanges are already prohibited from using federal funds to purchase clean needles and syringes. And there have been pushes, including from West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, to extend the prohibition to safe smoking devices as well.

Nikki Dolan, the Greenbrier Health Department administrator, said this policy makes it more difficult to fund her county’s only syringe service program.

“We’ve been doing harm reduction since 2018 and have never been able to purchase needles with grant funding,” she said.

Include West Virginia in the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative

West Virginia’s recent drug-related HIV outbreaks have been among the worst in the nation. In 2019, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stepped in to help with a Cabell County outbreak. A couple years later, the agency returned to address cases in Kanawha County, with one top health official calling the outbreak the “most concerning in the United States.”

West Virginia HIV cases have decreased over the last two years, but many doctors and researchers worry about undetected spread, especially in rural parts of the state.

Despite the national attention, no West Virginia counties are included in the federal government’s Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative. The program is designed to direct additional funding and resources to communities heavily impacted by the infectious disease.

Gregg Gonsalves, a Yale University School of Public Health professor who studies HIV transmission, said he was surprised to learn West Virginia and its counties weren’t included in the program.

He said Gupta, using his position in the federal government, could ask Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and CDC Director Mandy Cohen to include West Virginia or some of its counties in the initiative.

More funding for recovery residences

Even if state residents with addictions find and receive treatment, sustaining recovery can be challenging. West Virginians in recovery can struggle to find places to live where they aren’t around drugs or alcohol.

Recovery residences, also known as sober living houses, can help with that. The state and federal governments have said the housing units can help people in recovery avoid relapsing.

But in West Virginia, recovery residences often face financial barriers. A survey of state sober living homes last year found that the biggest challenge the organizations faced was financial resources, and the surveyed organizations said only 12% of their revenue comes from federal grants.

Jon Dower, the executive director of West Virginia Sober Living, said the federal government could make these grants easier for recovery residences to win, especially for people who are looking to start state-certified homes.

“If we look at what’s most needed in the recovery housing space in West Virginia, in my opinion it’s capacity,” he said.

Reach reporter Allen Siegler at allen@mountainstatespotlight.org

Source: https://www.timeswv.com/news/west_virginia/bidens-drug-czar-is-in-west-virginia-this-week-here-are-five-things-the-federal/article_43e1fe42-4b80-11ef-8ce1-6b4a5826d699.html

Filed under: Addiction,Drug use-various effects,Heroin/Methadone,Latest News,Prevalence,Prevention and Intervention,Treatment and Addiction,USA :

The number of drug overdoses in this country went down in 2023. But not enough.

Posted July 29, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

Key points

While overdoses from fentanyl went down in 2023, overdoses from cocaine and methamphetamine went up.
Increased availability of Narcan, harm-reduction practices, and drug seizures likely decreased deaths.
The best way to save lives and end the opioid epidemic is to prevent addiction in the first place.

With this tragic news just in, there are several important things to say about the drug overdose situation in this country.

The first is this: It is important that we don’t talk about the more than 107,000 overdose deaths in the United States last year like it’s just a statistic.

These are people’s lives that ended, people like you and me. People with friends and loved ones who cared about them, and who wanted them to succeed.

Evidence of an ongoing tragedy

This is where we are with the continuing drug epidemic, according to the recently released Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data from 2023:

107,543 people died from drug overdose deaths compared to 111,029 in 2022. That is a 3 percent decline.
2023 witnessed the first annual decrease in five years (since 2018).
Indiana, Kansas, Maine, and Nebraska each saw overdose deaths decrease by at least 15 percent. Note: We need to determine what’s working in those states, and replicate it elsewhere.
Alaska, Oregon, and Washington each saw overdose deaths increase by at least 27 percent. Note: We need to determine what’s not working in those states, and figure out solutions including by sharing best practices from states with lower overdose rates.)
While overdoses from fentanyl (the main driver of drug deaths) went down in 2023, overdoses from cocaine and methamphetamine went up.

Three developments that are helping to reduce deaths

1. Greater availability of Narcan: I’m a huge advocate for this overdose reversal drug, which is naloxone in nasal spray form. I have argued often that it should be as ubiquitous as the red-boxed automated external defibrillators (AEDs) you now see in malls, hotel lobbies, schools, airports, and workplaces.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took a big and meaningful step in that direction when it approved Narcan for over-the-counter use in March 2023. I have no doubt the increased availability of Narcan has helped bring the overdose numbers down, since Narcan targets opioids like fentanyl and heroin.

2. The stepping up of harm-reduction efforts: Harm reduction means reducing the health and safety dangers around drug use. The goal is to save lives and protect the health of people who use drugs through such measures as fentanyl test strips, overdose prevention sites, and sterilized injection equipment and services.

Harm reduction was a key plank of the White House’s 2022 National Drug Control Strategy aimed directly at the overdose epidemic. Countless harm-reduction efforts have gained traction at the local and state level as well. Again, this continued push may have helped bring down the overdose numbers last year.

3. Increased efforts around law enforcement drug seizures: Of the 107,543 people who overdosed in 2023, 74,702 (70 percent) of them did so after using the synthetic opioid fentanyl, which is many times more potent than heroin. For the first time in years, that number of deaths was lower than the year before.

Why? No doubt in part because 115 million pills containing fentanyl were seized by law enforcement in 2023. That compared to 71 million fentanyl-laced pills seized in 2022. These seizure efforts seem to be working, and they need to be stepped up even more.

Drug use prevention efforts must increase also

Ultimately, the best way to save lives, end the opioid epidemic, and halt the spread of substance use disorder is to stop people from becoming addicted in the first place.

The big news: Statistics show that drug use may be trending down among young people. Even delaying the onset of addiction can change the trajectory of the problem, says Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

When asked recently about the lower number of overdose deaths last year, Volkow said: “Research has shown that delaying the start of substance use among young people, even by one year, can decrease substance use for the rest of their lives. We may be seeing this play out in real time [in 2023]. The trend is reassuring.”

Final thoughts on turning the tide of addiction

As the antismoking campaign that began in the 1960s showed us, massive and well-coordinated public health efforts can work.

Surgeon General warning labels, hard-hitting public service announcements, school-based programs—all of those had a cumulative effect on smoking habits in this country, especially among young people. Those efforts all targeted one thing: prevention.

We need to do much more of that in 2024 around opioids, methamphetamines, cocaine, and other lethal drugs. Lives depend on it.

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/use-your-brain/202407/a-closer-look-at-107543-lives-lost-to-drug-overdoses

Filed under: Addiction,Cocaine,Drug use-various effects,Fentanyl,Heroin/Methadone,HIV/Injecting-Drug-Users,Latest News,Prevalence,Prevention and Intervention,Treatment and Addiction,USA :

By Nora D. Volkow and Tisha Wiley / July 9, 2024

Programs across the country are underway to offer naloxone, also sold as Narcan, in jails and prisons, paired with instruction, training, and social support

The overdose crisis is claiming lives across the United States, but it reaches new depths of despair in the criminal justice system. Overdose is the leading cause of death among people returning to their communities after being in jail or prison. Providing addiction treatment in these settings could change that.Roughly 60% of people who are incarcerated have a substance use disorder, in many cases an opioid use disorder. When people with addiction leave prison or jail and return to their communities, they are at very high risk of returning to drug use and overdosing. Their tolerance to drugs has diminished during incarceration, and fentanyl is pervasive in the street drug supply. Even one relapse could be fatal.It remains a common belief that simply stopping someone from taking drugs while in jail or prison is an effective approach to treatment. But that belief is inaccurate and dangerous. As scientists, we look to research to guide us. And when research shows strategies with clear benefits, they should be deployed.The Food and Drug Administration has approved three medications for opioid use disorder: methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone. All three are effective, safe, and lifesaving. But they are woefully underused, particularly in criminal justice settings.

Related: Rigid rules at methadone clinics are jeopardizing patients’ path to recovery from opioid addiction

A 2020 study in Rhode Island estimated that overdose deaths could be reduced by 30% in the state if jails and prisons made all three medications available to those who needed them. Studies also show that people who receive these medications while in jail or prison are less likely to return to substance use and more likely to continue with treatment in the community afterward.

Less than half of jails nationwide, and fewer than 10% of state prisons, offer all three medications. While 96% of jails did provide the overdose reversal drug naloxone to staff, only 1 in 3 provided naloxone and training on how to use it to decarcerated citizens during the critical period when they were returning to their communities.

Neglecting to provide access to these lifesaving treatments and harm-reduction measures creates deadly gaps for people when they leave jail or prison. The repercussions reverberate throughout communities and generations. They deepen racial inequities and overrepresentation of communities of color within the criminal justice system. They cause devastation for children and families.

Providing medications for opioid use disorder in jails and prisons benefits public health and public safety. It’s cost–effective. It can help break the cycle of recidivism. It can reduce the burden on the wider health care system, including emergency departments.

Programs across the country are underway to offer naloxone and medications for opioid use disorder in jails and prisons, paired with instruction, training, and social support. Federal agencies have launched programs to help people manage withdrawal in jails and provide financial health care support for people who are about to reenter the community. A recently published revised methadone rule now allows any jail or prison registered as a hospital or clinic to dispense medications for opioid use disorder in certain circumstances.

Law enforcement leaders are starting to see how addiction treatment increases safety for everyone. Chris Donelan, the sheriff of Franklin County, Mass., has partnered with researchers to study what happens when jails offer all three FDA-approved opioid use disorder medications. His jail became one of the few in the nation to be licensed as an opioid treatment program.

Related: Q&A: Nora Volkow on how to get ‘at least 50% less people dying’ from opioid overdose

“When someone is booked into our facility, often we are the first treatment provider the person has seen in years,” Donelan told his University of Massachusetts research partners. “These treatments save lives and help people enter into recovery. Treatment makes the work of our facility much easier. We have less fights, less contraband, and a much safer facility.”

Since 2019, the National Institutes of Health has funded partnerships across the country to figure out how to link people with addiction to care during and after their time in the corrections system. These researchers are poised to share new evidence as it emerges that will help other communities make data-driven changes so they can implement what is most efficient in justice settings.

There is still a long way to go. A dangerous supply of street drugs, fragmented treatment systems, lack of funding, lack of training, pervasive stigma, and complex logistics all work against people with substance use disorders as they work to rebuild their lives after incarceration. Support in recovery and continuity of care are essential during this vulnerable time.

Fundamentally, an individual’s best or only option to receive addiction treatment should not have to be during incarceration. In an ideal world, treatment and prevention systems in the U.S. would proactively address social drivers of health and mental health needs to stop the cycle between addiction and incarceration. Moving away from criminalization of substance use disorders toward a public-health approach would remove a key structural practice that perpetuates inequalities. It would improve lives for people and their families.

The Authors

Nora D. Volkow, M.D., is a psychiatrist, scientist, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which is part of the National Institutes of Health.

Tisha Wiley, Ph.D., is a social psychologist, associate director for justice systems at NIDA, and leads the NIH Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network initiative, which studies approaches to increase high-quality care for people in justice settings with opioid misuse or opioid use disorder.

Source: https://www.statnews.com/2024/07/09/providing-addiction-treatment-prisons-jails/

Filed under: Addiction,Crime/Violence/Prison,Latest News,Treatment and Addiction,USA :

Vienna, 26 June 2024

The emergence of new synthetic opioids and a record supply and demand of other drugs has compounded the impacts of the world drug problem, leading to a rise in drug use disorders and environmental harms, according to the World Drug Report 2024 launched by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) today.

“Drug production, trafficking, and use continue to exacerbate instability and inequality, while causing untold harm to people’s health, safety and well-being,” said Ghada Waly, Executive Director of UNODC. “We need to provide evidence-based treatment and support to all people affected by drug use, while targeting the illicit drug market and investing much more in prevention.”

The number of people who use drugs has risen to 292 million in 2022, a 20 per cent increase over 10 years. Cannabis remains the most widely used drug worldwide (228 million users), followed by opioids (60 million users), amphetamines (30 million users), cocaine (23 million users), and ecstasy (20 million users).

Nitazenes – a group of synthetic opioids which can be even more potent than fentanyl – have recently emerged in several high-income countries, resulting in an increase in overdose deaths.

Though an estimated 64 million people worldwide suffer from drug use disorders, only one in 11 is in treatment. Women receive less access to treatment than men, with only one in 18 women with drug use disorders in treatment versus one in seven men.

In 2022, an estimated 7 million people were in formal contact with the police (arrests, cautions, warnings) for drug offences, with about two-thirds of this total due to drug use or possession for use. In addition, 2.7 million people were prosecuted for drug offences and over 1.6 million were convicted globally in 2022, though there are significant differences across regions regarding the criminal justice response to drug offences.

The Report includes special chapters on the impact of the opium ban in Afghanistan; synthetic drugs and gender; the impacts of cannabis legalization and the psychedelic “renaissance”; the right to health in relation to drug use; and how drug trafficking in the Golden Triangle is linked with other illicit activities and their impacts.

Drug trafficking is empowering organized crime groups

Drug traffickers in the Golden Triangle are diversifying into other illegal economies, notably wildlife trafficking, financial fraud, and illegal resource extraction. Displaced, poor, and migrant communities are suffering the consequences of this instability, sometimes forced to turn to opium farming or illegal resource extraction to survive, falling into debt entrapment with crime groups, or using drugs themselves.

These illicit activities are also contributing to environmental degradation through deforestation, the dumping of toxic waste, and chemical contamination.

Consequences of cocaine surge

A new record high of 2,757 tons of cocaine was produced in 2022, a 20 per cent increase over 2021. Global cultivation of coca bush, meanwhile, rose 12 per cent between 2021 and 2022 to 355,000 hectares. The prolonged surge in cocaine supply and demand has coincided with a rise in violence in states along the supply chain, notably in Ecuador and Caribbean countries, and an increase in health harms in countries of destination, including in Western and Central Europe.

Impact of cannabis legalization

As of January 2024, Canada, Uruguay, and 27 jurisdictions in the United States had legalized the production and sale of cannabis for non-medical use, while a variety of legislative approaches have emerged elsewhere in the world.

In these jurisdictions in the Americas, the process appears to have accelerated harmful use of the drug and led to a diversification in cannabis products, many with high-THC content. Hospitalizations related to cannabis use disorders and the proportion of people with psychiatric disorders and attempted suicide associated with regular cannabis use have increased in Canada and the United States, especially among young adults.

Psychedelic “renaissance” encourages broad access to psychedelics

Though interest in the therapeutic use of psychedelic substances has continued to grow in the treatment of some mental health disorders, clinical research has not yet resulted in any scientific standard guidelines for medical use.

However, within the broader “psychedelic renaissance”, popular movements are contributing to burgeoning commercial interest and to the creation of an enabling environment that encourages broad access to the unsupervised, “quasi-therapeutic” and non-medical use of psychedelics. Such movements have the potential to outpace the scientific therapeutic evidence and the development of guidelines for medical use of psychedelics, potentially compromising public health goals and increasing the health risks associated with the unsupervised use of psychedelics.

Implications of opium ban in Afghanistan

Following the drastic decrease of Afghanistan’s opium production in 2023 (by 95 per cent from 2022) and an increase in production in Myanmar (by 36 per cent), global opium production fell by 74 per cent in 2023. The dramatic contraction of the Afghan opiate market made Afghan farmers poorer and a few traffickers richer. Long-term implications, including on heroin purity, a switch to other opioids by heroin users, and/or a rise in demand for opiate treatment services may soon be felt in countries of transit and destination of Afghan opiates.

Right to health for people who use drugs

The report outlines how the right to health is an internationally recognized human right that belongs to all human beings, regardless of a person’s drug use status or whether a person is imprisoned, detained or incarcerated. It applies equally to people who use drugs, their children and families, and other people in their communities.

Source: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/press/releases/2024/June/unodc-world-drug-report-2024_-harms-of-world-drug-problem-continue-to-mount-amid-expansions-in-drug-use-and-markets.html

Filed under: Addiction,Cannabis/Marijuana,Cocaine,Effects of Drugs,Global Drug Legalisation Efforts,Latest News,Others (International News) :

Key Points

Question What reasons do physicians give for not addressing substance use and addiction in their clinical practice?

Findings In this systematic review of 283 articles, the institutional environment (81.2% of articles) was the most common reason given for physicians not intervening in addiction, followed by lack of skill (73.9%), cognitive capacity (73.5%), and knowledge (71.9%).

Meaning These findings suggest effort should be directed at creating institutional environments that facilitate delivery of evidence-based addiction care while improving access to both education and training opportunities for physicians to practice necessary skills.

Abstract

Importance The overdose epidemic continues in the US, with 107 941 overdose deaths in 2022 and countless lives affected by the addiction crisis. Although widespread efforts to train and support physicians to implement medications and other evidence-based substance use disorder interventions have been ongoing, adoption of these evidence-based practices (EBPs) by physicians remains low.

Objective To describe physician-reported reasons for reluctance to address substance use and addiction in their clinical practices using screening, treatment, harm reduction, or recovery support interventions.

Data Sources A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, medRxiv, and SSRN Medical Research Network was conducted and returned articles published from January 1, 1960, through October 5, 2021.

Study Selection Publications that included physicians, discussed substance use interventions, and presented data on reasons for reluctance to intervene in addiction were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers (L.N., M.C., L.F., J.P., C.S., and S.W.) independently reviewed each publication; a third reviewer resolved discordant votes (M.C. and W.C.). This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and the theoretical domains framework was used to systematically extract reluctance reasons.

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was reasons for physician reluctance to address substance use disorder. The association of reasons for reluctance with practice setting and drug type was also measured. Reasons and other variables were determined according to predefined criteria.

Results A total of 183 of 9308 returned studies reporting data collected from 66 732 physicians were included. Most studies reported survey data. Alcohol, nicotine, and opioids were the most often studied substances; screening and treatment were the most often studied interventions. The most common reluctance reasons were lack of institutional support (173 of 213 articles [81.2%]), knowledge (174 of 242 articles [71.9%]), skill (170 of 230 articles [73.9%]), and cognitive capacity (136 of 185 articles [73.5%]). Reimbursement concerns were also noted. Bivariate analysis revealed associations between these reasons and physician specialty, intervention type, and drug.

Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic review of reasons for physician reluctance to intervene in addiction, the most common reasons were lack of institutional support, knowledge, skill, and cognitive capacity. Targeting these reasons with education and training, policy development, and program implementation may improve adoption by physicians of EBPs for substance use and addiction care. Future studies of physician-reported reasons for reluctance to adopt EBPs may be improved through use of a theoretical framework and improved adherence to and reporting of survey development best practices; development of a validated survey instrument may further improve study results.

Introduction

NDPA WEBSITE: Note – In the interests of relative brevity, the References have been omitted from this published version.

Overdose is a leading cause of injury-related death in the US,¹ with 107 941 such deaths occurring in 2022² and annual deaths due to alcohol exceeding 140 000 from 2015 to 2019.³ The more than 46.3 million people in the US with a past-year substance use disorder⁴ and a nationwide economic impact of alcohol misuse and illicit drug use that tops $442 billion⁵ further evidences the magnitude of this crisis.

A variety of safe and effective evidence-based practices (EBPs) to identify, reduce the morbidity and mortality of, and treat substance use disorders exist. Examples include screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment,⁶^–10 as well as behavioral therapies and pharmacotherapies for nicotine, alcohol, and opioid use disorders.¹¹^–13 Furthermore, harm reduction approaches (eg, naloxone training and coprescribing, drug checking and testing, and syringe service programs) offer significant individual and public health benefits for people who use drugs and for those who do not have abstinence-based treatment goals.¹⁴^–16

Clinician adoption of EBPs is necessary; however, screening for substance use disorders remains low,⁷ creating missed opportunities to intervene in harmful substance use or recognize and discuss potential progression to a severe disorder. Treatment capacity is inadequate to meet demand,¹⁷ with only 6.3% of people with a past-year substance use disorder receiving treatment in the US in 2021.⁴ Our goal is to summarize published data on physician-described barriers to adoption of EBPs for addiction in clinical practice and recommend actions to address them.

Methods

Data Sources and Searches

This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. The search strategy was developed iteratively with a National Library of Medicine informationist specializing in systematic reviews. We applied this strategy on October 4, 2021, to PubMed, Embase, and Scopus and on October 5, 2021, to medRxiv and SSRN Medical Research Network. In addition, a gray literature search of relevant government and nongovernment websites was conducted on October 5, 2021. We found no previous similar systematic reviews. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022286208) and accepted on January 14, 2022.

Study Selection

A 12-person team used Covidence to apply exclusion criteria first to the title and abstract of each study then to the full text of studies not already excluded. Two people (L.N., M.C., L.F., J.P., C.S., and S.W.) reviewed each study in both rounds. Discordant opinions were resolved by a third reviewer (M.C. and W.C.). To be included, the study had to present data on: (1) physicians at any practice level; (2) any substance use intervention(s) (Box); and (3) physician reasons for reluctance to intervene in addiction. Studies not in English, letters, editorials, narrative reviews, and commentaries were excluded. Data collection on reasons for reluctance were systemized using the theoretical domains framework (TDF),¹⁸^,19 a comprehensive approach for identifying behavioral determinants and for assessing implementation problems (eg, clinicians’ behavior) to inform intervention development. The team created a data extraction template with 10 reluctance reason categories (Box). We did not formally assess risk of bias in included studies because few used experimental or controlled study designs. Due to patterns observed during data extraction, the team approved the ad hoc collection of data on factors (eg, using a theoretical framework, obtaining target audience input in survey design, and piloting surveys) that could affect the internal validity of individual studies or precision of results. We conducted a limited exploration of facilitators because we observed that many included studies provided at least some data on possible facilitators of intervention in addiction.

Definitions of Intervention Type and Reluctance Reasons

Intervention type and definition

Harm reduction: syringe services, overdose prevention, naloxone, or drug user health.
Screening and assessment: screening, assessment of positive screening, or diagnosis.
Treatment: brief intervention, medication management, or behavioral services.
Recovery support: care coordination, care integration, or relapse prevention.

Reason and definition^a

Knowledge: beliefs about having the necessary knowledge, awareness, or understanding, including knowledge of condition or scientific rationale, procedural knowledge, or knowledge of task environment.
Institutional environment: beliefs about support from institution or employer, including material resources, organizational culture, competing demands.
Skills: beliefs about having the necessary skills, ability, or proficiency to deliver the intervention.
Cognitive capacity: beliefs about the cognitive capacity to manage a level of expected complexity of care, possibly related to cognitive overload and mental fatigue.
Expectation of benefit: beliefs about the likelihood of the patient benefiting or the course of the disease being altered due to the intervention.
Social influences: beliefs about public or community acceptance or support for the intervention, including willingness to allocate or develop needed resources.
Emotion: feelings of fear, dislike, worry, negative judgement, worthiness of patient population.
Relationship: concern about harming or losing the patient-physician relationship by causing offense, provoking avoidance, or other negative consequence.
Reinforcement: beliefs about the adequacy of reimbursement, professional rewards, and other positive reinforcement.
Professional role/identity: beliefs about professional role, boundaries, and group identity, excluding the intervention.

^a Reasons are derived from the theoretical domains framework, a comprehensive approach for identifying behavioral determinants and assessing implementation problems (eg, clinicians’ behavior) to inform intervention development.

Data Analysis

We conducted a series of quantitative analyses using SPSS, version 27 (IBM). Analyses were selected based on their purpose; independent variable; dependent variable; and statistical requirements, including measurement levels. We examined reasons for reluctance by specialty, intervention, drug type, and year and common combinations of reasons for reluctance using bivariate analysis and cross-tabulation. We conducted a regression analysis of reasons for reluctance by year. Statistical significance was considered a 2-sided P value less than .05. The exploratory analyses of ad hoc study quality data were not part of the planned analysis and are descriptive only. We used Atlas.ti version 24 (Atlas.ti) to conduct thematic analysis to examine facilitators using the following themes: knowledge and skills, intrapersonal and interpersonal factors, infrastructure, and regulation reform.

Results

Study Characteristics

Our search yielded 9308 studies published between January 1, 1960, and October 5, 2021, with 1280 remaining after removal of duplicates and 552 assessed for eligibility (eFigure 1 in Supplement 1). Of 283 studies²⁰^–302 included (eTable 1 in Supplement 1), 97.30% were published in 2000 or later (Table 1). The number of studies increased over time. For example, 4 studies⁸⁹^,156^,184^,236were published in 2000 and 21³³^,48^,49,66^,68^,75^,77^,79^,93^,107^,108,113^,139^,142^,148^,240^,251^,255^,302^,306^,313 in 2021, with a high of 31 ⁸^,27^,47^,50^,52^,54^,69^,74^,92^,100^,114^,121^,146^,147,161^,165^,174^,182^,191^,193^,199^,204^,206^,209^,221^,247^,263^,270^,275^,287^,300 in 2020 (eTable 2, eTable 3, eTable 4, eTable 5, and eFigure 2 in Supplement 1). Together, the included studies describe the views of 66 732 physicians who largely practiced general practice, internal medicine, or family medicine primarily in an office setting in the US. Most studies reported survey-based research results. Of the 4 general categories of addiction interventions (Table 2), treatment was most often addressed, followed by screening and assessment, with harm reduction and recovery support least discussed. Some studies addressed more than 1 intervention. Alcohol (86 studies²⁰^,21,23^,25^,26,29^,31^,34^,36^,38^,41^,44^,51^,53^,54,57^,59^,60,62^,69^–72,81^,82,86^,88^,89,94^,95,103^,105^,111^,113^,117^,119^,123^–127,131^,132,138^,141^,150^,153^,155^,158^,160^,162^,164^,168^,170^,171,173^,176^,191^–193,196^–201,204^,205,210^,219^,235^,237^,248^,250^,254^,256^,258^,271^,281^,283^,285^,291^,294^,296^,299^,300), nicotine (30 studies²⁸^,40^,48^,49,52^,61^,73^,85^,97^,109^,118^,129^,134^,140^,142^,149^,179^,188^,190^,212^,218^,223^,231^,249^,252^,265^,270^,286^,288^,298), and opioids (104 studies³⁰^,32^,33,35^,37^,42^,46^,47,50^,55^,56,58^,64^,66^,74^–80,83^,84,87^,90^–92,98^–100,104^,106^–108,110^,112^,114^,115,121^,122,130^,133^,135^,137^,139^,143^,144,146^–148,151^,152,154^,156^,163^,165^,167^,172^,174^,180^,182^,184^,186^,189^,202^,203,206^,207,213^–216,221^,222,225^–228,238^–240,242^–245,247^,251^,253^,255^,257^,259^,262^,269^,272^,275^,277^,280^,282^,284^,287^,290^,292^,293,302) were most often studied alone. Among studies reporting on multiple drugs (44 studies²²^,39^,43^,45^,63^,65^,67^,68,93^,96^,101^,102,116^,120^,136^,145^,166^,181^,183^,185^,194^,195,208^,209,217^,220^,230^,232^–234,241^,246^,260^,263^,264,267^,268,273^,274,278^,279,289^,295^,297), alcohol was included most often (38 studies⁴⁵^,63^,65^,67^,68,93^,96^,101^,102,116^,120^,136^,145^,166^,181^,183^,194^,195,208^,209,217^,230^,232^–234,241^,246^,260^,264^,267^,268,273^,274,278^,279,289^,295^,297). Other substances were often reported as “other” or merely “drugs.” Cross-tabulations of each reason for reluctance with each of the most common specialties, interventions, and drugs produced no significant results; consequently, no P values are reported (Table 2). While this systematic review is of physician reluctance, 110 studies²⁰^,23^–25,28^,30^,31,33^,34,39^,42^,44^,47^,48,50^,52^,54^,57^,59^,63^,64,66^–70,87^,88,90^,92^,93,95^,99^,101^,103^–107,109^,111^–113,116^,120^,122^,123,126^,129^,134^,136^,138^,139,143^,146^,147,151^,156^,157,159^,162^,166^,167,169^,173^,174,177^,178,183^,186^,189^,190,192^,194^,195,199^–201,203^,205^,206,209^,211^,217^,221^,225^,229^,235^,236,243^–245,251^,257^,260^,261,266^,269^,270,275^,277^,280^,283^,286^,287,290^,291,297^,299^,302 mentioned possible facilitators of physician engagement.

Physician Reluctance

Most studies did not gather or report data on all reasons. When queried, institutional environment (173 of 213 articles [81.2%]²⁰^,22^,25^–27,30^–33,35^,37^,38,40^–44,46^,47,49^–51,54^–64,66^,68^,74^–78,80^,82^–84,86^,87,89^–93,95^,97^,99^,100,104^,106^–110,112^–114,116^,117,121^–124,126^,127,129^,134^–139,143^,144,146^–148,150^,151,153^–155,157^–159,161^–165,167^,169^–176,179^,180,182^,183,185^,186,189^,192^,195^,198^,199,201^–204,206^,207,209^,211^,216^–221,223^,226^,228^–230,232^–234,236^,238^,239,241^–243,245^,247^,251^,252,257^–261,263^–265,268^,269,271^,272,275^,277^,280^,284^,287^,290^,291,293^,295^,299^,301^,302) was the most common reason, followed by lack of skill (170 of 230 articles [73.9%]²⁰^–22,24^–33,35^,37^–39,47^–49,51^,53^–55,58^,59,61^,63^–68,75^,76,78^,80^–82,84^,85,88^,89,91^–93,95^,97^–100,102^–107,109^–114,116^–121,123^–125,130^–132,134^,136^,138^,139,142^,143,145^,147^,149^,150,152^,154^,159^–161,167^,168,172^–174,176^,178^,180^,182^,183,186^,188^,190^,191,193^,194,197^–202,204^,206^–211,213^,214,216^,218^–221,224^–226,229^,231^,233^,235^,236,238^,241^,242,246^,247,249^,256^,259^,264^–266,268^,269,271^,273^,274,276^–279,281^–283,285^–287,290^–295,297^,298,301^,302), cognitive capacity (136 of 185 articles [73.5%]²²^,25^,26,30^,32^,34^,37^,40^,41,47^–49,52^,55^,58^–61,63^–66,68^,69,71^,74^,75,77^,78,80^,82^,85^,87^–91,93^,95^,97^,100^,101,104^–107,109^–114,116^,117,119^,120,122^–126,129^,134^–136,138^,139,142^,146^–151,154^–156,159^–162,167^,172^,174^,180^,181,185^–187,190^–192,196^–199,205^,206,209^,211^,213^,214,216^,217,219^,225^,229^–232,235^,237^,239^,241^–243,254^,256^,260^,264^,265,268^–270,272^,275^,277^,283^,286^,287,290^–292,299^,301^,302), and knowledge (174 of 242 articles [71.9%]²⁰^–22,25^–33,36^,37,39^,42^,43,49^,53^–59,61^,62,64^–66,68^–70,73^,76^,78^,81^,82,84^,85,91^–93,95^,97^–100,102^–107,109^,110,113^,114,116^–121,126^,128^,130^,131,136^,138^,139,141^–143,147^,149^–152,154^,155,157^,159^–161,163^,166^–168,170^–174,176^–180,182^–186,188^,190^–194,197^–204,206^–210,212^–215,219^,221^,224^,226^,236^–238,241^,242,244^,246^,247,251^,252,256^–258,264^,266^–269,271^,273^,274,276^–281,283^–288,292^–295,297^–302); and social influences (121 of 184 articles [65.8%]²⁶^,27,30^–32,41^,42,46^,47,49^,51^,57^,58,60^,62^,63,68^,71^,77^,79^,80,82^,83,88^,90^,92^,95^,99^,101^,102,106^–110,112^–114,118^,121^–124,126^,127,129^,134^–138,146^,147,151^,153^,155^,157^–159,161^,165^,167^,169^,170,176^,177,180^,182^,185^,189^,195^,197^–208,210^–212,216^,217,219^,221^,223^,227^,228,233^–235,238^,242^,245^,247^,249^,254^,255,257^,260^,261,264^,266^,268^,269,282^,283,286^,287,289^,291^,296^–298,301^,302) (Table 2). We conducted bivariate analyses of reasons for reluctance and specialty, drug type, intervention, and time (Table 2; eFigure 3 in Supplement 1). Too few studies of recovery support existed to conduct a bivariate analysis with reasons for reluctance. Analysis of combinations of the top 4 reasons for reluctance found the most often paired reluctance reasons were knowledge and skill (135 of 221 articles [61.1%]²⁰^–22,25^–33,37^,39^,49^,53^–55,58^,59,61^,64^–66,68^,76^,78^,81^,82,84^,85,91^–93,95^,97^–100,102^–107,109^,110,113^,114,116^–121,130^,131,136^,138^,139,142^,143,147^,149^,150,152^,154^,159^–161,167^,168,172^–174,176^,178^,180^,182^,183,186^,188^,190^,191,193^,194,197^–202,204^,206^–210,213^,214,219^,221^,224^,226^,236^,238^,241^,242,246^,247,256^,264^,266^,268^,269,271^,273^,274,276^–279,281^,283^,285^–287,292^–295,297^,298,301^,302), followed by cognitive capacity and institutional environment (99 of 165 articles [60.0%]²²^,25^,26,30^,32^,37^,40^,41,47^,49^,55^,58^–61,63^,64,66^,68^,74^,75,77^,78,80^,82^,87^,89^–91,93^,95^,97^,100^,104^,106^,107,109^,110,112^–114,116^,117,122^–124,126^,129^,134^–136,138^,139,146^–148,150^,151,154^,155,159^,161^,162,167^,172^,174^,180^,185^,186,192^,198^,199,206^,209^,211^,216^,217,219^,229^,230,232^,239^,241^–243,260^,264^,265,268^,269,272^,275^,277^,287^,290^,291,299^,301^,302) (Table 3). Institutional environment appeared in combination with other reasons more often than any other reason (7 of 12 pairings). Reasons not in our data extraction template were described in a few studies, including lack of demand (13 articles⁸⁷^,92^,112^,122^,143^,167^,171^,214^,216^,232^,257^,280^,292), cost to the patient (8 articles⁵⁸^,69^,148^,155^,171^,174^,288^,292), and patient refusal (6 articles⁶¹^,146^,170^,174^,182^,206). Analysis of the trend over time for each reason for reluctance revealed a significant increase in identification of social influence (F_1,20 = 4.91; P = .04) and relationship (F_1,20 = 4.54; P = .046) (eFigure 3 in Supplement 1). We extracted exemplar text from included studies for the top 4 reasons for reluctance (Table 4), discussed in the following section.

Institutional Environment

Reasons for reluctance related to the institutional environment included lack of trained staff⁶⁶^,154^,167^,182^,186^,207^,242^,260 or resources to train staff,⁵⁹^,92^,221 acceptance of addiction interventions by staff¹⁰⁷^,259 or leadership,⁵⁷^,80^,155^,169^,175^,261^,275 and clinician backup.⁵⁴^,56^,64^,75^,76,90 Regulatory and liability concerns were frequently reported,³²^,35^,50^,75^,76,87^,90^,99^,107^,163^,165^,167^,174^,245^,259^,261 as were record-keeping or confidentiality concerns²⁰⁷^,259^,275 and staff time required for prior authorizations.⁹² Often mentioned were also cost to the patient or lack of insurance coverage,¹⁴⁸^,155^,170^,171,173^,174,182 along with medication unavailability at pharmacies⁹⁵^,144^,148^,170 and the absence of population-specific patient education materials.²⁶⁰^,291 Less frequently cited but noteworthy reasons for reluctance include contractual limitations,²⁹¹ nonexistent or unimplemented treatment algorithms,⁹⁹^,287 mental health programs not accepting patients with addiction,²⁶⁴ addiction treatment programs rejecting patients deemed insufficiently ready to change or having difficulty matching the level of care needed,²²⁹ and difficulty obtaining records from addiction treatment programs.¹⁰⁷ Reimbursement can be viewed as a component of institutional environment. In the TDF, reimbursement is 1 part of reinforcement as a reason for reluctance (Box). While reinforcement was 1 of the 2 least often identified reasons for reluctance, data specific to reimbursement was extracted because it is a perennial point of concern in adopting evidence-based interventions for addiction. Physician reimbursement was viewed as insufficient to cover both the staff time necessary to intervene in addiction and the expense of additional staff training.¹⁷⁴^,207^,277 Medicaid reimbursement was specifically highlighted as inadequate.¹⁸⁶ In some cases, physicians perceived the reimbursement to be inadequate but were not certain of the reimbursed amount.⁵⁶

Lack of Knowledge

In studies identifying lack of knowledge as a reason for reluctance, knowledge was more deficient for treatment than for screening or diagnosis and for drug use more than for alcohol or tobacco use.²⁰^,65^,70^,93^,99^,102^,117^,152^,194^,221^,252^,273 Physicians were unfamiliar with the evidence for substance use disorders as biomedical conditions,¹¹⁹^,138^,199^,257 harm reduction strategies,⁵⁸^,154 and screening for risky substance use.⁵⁹^,161 Some physicians lacked awareness of the extent of substance use by their patients.²⁵⁶

Lack of Skill

Physicians reported lacking skills to conduct interventions effective enough to produce behavior change, including counseling²¹^,38^,51^,59^,117^,291 and brief intervention.⁹³^,209^,229 They also described a lack of skill needed to initiate or manage treatment,⁹²^,152^,221^,273 especially for substance use disorders other than alcohol or tobacco.⁶³^,194 In some studies, they equated their lack of skill with lack of experience with observing or delivering a substance use disorder intervention under supervision.²²^,75^,91^,238^,256 Inabilities to assemble or demonstrate naloxone administration devices⁵⁸^,277 or to deliver appropriate training in its use to patients⁹⁹ were also noted.

Lack of Cognitive Capacity

Lack of cognitive capacity was not often characterized beyond a general sense of overwhelm with clinical tasks (eg, “just too busy”)⁶⁴^,291 and the need to prioritize patients’ competing needs.⁵⁸^,107^,109^,268 In some cases, physicians perceived intervening in addiction as too time-consuming, both during the appointment and for monitoring,⁶⁹^,87^,90^,93^,287 or that addiction treatment demand would be too great.⁶⁶^,75^,91 Even delegating screening to other clinical team members was viewed as diverting time from the physician visit²²⁹; available tools were considered time-consuming.²⁶⁰ Some physicians expected meeting the care needs of patients with addiction to be too time-consuming.

Facilitators

We analyzed 4 main themes related to facilitators. First, physicians need the knowledge and skills to intervene; they need adequate education and training in areas like managing pharmacology. Second, intrapersonal and interpersonal factors exist that facilitate physician intervention. Intrapersonal factors include physician characteristics (eg, work experience, confidence, and practice type) and motivation (eg, desire to improve patient outcomes, reimbursement, and understanding addiction as within their scope of practice). Interpersonal factors include the physician-patient relationship, specifically the patient characteristics that may compel the physician to intervene (eg, the patient is receptive to help). Third, an infrastructure is needed that supports physician interventions and includes institutional changes at the practice level to implement protocols to standardize care (eg, screening and improved technology). An environment that fosters collaboration with other professionals or entities (eg, multidisciplinary teams and referral systems) and offers resources that would support the intervention (eg, materials or tools for use with patients, follow-up care, or treatment facilities) is also essential. Finally, regulation reforms (eg, eliminating prior authorization requirements, expanding substance use disorder insurance coverage, and simplifying laws and policies governing prescribing and medication distribution to patients) would facilitate physician intervention.

Discussion

The number and growth of publications meeting inclusion criteria for this systematic review demonstrates increasing interest in the perceived and actual barriers to physician engagement with addiction in clinical practice. The significant increase in social influence and relationship as reasons for reluctance over time may indicate increased awareness of stigma and associated social harms. Regarding intervention types, the availability of effective alcohol use disorder and opioid use disorder pharmacotherapies likely accounts for the literature’s focus on those therapies, corresponding with efforts to increase access to medications for opioid use disorder and to promote the adoption of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment practices. As the evidence base for a wider array of harm reduction strategies grows, it will be important to understand and address physicians’ perceived and actual barriers to their acceptance and adoption of those strategies. Information is limited on the adoption of recovery support interventions by physicians, a finding that also merits investigation.

That institutional environment is associated with physician reluctance to intervene may not surprise practicing clinicians. The pairing of institutional environment and cognitive capacity may signify the cost in time physicians expend overcoming institutional barriers to EBP for addiction (eg, inefficient workflows and communication and coordination of care across silos). The association of institutional environment with treatment and opioids may reflect the push to increase buprenorphine access despite regulatory impediments and health systems being unprepared for this responsibility.

Strategies to reduce physician reluctance related to institutional environment include greater commitment by health systems to make essential workflow and staffing changes, the breaking down of barriers between addiction services and both medical and mental health care, and commitment by insurers to provide reimbursement that covers the actual cost of providing addiction interventions. The analysis of facilitators supports a specific need for protocols to adequately intervene with patients with either at-risk substance use or substance use disorders. Institutional environment changes (eg, investing in staffing and staff training, implementing standard practices or protocols, and conducting addiction-specific quality assurance) could also facilitate intervention.

Lack of knowledge and skill are top reasons for reluctance, both separately and combined. It is unclear whether survey respondents understood knowledge and skill as the researchers intended because these terms were rarely defined in the studies. Only a few studies allowed for future replication by including objective measures of knowledge or skill (eg, counting successfully delivered services and interviewing patients).

True lack of knowledge and skill can be understood in several ways, including as a manifestation of the volume of information practicing clinicians are required to possess, acquire, and update. For example, physicians need updated information on dosing, pharmacology, and overall efficacy of interventions and medications. This challenge is made harder if interventions (eg, screening practices, initiating pharmacotherapy) are insufficiently adapted for different practice settings. Delivering these interventions effectively, efficiently, and in a nonstigmatizing manner requires skill mastery. Physicians, like other clinicians, acquire their skills by observing and then practicing under supervision. Medical education and postgraduate training have only recently begun to prepare physicians for these tasks.³⁰³^,304

Ongoing training is critical for physicians to acquire and apply advanced skills in the care of this patient population,³⁰⁵^–307 but few opportunities exist to observe and be observed practicing new skills once required medical training is complete. The analysis of facilitators suggests skill training should focus on brief intervention (eg, screening or assessment) and on communication with patients. Trainings accessible to physicians (eg, free or incentivized, hands-on, or delivered in clinical settings) and delivered by specialized trainers and/or mentors would facilitate the growth of a pool of experts to intervene in substance use. Physicians who expand their knowledge and skills should be eligible for continuing medical education credits and increased compensation.

Other reasons for reluctance (eg, negative social influences, negative emotions toward people who use drugs, and fear of harming the relationship with the patient by discussing substance use) could each be viewed as manifestations of stigma associated with substance use disorder and its treatment. Lack of demand may also reflect stigma if it is a manifestation of unwillingness on the part of patients to seek help due to fear of social, legal, and moral judgement or a presumption by the physician that there is no addiction in their community.

These reasons may diminish if effective public and professional education, in particular those developed and led by patient groups or by people who use drugs,³⁰⁸^–312 are delivered to counter stigma.³¹³ The analysis of facilitators suggests the following may be helpful: educational materials for patients and families, community outreach, and public health campaigns promoting nonstigmatizing language.

Reducing stigma will not be enough to address fear of harming the patient relationship, especially for physicians who care for minors and other populations that may be subject to punitive consequences of addiction. These physicians must consider additional confidentiality requirements, and their fear of harming the patient by triggering negative social and legal consequences may be more of a deterrent than previously considered. Interpersonal aspects of the patient-physician relationship and how they create reluctance or facilitate intervention are not well understood, although the analysis of facilitators shows that physicians may be motivated to intervene in substance use disorders when they have an established relationship with the patient, the patient is receptive to help, and/or the desire to improve patient outcomes is strong. Future research should examine unintended impacts of increased physician intervention in addiction like strain on the physician-patient relationship, less opportunity to meet other health care needs, and stigmatizing interactions with other health care clinicians due to the substance use disorder diagnosis being more widely documented.

Limitations

This study has limitations. Inconsistent use of terms across included studies increased the complexity and interpretation of this analysis, but analysis of a sample this size can still inform research and policy. Studies were often developed without the benefit of a theoretical framework. Survey development lacked or failed to report participation of the audience of focus and/or was not piloted, raising concerns about the validity and applicability of results. During the years this systematic review covered, new medications and formulations became available, making comparison across decades challenging. The unregulated drug market also evolved, resulting in changes to illicit substances, methods of using them, and the regulatory environment in which clinicians address substance use. This review was limited to physicians, some of whom may have participated in more than 1 survey or focus group in the included studies. Although the results are relevant to the practice environment of many clinicians, including those specializing in addiction, they do not reflect the unique challenges that may be encountered by specific disciplines. Although we collected and described data about facilitators, the original search was not designed specifically to retrieve publications about facilitators of intervention in addiction.

Conclusions

These data suggest that policy, regulatory, or accreditation changes are needed to systematically address institutional barriers, as well as increases to physician reimbursement and opportunities for clinically relevant training that provides both skill development and knowledge gain. Another systematic review of facilitators and reluctance among other clinical disciplines may refine the recommendations presented here. Future studies of clinician reluctance to adopt EBPs for addiction need to be of higher quality. They, at a minimum, should employ a theoretical framework and adhere to survey development best practices or use a validated survey instrument.

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: May 7, 2024.

Published: July 17, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.20837

Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2821497

Filed under: Addiction,Health,Latest News,Prevention and Intervention,USA :

Israel, now the largest per capita consumer of opioids, faces a rising crisis. Learn about the challenges, responses from health authorities, and the need for improved treatment and prevention.

By Judy Siegel-Itzkovich

July 21, 2024 03:46

When in 2021, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention counted the deaths of over a million Americans from overdosing with opioids – synthetic, painkilling prescription drugs including fentanyl (100 times more powerful than morphine), oxycodone, hydrocodone and many others – Israel’s Health Ministry was asked whether it could happen here. No, its spokesperson said, even though nearly every negative and positive phenomenon in North America inevitably arrives here within a couple of years.

The epidemic began about 25 years ago when drug and healthcare companies began to enthusiastically promote these very-addictive chemicals, claiming they were effective in relieving suffering and did not cause dependency.

A study published this past May by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that one out of every three Americans have lost someone – a relative or a friend – to an opioid or other drug overdose. The US National Institute on Drug Abuse found that more than 320,000 American children have lost parents from overdoses in the past decade, and the annual financial costs to the US of the opioid crisis is $1 trillion.

Largest consumers of opioids per capita

Incredibly, Israelis today are the largest consumers per capita in the world of opioids, and an untold number of them are addicted or have already died. No one knows the fatality figures here, as the causes of death are described as organ failures, seizures, heart attack or stroke – not listed by what really caused them.

Is this another example of a “misconception” – wishful thinking on the scale of the belief by the government, the IDF, and the security forces that Hamas would “behave” if regularly paid off with suitcases full of cash? Is Israel headed to where the US already is? Perhaps. What is clear is that our various health authorities now have to somehow clean up the opioid mess.

The scandal has been indirectly embarrassing for Israel because among the most notorious companies involved in the opioid disaster is the Sackler family, who own the Purdue Pharma company that manufactured and promoted the powerful and addictive opioid OxyContin and who are now drowning in huge lawsuits. Tel Aviv University’s Medical Faculty that was for decades known as the Sackler Faculty has deleted it from its name.

Last year, the Knesset Health Committee met to discuss the rise in opioid consumption here, with testimony from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev School of Public Health dean and leading epidemiologist Prof. Nadav Davidovitch, who is also the principal researcher and chairman of the Taub Center Health Policy Program. He stressed that inappropriate use of strong pain medications leads to addiction and other severe negative consequences and noted that while most of the rise in consumption is among patients of lower socioeconomic status, the well-off are also hooked. Davidovitch called for the launching of serious programs to treat addicted Israelis based on the experiences of other countries with the crisis.

Opioids attach themselves to opioid-receptor proteins on nerve cells in the brain, gut, spinal cord, and other parts of the body. This obstructs pain messages sent from the body through the spinal cord to the brain. While they can effectively relieve pain, they can be very addictive, especially when they are consumed for more than a few months to ease acute pain, out of habit, or from the patients’ feeling of pleasure (they make some users feel “high”). Patients who suddenly stop taking them can sometimes suffer from insomnia or jittery nerves, so it’s important to taper off before ultimately stopping to take them.

The Health Ministry was forced in 2022 to alter the labels on packaging of opioid drugs to warn about the danger of addiction after the High Court of Justice heard a petition by the Physicians for Human Rights-Israel and the patients’ rights organization Le’altar that claimed the ministry came under pressure from the pharmaceutical companies to oppose this. After ministry documents that showed doctors knew little about the addictions caused by opioids were made public by the petitioners, psychiatrist Dr. Paola Rosca – head of the ministry’s addictions department – told the court that the synthetic painkillers cause addiction. She has not denied the claim that the ministry was squeezed by the drug companies to oppose label changes.

No special prescription, no time limit, no supervision

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Prof. Pinhas Dannon – chief psychiatrist of the Herzog Medical Center in Jerusalem and a leading expert on opioid addiction – noted that anyone with a medical degree can prescribe synthetic painkillers to patients. “There is no special prescription, no time limit, no supervision,” he said.

“A person who undergoes surgery who might suffer from serious pain is often automatically given prescriptions for opioids – not just one but several,” Dannon revealed. “Nobody checks afterwards whether the patient took them, handed them over to others (for money or not), whether they took several kinds at once, or whether they stopped taking them. They are also prescribed by family physicians, orthopedists treating chronic back pain, urologists, and other doctors, not only by surgeons.”

Dannon, who runs a hospital clinic that tries to cure opioid addiction, said there are only about three psychiatric hospitals around the country that have small in-house departments to treat severely addicted patients. “Not all those addicted need inpatient treatment, but when we build our new psychiatry center, we would be able to provide such a service.”

Since opioids are relatively cheap and included in the basket of health services, the four public health funds that pay for and supply them have not paid much attention. Once a drug is in the basket, it isn’t removed or questioned. Only now, when threatened by lawsuits over dependency, have the health funds begun to take notice and try to promote reductions in use.

Dannon declared that the health funds, hospitals, and pharmacies must seriously supervise opioid use by tracking and be required by the ministry to report who is taking them, how much, what ages, and for how long. Opioids are meant for acute pain, not for a long period. “The Health Ministry puts out fires but is faulty in prevention and supervision,” he said.

A Canadian research team has just conducted a study at seven hospital emergency departments in Quebec and Ontario to determine the ideal quantity of prescription opioids to control pain in discharged patients and reduce unused opioids available for misuse.

They recommended that doctors could adapt prescribing quantity to the specific condition causing pain, based on estimates to alleviate pain in 80% of patients for two weeks, with the smallest quantity for kidney or abdominal pain (eight tablets) and the highest for back pain (21 tablets) or fractures (24 tablets), and add an expiry date for them. Since half of participants consumed even smaller quantities, pharmacists could provide half this quantity to further reduce unused opioids available for misuse.

No medical instruction on the issue

Rosca, who was born in Italy where she studied medicine and came on aliyah in 1983, has worked in the ministry since 2000; in 2006, she became head of the addictions department.

“In Italy, every psychiatrist must learn about alcohol and other drug addictions including opioids,” she said. “Here, there is no mandatory course in any medical school on the subject. We tried to persuade the Israel Medical Association and its Scientific Council, which decides on curricula and specializations, but we didn’t succeed. Maybe now, in the face of the crisis, it will change its mind. We run optional courses as continuing medical education for physicians who are interested.”

Her department wanted pharmacists to provide electronic monitoring of opioid purchases, but “the Justice Ministry opposed it on the grounds that it would violate privacy. I wasn’t asked for my opinion.”

She concedes that the ministry lacks statistics on the number of addicted people, and Arabs have been excluded from estimates until now. “We’re doing a study with Jerusalem’s Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute to find out how many. Some say one percent, some say five percent. We hope that by December, we will get more accurate figures. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the ministry set up a committee on what to do about opioids, but its recommendations were never published, and there was no campaign,” Rosca recalled.

In 1988, the government established the statutory Anti-Drug Authority that was located in Jerusalem’s Givat Shaul neighborhood. It was active in fighting abuse and shared research with foreign experts, but seven years ago, its name was changed to the National Authority for Community Safety and became part of the Ministry for National Security, losing much of its budgets – and, according to observers, its effectiveness as well.

The Health Ministry used to be responsible for setting up and operating clinics for drug rehabilitation, but it handed this over in 1997 to a non-profit organization called the Israel Public Health Association, which employs numerous former ministry professionals. Its director-general, lawyer Yasmin Nachum, told the Post in an interview that the IPHA is very active in fighting drug addiction.

“Israel can’t deny anymore that we are in a worrisome opioid epidemic like that in the US: We are there,” he said. “We see patients every day. Some used to take heroin and other street drugs, but with the easy access and low price, they have switched to opioids. If they are hospitalized for an operation and don’t use all the prescriptions they are given, they sell them to others. We want to have representation in every hospital to warn doctors and patients.”

Of a staff of 1,100, the IPHA has 170 professionals – narcotics experts, social workers, occupational therapists, and others working with 3,000 addicted patients every day. Its other activities include mental health, ensuring safety of food and water, and rehabilitation.

Stopping after six months

“We work in full cooperation with the ministry,” Nachum said. “Our approach is that when opioids are taken for pain for as long as six months, it’s the time to stop taking them. The doctors provide addicted patients with a drug called buprenorphine, sold under the brand name Subutex, which is used to treat opioid-use disorder, acute pain, and chronic pain.”

Buprenorphine is a mixed opioid agonist and antagonist. That means it has some of the effects of opioids but also blocks some of their effects. Before the patient can take it under direct observation, he must have moderate opioid-withdrawal symptoms. The drug relieves withdrawal symptoms from other opioids and induces some euphoria, but it also blocks the efficacy of many other opioids including heroin, to create an effect.

Buprenorphine levels in the blood stay consistent throughout the month. Nachum said the replacement drug is relatively safe, with some side effects, but fortunately, there is no danger of an overdose.

NARCAN (NALOXDONE) is another prescription drug used by some professionals to fight addiction. Not in Israel’s basket of health services, it blocks the effects of opioids by temporarily reversing them, helping the patient to breathe again and wake up from an overdose. While it has saved countless lives, new and more powerful opioids keep appearing, and first responders are finding it increasingly difficult to revive people with it.

Now, US researchers have found an approach that could extend naloxone’s lifesaving power, even in the face of continually more dangerous opioids by using potential drugs that make naloxone more potent and longer lasting. Naloxone is a lifesaver, but it’s not a miracle drug; it has limitations, the team said.

After the Nova massacre on October 7, when significant numbers of participants who were murdered were high on drugs, the IPHA received a huge number of calls. In December, Nachum decided to open a hotline run by professionals about addiction that has been called monthly by some 300 people. “We also hold lectures for pain doctors, family physicians, and others who are interested, because there has been so little awareness.”

All agree that the opioid crisis has been seriously neglected here and that if it is not dealt with seriously and in joint efforts headed by healthcare authorities, it will snowball and add to Israel’s current physical and psychological damage.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/article-811126

Filed under: Addiction,Drug Specifics,Drug use-various effects,Health,Latest News,Others (International News),Prevalence :

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY

Medication for reversing overdose is life-saving—if used quickly and correctly.

Posted June 4, 2024

KEY POINTS

Fentanyl is a major threat causing overdose deaths in the United States.
Young people are unknowingly taking fentanyl and dying.
Fentanyl smoking is contributing to overdose and speedballing deaths.
Government and private agencies are cracking down on illegal fentanyl, but it’s an uphill fight.

Seized Fentanyl Pills

Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse

“It is the deadliest drug threat our country has ever faced.” says Anne Milgram, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), referring to the threat of fentanyl in the United States. She should know.

We still have record deaths, and that’s after the DEA seized more than 80 million fentanyl-laced fake pills and nearly 12,000 pounds of fentanyl powder so far in 2024 . The fentanyl seizures represent more than 157.6 million deadly doses; 70% of the counterfeit pills contain a lethal dose of fentanyl. Sometimes, the drug is smoked and as with intravenous injection, speeds access to the brain, further endangering users.

The best new prevention approach, the “One Pill Can Kill” initiative led by the DEA, is amplified by the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) and other volunteers educating the public and seeking to prevent flooding of the U.S. with fentanyl and fentanyl-laced fake pills resembling Xanax, Oxycontin, Adderall, Vicodin and other popular prescription medications—but with a deadly twist. The counterfeit pills, more often than not, contain a lethal dose of fentanyl.

“CADCA and its 7,000 coalition members across the nation have worked tirelessly to address the issue of fentanyl-laced fake pills that are poisoning our nation’s youth by planning and implementing comprehensive, data-driven strategies, with multiple public and private partners to address community conditions causing this problem,” said CADCA’s president and CEO, retired Army general Barrye L. Price.

Across the country, fentanyl has largely fueled a more than doubling of overdose deaths among children ages 12-17 since the start of the pandemic. The deaths were inadvertently hidden by “good news” reported by the CDC on May 15, 2024, announcing that there were an estimated 107,543 drug overdose deaths in the U.S. during 2023—a decrease of 3% from the 111,029 deaths estimated in 2022.

Fentanyl is killing adolescents and people of color, many with no idea they are taking fentanyl. The counterfeit drugs are easy to obtain from friends or buy through social media. Sold online for $2 to $10 apiece, their lethal potency caught policy leaders, emergency rooms, addiction experts, family health providers, and pediatricians nationwide by surprise.

Such is the fentanyl crisis as of June 2024. As i will describe in this blog post, there are treatments of last resort and medications designed to reverse the effects of fentanyl when education, prevention, and treatment have failed. An estimated 80,000 deaths per year are attributed to opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) caused by fentanyl alone. Wonder medicines that counter the effects include the widely-used naloxone (Narcan) and much-less-used (but also effective) opioid overdose reversal drug nalmefene (Opvee).

The Life-Saving Role of Naloxone

Naloxone has gained attention as a wonder drug capable of reviving a person who has overdosed, appeared to have died, or nearly died. I adminishtered, intravenously, my first dose of naloxone in 1975 while working in the Yale New Haven Hospital emergency room.. At the time, naloxone was most often given intravenously by anesthesiologists during surgery to reverse the sedative effects of opioids doctors had administered earlier. When naloxone was approved by the FDA in 1971, total drug overdose deaths in the U.S. were 6,771, rare enough that there was no national call to add it to emergency rooms to reverse overdoses. Since then, the number of overdoses has catastrophically escalated.

When Individuals Overdose on Opioids

What are signs of an opioid overdose? They include unconsciousness, very small eye pupils, slow or shallow breathing, vomiting, inability to speak, faint heartbeat, limp arms and legs, pale skin, and purple lips and fingernails. When a person overdoses on opioids, breathing slows or altogether stops. The overdosed person appears sleepy and is unresponsive.

Opioids

interfere with receptors in the brain, slowing breathing so that insufficient oxygen reaches the brain and other vital organs like the heart; the heart rate may slow or even stop. As breathing slows, oxygen levels fall, which may trigger abnormal heart rhythms. Blue lips and fingernails signal the lack of oxygen. Because insufficient oxygen reaches the brain and heart, the consequences are coma, brain damage, or death.

The antidote, naloxone, attaches to opioid receptors, reversing and blocking effects of opioids. Naloxone can quickly restore normal breathing. Naloxone is so safe we give it immediately to anyone with signs of opioid overdose or when an overdose is suspected. However, the drug has no effect on someone with no opioids in their system.

Reversing Respiratory Depression

The specific mechanism that drives opioid death by overdose is stimulation of one class of endogenous opioid receptors—mu-opioid receptors—in cells in the brainstem; it inhibits breathing. Respiratory depression, or decreased (or terminated) breathing, is a direct effect of opioid use, and, in the case of fentanyl, it appears extremely quickly.

Intravenous naloxone is not available in the community, where first responders depend on intranasal or intramuscular administration. Yet naloxone must be administered much sooner for fentanyl than for heroin because the window for saving the overdosed person is much shorter than with heroin. So, the right dose of naloxone must be given by a friend, loved one, or first responder almost immediately.

Other opioid antagonists, like nalmefene, may be expected to do a better job in fentanyl overdoses. After the person recovers, they should be offered long-term treatment resources, including the ability to initiate treatment for opioid use disorder in the emergency department, as Yale’s Brian Fuerhlein described in an earlier blog post.

Renarcotization

Researchers, addiction experts, and other healthcare providers have documented that when fentanyl is taken chronically, the drug may be absorbed into fat tissue and stay there, accumulating and forming a reservoir of fentanyl. Naloxone might reverse a “normal” fentanyl overdose, but due to the “depot effect,” after a person becomes conscious, they may lose consciousness again and stop breathing. This event is called re-narcotization.

If it is suspected that someone has overdosed on fentanyl and they are given naloxone, they may start breathing again and become conscious. With less potent opioids, naloxone can cover someone for 60 minutes. But someone with a supply of fentanyl in body fat depots can renarcotize several times. It is important to call 911. Additional doses of naloxone may be given as the patient is transported to the ER or hospital, where oxygen and other life support is available.

Narcan Nasal Spray

Naloxone can now be administered by non-health professionals via nasal spray to save lives. Intranasal naloxone works within two to three minutes. If the person has not responded after three minutes, another dose should be given. After administering naloxone, it’s very important to always call 911 because experts need to determine whether respiratory support, more naloxone, or other measures are necessary to reverse the overdose.

The FDA approved Narcan (naloxone) as a nasal spray for over-the-counter use because it is safe, easy to use, and saves lives. In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved an 8-mg intranasal naloxone product, twice the amount than the usual 4-mg dose. The FDA also granted a second over-the-counter naloxone agent in early 2024. This drug, RiVive, is a generic naloxone nasal spray available from Harm Reduction Therapeutics, a nonprofit pharmaceutical organization. Nasal naloxone is currently available in 3mg (Revive), 4mg (Narcan), and 8mg (Kloxxado) dosages.

Making naloxone available without a prescription expands its availability to people with an opioid-dependent loved one or who themselves have opioid use disorder (OUD). To save someone from an opioid overdose, you need naloxone or nalmefene. Steps for responding to an opioid overdose can be found here.

Another Opioid Overdose Reversal Drug: Nalmefene

Nalmefene has been saving lives from opioid overdoses since May 2023, when the FDA approved nalmefene hydrochloride nasal spray (Opvee). Nalmefene is a long-duration opioid antagonist first approved for injection in 1995. The original injectable nalmefene was removed from the market for commercial reasons in 2008. However, the dramatic rise in opioid overdose deaths and the emergence of powerful synthetic opioids catalyzed the development of an intranasal (IN) form of nalmefene for emergency treatment of opioid, and especially fentanyl, overdoses.

Nalmefene is an opioid receptor antagonist particularly well-suited for fentanyl overdoses. One reason is it has a longer half-life than naloxone, which means it stays in the body longer. This may protect against re-intoxication but may also make withdrawal symptoms last longer in those with opioid use disorders.

Synthetic opioids like fentanyl are now the most common drugs involved in drug overdose deaths in the U.S. Nalmefene is 10 times more potent than naloxone and has an 8- to 10-fold longer half-life (8 to 11 hours), reducing the likelihood of re-overdosing from long-acting opioids.

Xylazine and other adulterants illegally added to opioids in the U.S. have also received attention for generating zombie-like behavior in people. Such additives make overdose reversal more difficult. However, the key to harm reduction is reversing the effects of synthetic opioids on the heart, lungs, and brain.

The efficacy of frontline, community-based reversal of poisoning events with antidotes such as naloxone has been questioned due to the rise of highly potent synthetic opioids, primarily illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF), which causes 90% or more of opioid deaths in the U.S.

In many cases today, community-based first responders have improvised or evolved strategies to cope with fentanyl. Typically, multiple naloxone doses are given to individuals who overdosed on opioids. That was definitely not the case when I was giving naloxone to patients in the Yale emergency department in the 1970s or even back when the opioid crisis was primarily either a prescription-opioid or heroin crisis.

However, it’s unclear whether giving opioid overdose patients more doses sequentially is the optimal strategy in dealing with fentanyl. A very nice study by Strauss suggests it’s a good idea to have higher doses of intranasal naloxone available, as it appears that a large first dose at once is superior to the same dose given sequentially.

Some overdoses might be relatively naloxone-resistant and more easily respond to nalmefene. Additional research is needed to determine the optimal naloxone-dosing schedule for fentanyl overdose reversal. Multi-site studies directly comparing nalmefene to naloxone in the community setting are needed.

Conclusion

More than 1 in 8 Americans have had their lives disrupted by a drug overdose. Nearly 49 million Americans (more than 17%) age 12 and older have a substance use disorder. Among young adults aged 18-25, the share jumps to 28%. More than 6 million people had an opioid use disorder, and another 1.8 million had a methamphetamine use disorder in 2022.

The evolving opioid epidemic has morphed into a counterfeit-pill, multi-drug crisis centered on fentanyl, often paired—knowingly or unknowingly—with other illicit drugs. Smoking fentanyl is the newest opioid crisis or problem we have not prevented.

Overdose deaths are only one measure of the drug epidemic’s severity. An estimated 321,566 children lost a parent to drug overdose between 2011 and 2021.

Since 2000, more than 1.1 million overdose deaths have been reported in the U.S. Overdose reversal with intranasal anti-opioids like naloxone and nalmefene has made a big difference but should not be the centerpiece of opioid crisis strategy. Education and prevention are needed and, as we develop new and better treatments for OUDs, so are overdose reversal and relapse prevention. Some very effective means to reverse opioid overdoses are available today, and future research should provide further information on the best medication and dosages for fentanyl overdose situations.

References

Skolnick P. On the front lines of the opioid epidemic: Rescue by naloxone. Eur J Pharmacol. 2018 Sep 15;835:147-153. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2018.08.004. Epub 2018 Aug 7. PMID: 30092179.

Ellison M, Hutton E, Webster L, Skolnick P. Reversal of Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression in Healthy Volunteers: Comparison of Intranasal Nalmefene and Intranasal Naloxone. J Clin Pharmacol. 2024 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/jcph.2421. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38436495.

Crystal R, Ellison M, Purdon C, Skolnick P. Pharmacokinetic Properties of an FDA-approved Intranasal Nalmefene Formulation for the Treatment of Opioid Overdose. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2024 Jan;13(1):58-69. doi: 10.1002/cpdd.1312. Epub 2023 Jul 27. PMID: 37496452; PMCID: PMC1081801

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-outlook/202406/the-fentanyl-death-crisis-in-america

Filed under: Addiction,Drug Specifics,Health,Latest News,USA :

Ricky Klausmeyer-Garcia’s friends struggled to get him addiction treatment, leading to the creation of a law in his name. A year after his death, profound questions remain about how best to help those with substance use disorder

by Katia Riddle in Seattle

Mon 13 May 2024 15.00 BST

Sitting at his dining room table, Kelsey Klausmeyer, 41, looks at a picture of his late husband, Enrique Klausmeyer-Garcia, known to most as Ricky. He died almost exactly a year ago, at the age of 37.

Kelsey can’t make sense of it.

When they met, Kelsey was awed by Ricky’s story: his long battle with addiction, his years of sobriety, his advocacy for recovery.

Now, after his death and in the midst of a nationwide addiction crisis, the narrative around Ricky’s life is less tidy.

Ricky is the inspiration for a Washington state law – known as Ricky’s law – passed in 2017 that enables loved ones and public safety officials to compel people experiencing substance abuse to undergo treatment, even if they are unable or unwilling to do it themselves.

The US has been experimenting with these forced-commitment laws for decades. The debate over their efficacy, practicality and ethicality is seeing renewed urgency in states such as New York, California and Washington, where addiction and severe mental health disorders have become a highly visible and highly political issue.

Ricky’s story brings into sharp relief one of the fundamental and difficult questions that officials in these places are grappling with: to what extent should society override an individual’s rights in the name of saving their life and protecting public safety?

I thought so highly of Ricky, to suffer with that disease and then turn around and do something for the greater good

Kelsey Klausmeyer, Ricky’s husband

For Kelsey, Ricky’s story is not primarily about public policy. It’s a story of immense personal joy and loss, laid before him in a handful of pictures. Here they are with their dog, Otis, whom Ricky “treated like our child”, chuckles Kelsey. Here they are in 2022 on their wedding day, both smiling, fit and handsome at a sunny mountain resort 90 minutes from their home in Seattle. Two hundred of their friends and family came to spend three days celebrating.

Here is Ricky with members of his sprawling family. When the couple first started dating, they discovered, remarkably, that they were both from families of nine siblings, both raised Catholic. “We always thought we were kind of destined in a way,” says Kelsey.

Kelsey grew up in Kansas; Ricky’s family immigrated from Mexico. They met online. Ricky was direct about what he wanted, a quality Kelsey, a naturopathic doctor, found attractive. “He shared that his dream was to have a family, to have kids, have a dog, have a house, have a husband,” remembers Kelsey. Those were prizes neither of them had felt certain were winnable. Together, they brought that picture into focus.

In those early, heady weeks of dating, Ricky was candid with Kelsey about his history with substance use disorder and his journey of recovery. Kelsey was undaunted.

“I just thought so highly of that, for somebody to have suffered with that disease as much as Ricky did, and then to turn around and do something for the greater good like he did,” remembers Kelsey. “That got me. That was the moment I fell in love with Ricky.”

But within the first year of their marriage, and despite Kelsey’s relentless attempts to help him, Ricky would be gone.

Seventy-five hospital visits, and increasing desperation

With his good looks, his authenticity, his goofy enthusiasm for life and willingness to be vulnerable, Ricky was a charmer. Kelsey wasn’t the first person to fall for him.

More than a decade before he met his future husband, Ricky met Lauren Davis. Their friendship would become one of the most important relationships in his life, and the driving force behind the involuntary-commitment law created in his name.

The two were in their late teens in 2004, working as assistant preschool teachers in Redmond, Washington. “I had an enormous crush on Ricky and spent several failed years attempting to woo him,” says Davis of their early friendship. Once they’d established she wasn’t his type, Davis became his “wing woman” and accompanied him to gay clubs. “I’m a white girl who grew up in Washington,” she says. “I can’t dance to save my life, but I sure tried.”

In the next few years, as the two grew into young adults, Davis would become a different kind of wing woman for her friend. Ricky spiraled into a serious problem with alcohol and occasional opioids. “I knew I was feeling depressed,” he recalled years later, in a public radio interview with the Seattle station KNKX. “I was feeling really anxious; most of the time I just wanted to escape all that. I just started to self-medicate and take whatever it took to escape reality.”

The first time Davis called 911 and had her friend taken to the hospital, she remembers his blood alcohol was dangerously high – she would find out it was at a near fatal level. He was admitted to the hospital’s psychiatric unit. Davis sat with him in his room from 8am to 8pm. She described trying to leave Ricky’s hospital room, “hugging him and he wouldn’t let me go”.

Davis and Ricky hiking on Mt Rainier in the summer of 2007. They two met in their early 20s and quickly became friends. Photograph: Courtesy of Lauren Davis

This episode set off a corrosive cycle of hospitalization, brief sobriety and relapse. Eventually, Ricky became suicidal.

“I found myself consistently in a position of trying to catch him, before he died, essentially,” says Davis. “In the course of those two years, he was in the emergency department over 75 times. I was at his bedside for most of those visits.” Numerous doctors told her to plan for his funeral. Davis refused. She would not stand by and watch her friend die.

Ricky’s father had terminal cancer during this period and despite family members’ efforts to help Ricky, his addiction stressed relationships. Davis became his primary advocate and champion.

Watching Ricky’s struggle, Davis was horrified at how little she could do to help him. What she wanted was to put her friend into an addiction treatment facility, because he was too sick to do it himself.

But at that time, in 2011, Washington law only allowed for involuntary commitment based on a psychiatric diagnosis, not for a substance abuse disorder. Other states had more expansive criteria.

Davis remembers Ricky on his sixth psychiatric hospitalization. “He had this young psychiatrist who looked across at him and said, ‘You know, if we were in another state and I could involuntarily commit you for your addiction, I would.’”

But in Washington state, the doctor said, “his hands were tied”.

A contentious history

American public policy has grappled with the concept of involuntary commitment since at least the 1850s. As many as 14 states had laws on the books before the turn of the 20th century allowing for civil commitment for “habitual drunkenness”. Often, offenders would be locked in asylums.

Over time, enthusiasm for this approach began to fade “because of the lack of evidence that the facilities were really able to cure substance abuse”, says psychiatrist and historian Paul Appelbaum, who teaches at Columbia University and studies medicine and ethics. Legislators – and the public – stopped supporting the investment. The country saw another wave of these statutes in the 1960s. Today, though roughly two-thirds of states have civil commitment laws that specifically include substance use, many are rarely used.

In part, that’s because there is still little consensus about the efficacy of committing someone to treatment against their will. “There are almost no data indicating whether it works or for whom it works,” says Appelbaum. Policymakers, he says – chronically guilty of short-term thinking – have been reluctant to invest in meaningful efforts to evaluate these kinds of programs. Those that have tried have shown mixed outcomes, and they often don’t measure long-term results.

Many who study addiction and substance use have ethical concerns. Holding someone long enough for treatment to possibly be effective, say some, is immoral.

Dr Liz Frye, who practices addiction medicine in Pittsburgh, explains that substances such as alcohol and opioids hijack the brain’s decision-making abilities. Regaining them can take months. “I have not seen an involuntary hold that would be long enough to help people regain their choice about substances,” she says. “I have a hard time with involuntarily committing someone for that length of time.”

Another complicating factor is that treatment and recovery itself can vary widely. “A lot of times, the perception is that everybody needs residential treatment,” says Michael Langer, who works in behavioral health for the state of Washington. “That’s not true.” Often the best course of treatment, says Langer, is outpatient, or medication-based.

Ordering someone into treatment is just based on a delusion that there’s somewhere for them to go

Keith Humphreys, addiction researcher

But staffing and funding for treatment facilities of all kinds is in short supply, and getting someone to a short-term treatment facility, with or without their consent, is only a first step on a successful path to recovery. Incentivizing and supporting the individual’s choice to maintain treatment is an equally critical part of the process. That can only happen with a robust and well-funded system that includes many different pathways and interventions.

“I think people imagine there’s this whole massive treatment system,” says Keith Humphreys, who studies addiction and public health at Stanford University. The truth is, he says, most systems across the country – privately and publicly funded – for treatment of addiction are frail and underfunded and can’t accommodate the demand, even from those who are pursuing it voluntarily.

In the United States, a recent report shows that 43% of people willingly seeking treatment for substance use were unable to access it. “Ordering them into treatment is just based on a delusion that there’s somewhere for them to go,” says Humphreys.

Police check on a man who said he has been smoking fentanyl in downtown Seattle. The addiction crisis sweeping US cities has raised complex questions about how to get people treatment. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images

Ricky’s law takes shape

Lauren Davis helped to save her friend. In turn, he laid out the path for what would become her life’s work.

“I started to tell his story to anyone who would listen to me,” says Davis. Some of the people she demanded listen to her were legislators. They helped her introduce a bill for what became Ricky’s law.

After he eventually found his own way into treatment and long-term recovery, Ricky too became an advocate for his bill and Davis’s work. “If this law would have been in place back when I was in active addiction, I believe that my journey would have been cut that much shorter,” he would say in the interview with KNKX. “For a lot of addicts, they want to stop but they can’t. You could have loved ones tell you to stop. You could have all these consequences being behind your actions, and yet you won’t and can’t stop.”

The law amended Washington’s existing rule to allow for short-term, involuntary commitment not only for psychiatric disorders but also for those related to substance use. That meant people “gravely disabled” by addiction – and considered a danger to themselves – could now be committed against their will.

It designated tens of millions of dollars to creating a kind of holding place for detaining people under the law; there are now close to 50 “Ricky’s law” beds in four treatment facilities across the state.

But today, who needs these beds – and how to get them there – is not always clear.

“Someone who comes into the emergency department intoxicated on any substance who is a danger to themselves could be referred right off the bat under Ricky’s law,” says Paul Borghesani, medical director of psychiatric emergency services at Harborview medical center, Seattle’s public hospital. “Practically, that doesn’t happen.”

The reasons are numerous, says Borghesani. Often after 12-36 hours in detox, people who were previously at risk of great harm to themselves “appear much calmer”. Many even say they plan to quit using. This puts the clinicians in a bind, he explains, forcing them to reckon with a philosophical question: is someone a danger to themselves if they claim not to be?

The law is also dependent on a team of mental health professionals called designated crisis responders, employed through state contracts with regional behavioral health agencies and counties. These responders are deployed when someone – often a loved one, community member or medical provider, though it can be anyone – requests an evaluation of an individual in a substance use-related crisis. It’s at the discretion of these crisis responders to decide whether that individual is in enough danger, or endangering others enough, to commit them to a treatment facility – sometimes for just a few days but up to several weeks.

But waits are long for these responders; some advocates for those struggling with substance use disorders report enduring weeks before a designated crisis responder arrives. Sometimes that’s time they don’t have.

Another reason Borghesani says the law isn’t used: hospitals are busy. “Physicians are rightfully very eager to keep people flowing through the emergency departments,” he explains. “So they might look at this as something that would just take a lot of time and not be beneficial.”

Despite these obstacles, Ricky’s law is put to regular use in Washington. According to the Washington health authority, the state has been admitting roughly 700 people annually to substance-use facilities under Ricky’s law.

That number does not reveal how many people have elected to stay in recovery after their forced detention – a fact that makes it hard to say with certainty how effective it has been in galvanizing sustained recovery.

New dilemmas for a new crisis

In 2024, the complex questions raised by Ricky’s law – and what helpful, compassionate addiction policy actually looks like – are more relevant than ever across the country. Recent CDC data shows a stunning national rise in alcohol-related deaths; more than 11% of adults had alcohol use disorder at some point in 2022, according to the National Institutes of Health.

A far more visible catastrophe of addiction is playing out in US cities overwhelmed in recent years by cheap, synthetic fentanyl. In Washington’s King county, home of Seattle, there were more than 1,000 overdose deaths in 2023, a nearly 50% increase from the previous year. Whole blocks are taken over by people buying, using and selling fentanyl. Arguably any one of these people is a grave danger to themselves.

Some outreach workers and medical providers on the frontlines of this problem would like to use the law to help this population, but say it’s not currently possible.

“We get stuck in this place of: what do we do?” says Cyn Kotarski, the medical director with a program called CoLead that helps people with housing and treatment. Kotarski often sees people with abscess wounds, days away from becoming septic. But with long waitlists for designated crisis responders, there’s no way to reach people in these crisis moments. “The option quite literally becomes: they stay outside until they die,” she says.

Frye, the addiction-medicine expert, says the problem is one of more than resources. The US, she says, needs an entirely new orientation to addiction treatment to underpin public policy, one that embraces methods such as harm reduction. “We have to stop being the moral police of people,” says Frye.

Public health addiction crises like the one that Seattle is battling, she argues, would be better addressed by tackling the surrounding problems – housing crises, trauma and mental health issues that give rise to substance use disorders. She imagines coupling this approach with accessible, compassionate therapeutic outpatient settings.

“The best way to help people reduce or stop using substances is to put the patient in the driver’s seat,” she says. “And we as healthcare providers are working towards helping them identify their own reasons to want to come back and quit.” Forced captivity, she argues, doesn’t meet that criterion.

But even Frye acknowledges a utility to saving a person’s life in certain circumstances without their consent. Sometimes her own patients are facing imminent death otherwise. “Transporting someone to the hospital involuntarily, getting that condition assessed, and helping make the hospital stay tolerable for the person – that’s warranted,” she says.

The exact circumstances in which to make this call are hard to define. Maybe impossible.

We get stuck in this place of: what do we do? The option quite literally becomes: they stay outside until they die

Cyn Kotarski, medical director with CoLead

Inspired by her work creating Ricky’s law, Lauren Davis decided to run for office, and was elected as a state representative in 2018. She has focused her policy efforts on expanding the state’s fragile system of treatment for substance abuse, an endeavor she continues today.

Davis acknowledges Ricky’s law needs course correction to be more useful, and she agrees that even if it’s improved, the law is not enough to adequately address the scope of addiction in places like Seattle.

“Do we just massively scale up Ricky’s law to address the scourge of fentanyl on the streets of Seattle?” she says. “No.”

Instead she’s focusing her current efforts on building a robust system of treatment that addresses comprehensive needs including housing and access to medications like methadone and Suboxone that can be provided over the counter to treat addiction. This effort also includes expanding a recovery navigator program, in which outreach workers build trust with people on the street and help them access resources – willingly.

Still, she firmly believes in the potential and power of Ricky’s law in certain circumstances. She’s seen it work first-hand, saying: “At the end of the day, I believe without a doubt that it has saved lives, that it has changed lives, that it has restored families.”

A devastating turn of events

By late 2020, Ricky had been sober nine years. Then came an episode that would test both Ricky’s relationship with Kelsey and the law created in his name.

Kelsey recalls coming home one day from work and finding his then boyfriend passed out in the stairwell of their condo. Kelsey believes the pandemic triggered the relapse. Ricky had built a network of friends and family in the world of recovery, support that quickly dissolved in social isolation.

“I had heard him talk about what active disease looked like,” says Kelsey. “When it showed up, I was like: ‘Oh my God, what is happening?’”

During that event, according to both Davis and Kelsey, Ricky’s law worked the way it was supposed to. He was put in a temporary, involuntary hold. After a number of days of sobriety, says Davis, her friend re-emerged. “His brain came back online. He was able to make healthy choices,” Davis recounts.

Kelsey says: “He chose our life together.” Kelsey worked to help Ricky gain access to a residential treatment program.

It was more than two years later, after he and Kelsey were married, that relapse came again for Ricky. To Kelsey, it seemed out of the blue. Ricky had gone back to school and had a new job working for an organization supporting recovery for others. “We were really living the dream we always wanted,” he says.

He wonders if his husband was suffering from a kind of existential vertigo. “The only way that I can make sense out of it is that sometimes when things are so good, it’s the fear of losing it,” he says. “That’s what Ricky would talk to me about sometimes.”

This time, in post-pandemic 2023, systems of emergency and crisis support were stressed. Kelsey spent hours on the phone trying to make the legal and healthcare wheels turn in his favor. One night, worried that Ricky was literally going to drink himself to death, he drove his husband to the emergency room. The following day, when there was a staff change, says Kelsey, “the attending physician was going to just release him back out onto the street”.

“I would beg and plead with healthcare staff, police officers. I would say: ‘Ricky’s law is literally named after him,’” says Kelsey.

After Kelsey finally had him committed, Ricky became far less reachable, even after days of forced withdrawal and sobriety. At one point, he fled all the way to Oregon, out of the reach of his own law. Kelsey spent nights with no idea where he was. “I really can’t see anyone living on the side of the street or under an overpass without thinking about Ricky,” he says.

Eventually, Ricky ended up in a residential treatment facility in a Seattle suburb. He went there willingly; Kelsey was expecting to see his husband the next day. Instead, Ricky was found dead.

The cause of Ricky’s death is under investigation. Kelsey is now suing the facility, alleging wrongful death.

Kelsey’s faith in the law named for his husband remains steadfast, as does his belief in the power of recovery. “For anyone dealing with this,” he says, “please know there is hope.”

That optimism has not made his first year as a widower easier. It’s been “hell”, as Kelsey describes it. “I just miss him.”

This story is part of a reporting fellowship sponsored by the Association of Health Care Journalists and supported by the Commonwealth Fund

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/13/rehab-forced-addiction-treatment#navigation

Filed under: Addiction,Latest News,Legal Sector,USA :

May 17, 2024

Paul Larkin

Rumpel Senior Legal Research Fellow

Paul is a Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

SUMMARY

Novel Psychoactive Substances multiply the difficulties involved in protecting ourselves and our families, friends, and neighbors from falling victim to illicit drug use. Ingenious chemists have used the Internet to research the chemical structure of existing psychoactive substances and use their skills to escape a strict reading of the controlled substances schedules. The result is to make extraordinarily difficult our long-standing strategy of relying primarily on an aggressive, supply-side, law enforcement–focused approach to reducing the availability of dangerous drugs. We can—and should—pursue each worthwhile option to combat this even though we know that we cannot immunize society against the pernicious effects of all NPSs, change hearts bent on evil, or save everyone who succumbs to drug abuse.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPSs) multiply the difficulties involved in protecting our-selves and our families, friends, and neighbors from illicit drug use.

NPSs like fentanyl and their illegitimate offspring like the nitazenes have brought an end to the era of drug experimentation.

We can—and should—pursue every worthwhile option to combat this scourge even though we know that we cannot save everyone who succumbs to drug abuse.

Source: https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/twenty-first-century-illicit-drugs-and-their-discontents-the-challenges

Filed under: Addiction,Latest News,Prevention and Intervention,Social Affairs :

Bertha Madras, a leading expert on weed, outlines the science linking it to psychiatric disorders, permanent brain damage, and other serious harms.

Young people who smoked marijuana in the 1960s were seen as part of the counterculture. Now the cannabis culture is mainstream. A 2022 survey sponsored by the National Institutes of Health found that 28.8% of Americans age 19 to 30 had used marijuana in the preceding 30 days—more than three times as many as smoked cigarettes. Among those 35 to 50, 17.3% had used weed in the previous month, versus 12.2% for cigarettes.

While marijuana use remains a federal crime, 24 states have legalized it and another 14 permit it for medical purposes. Last week media outlets reported that the Biden administration is moving to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous Schedule III drug—on par with anabolic steroids and Tylenol with codeine— which would provide tax benefits and a financial boon to the pot industry.

Bertha Madras thinks this would be a colossal mistake. Ms. Madras, 81, is a psychobiology professor at Harvard Medical School and one of the foremost experts on marijuana. “It’s a political decision, not a scientific one,” she says. “And it’s a tragic one.” In 2024, that is a countercultural view.

Ms. Madras has spent 60 years studying drugs, starting with LSD when she was a graduate student at Allan Memorial Institute of Psychiatry, an affiliate of Montreal’s McGill University, in the 1960s. “I was interested in psychoactive drugs because I thought they could not only give us some insight into how the brain works, but also on how the brain undergoes dysfunction and disease states,” she says.

In 2015 the World Health Organization asked her to do a detailed review of cannabis and its medical uses. The 41-page report documented scant evidence of marijuana’s medicinal benefits and reams of research on its harms, from cognitive impairment and psychosis to car accidents.

She continued to study marijuana, including at the addiction neurobiology lab she directs at Mass General Brigham McLean Hospital. In a phone interview this week, she walked me through the scientific literature on marijuana, which runs counter to much of what Americans hear in the media.

For starters, she says, the “addiction potential of marijuana is as high or higher than some other drug,” especially for young people. About 30% of those who use cannabis have some degree of a use disorder. By comparison, only 13.5% of drinkers are estimated to be dependent on alcohol. Sure, alcohol can also cause harm if consumed in excess. But Ms. Madras sees several other distinctions.

One or two drinks will cause only mild inebriation, while “most people who use marijuana are using it to become intoxicated and to get high.” Academic outcomes and college completion rates for young people are much worse for those who use marijuana than for those who drink, though there’s a caveat: “It’s still a chicken and egg whether or not these kids are more susceptible to the effects of marijuana or they’re using marijuana for self medication or what have you.”

Marijuana and alcohol both interfere with driving, but with the former there are no medical “cutoff points” to determine whether it’s safe to get behind the wheel. As a result, prohibitions against driving under the influence are less likely to be enforced for people who are high. States where marijuana is legal have seen increases in car accidents.

One of the biggest differences between the two substances is how the body metabolizes them. A drink will clear your system within a couple of hours. “You may wake up after binge drinking in the morning with a headache, but the alcohol is gone.” By contrast, “marijuana just sits there and sits there and promotes brain adaptation.”

That’s worse than it sounds. “We always think of the brain as gray matter,” Ms. Madras says. “But the brain uses fat to insulate its electrical activity, so it has a massive amount of fat called white matter, which is fatty. And that’s where marijuana gets soaked up. . . . My lab showed unequivocally that blood levels and brain levels don’t correspond at all—that brain levels are much higher than blood levels. They’re two to three times higher, and they persist once blood levels go way down.” Even if people quit using pot, “it can persist in their brain for a while.”

Thus marijuana does more lasting damage to the brain than alcohol, especially at the high potencies being consumed today. Levels of THC—the main psychoactive ingredient in pot—are four or more times as high as they were 30 years ago. That heightens the risks, which range from anxiety and depression to impaired memory and cannabis hyperemesis syndrome—cycles of severe vomiting caused by long-term use.

There’s mounting evidence that cannabis can cause schizophrenia. A large-scale study last year that examined health histories of some 6.9 million Danes between 1972 and 2021 estimated that up to 30% of young men’s schizophrenia diagnoses could have been prevented had they not become dependent on pot. Marijuana is worse in this regard than many drugs usually perceived as more dangerous.

“Users of other potent recreational drugs develop chronic psychosis at much lower rates,” Ms. Madras says. When healthy volunteers in research experiments are given THC—as has been done in 15 studies—they develop transient symptoms of psychosis. “And if you treat them with an antipsychotic drug such as haloperidol, those symptoms will go away.”

Marijuana has also been associated with violent behavior, including in a study published this week in the International Journal of Drug Policy. Data from observational studies are inadequate to demonstrate causal relationships, but Ms. Madras says that the link between marijuana and schizophrenia fits all six criteria that scientists use to determine causality, including the strength of the association and its consistency.

Ms. Madras says at the beginning of the interview that she was operating on three hours of sleep after crashing on scientific projects. Yet she is impressively lucid and energized. She peppers her explanations with citations of studies and is generous in crediting other researchers’ work.

Another cause for concern, she notes, is that more pregnant women are using pot, which has been linked to increased preterm deliveries, admissions of newborns into neonatal intensive care units, lower birth weights and smaller head circumferences. THC crosses the placenta and mimics molecules that our bodies naturally produce that regulate brain development.

“What happens when you examine kids who have been exposed during that critical period?” Ms. Madras asks. During adolescence, she answers, they show an increased incidence of aggressive behavior, cognitive dysfunction, and symptoms of ADHD and obsessive-compulsive disorders. They have reduced white and gray matter.

A drug that carries so many serious side effects would be required by the Food and Drug Administration to carry a black-box warning, the highest-level alert for drugs with severe safety risks. Marijuana doesn’t—but only because the FDA hasn’t cleared it.

The agency has selectively approved cannabis compounds for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut or Dravet syndrome, nausea associated with chemotherapy for cancer, and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients. But these approved products are prescribed at significantly less potent doses than the pot being sold in dispensaries that are legal under state law.

What about medicinal benefits? Ms. Madras says she has reviewed “every single case of therapeutic indication for marijuana—and there are over 100 now that people have claimed—and I frankly found that the only one that came close to having some evidence from randomized controlled trials was the neuropathic pain studies.” That’s “a very specific type of pain, which involves damage to nerve endings like in diabetes or where there’s poor blood supply,” she explains.

For other types of pain, and for all other conditions, there is no strong evidence from high-quality randomized trials to support its use. When researchers did a “challenge test on normal people where they induce pain and tried to see whether or not marijuana reduces the pain, it was ineffective.”

Ms. Madras sees parallels between the marketing of pot now and of opioids a few decades ago. “The benefits have been exaggerated, the risks have been minimized, and skeptics in the scientific community have been ignored,” she says. “The playbook is always to say it’s safe and effective and nonaddictive in people.”

Advocates of legalization assert that cannabis can’t be properly studied unless the federal government removes it from Schedule I. Bunk, Ms. Madras says: “I have been able to study THC in my research program.” It requires more paperwork, but “I did all the paperwork. . . . It’s not too difficult.”

Instead of bankrolling ballot initiatives to legalize pot, she says, George Soros and other wealthy donors who “catalyzed this whole movement” should be funding rigorous research: “If these folks, these billionaires, had just taken that money and put it into clinical trials, I would have been at peace.”

It’s a travesty, Ms. Madras adds, that the “FDA has decided that they’re going to listen to that movement rather than to what the science says.” While the reclassification wouldn’t make recreational marijuana legal under federal law, dispensaries and growers would be able to deduct their business expenses on their taxes. The rescheduling would also send a cultural signal that marijuana use is normal.

Ms. Madras worries that “it sets a precedent for the future.” She points to the movement in states to legalize psychedelic substances, for whose medicinal benefits there also isn’t strong scientific evidence. Meantime, she says it makes no sense that politicians continuously urge more spending on addiction treatment and harm reduction while weakening laws that prevent people from becoming addicted in the first place.
Her rejoinder to critics who say the war on drugs was a failure? “This is not a war on drugs. It’s a defense of the human brain at every possible age from in utero to old age.”

Ms. Finley is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-you-arent-reading-about-marijuana-permanent-brain-damage-biden-schedule-iii-9660395e May 2024

Filed under: Addiction,Alcohol,Brain and Behaviour,Cannabis/Marijuana,Drug use-various effects on foetus, babies, children and youth,Global Drug Legalisation Efforts,Health,Latest News,Marijuana and Medicine :

Understanding motives for cannabis use is important for addiction prevention and intervention

(SACRAMENTO)A study in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors by researchers at UC Davis Health and the University of Washington surveyed teens over a six-month period to better understand their motives for using cannabis.

The researchers found that teens who have more “demand” for cannabis (meaning they are willing to consume more when it is free and spend more overall to obtain it) are likely to use it for enjoyment.

Using cannabis for enjoyment (“to enjoy the effects of it”) was linked to using more of it and experiencing more negative consequences.

Teens who have more demand for cannabis were also likely to use it to cope (“to forget your problems”). Using cannabis to cope was linked to experiencing more negative consequences, as identified by the Marijuana Consequences Checklist. Examples of negative effects include having trouble remembering things, difficulty concentrating and acting foolish or goofy.

Cannabis — also called marijuana, pot or weed — is the most used federally illegal drug in the United States. As of November 2023, 24 states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for medicinal and recreational use. At the federal level, marijuana remains a Schedule One substance under the Controlled Substances Act.

“Understanding why adolescents use marijuana is important for prevention and intervention,” said Nicole Schultz, first author of the study and an assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. “We know that earlier onset of cannabis use is associated with the likelihood of developing a cannabis use disorder. It is important we understand what variables contribute to their use so that we can develop effective strategies to intervene early,” Schultz said.

We know that earlier onset of cannabis use is associated with the likelihood of developing a cannabis use disorder. It is important we understand what variables contribute to their use so that we can develop effective strategies to intervene early.”—Nicole Schultz, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Cannabis a public health concern

Cannabis is the most used psychoactive substance among adolescents. In 2022, 30.7% of twelfth graders reported using cannabis in the past year, and 6.3% reported using cannabis daily in the past 30 days.

The increased use is a public health concern, as cannabis can have significant impacts on teen health. A study earlier this year from Columbia University found teens who use cannabis recreationally are two to four times as likely to develop psychiatric disorders, such as depression and suicidality, than teens who do not use cannabis. Teens are also at risk for addiction or cannabis use disorder, where they try but cannot quit using cannabis.

When talking about prevention and intervention with addictive substances, it is essential to know why people use the substances, according to Schultz.

“The reasons often change over time. At the beginning, someone might use a substance for recreational reasons but have different motives later when the substance has become a problem for them,” she said.

For the study, the researchers used mediation analysis to focus on two motives: enjoyment and coping. They examined how these two motives explained the relationship between cannabis demand — a measure of how important or “reinforcing” cannabis is to the user — and cannabis-related outcomes, which included negative consequences and use.

Study participants were between the ages of 15 and 18. Participants completed an initial survey and follow-up surveys at three months and six months. High school students comprised 60.7% of the participants, and four-year college students comprised 24.7%. All lived in the greater metropolitan area of Seattle, where the legalized age for recreational cannabis use is 21 and older.

Of these participants, 87.6% identified as white, 19.1% as Asian or Asian American, 16.9% identified as Hispanic or Latinx, 4.5% as Black or African American, 3.4% as American Indian or Alaska Native and 3.4% identified with another race. Participants could choose more than one selection for race.

The researchers found that greater cannabis demand was significantly associated with using cannabis for enjoyment. Using for enjoyment was also significantly associated with cannabis use for the young study participants.

“This finding makes sense because using for enjoyment is typically related to the initiation of use versus problematic use. And given the age of the participants in this study, they may have short histories of use,” Schultz said.

Being willing to consume more cannabis at no cost, spend more money on cannabis overall, and continue spending at higher costs was positively associated with using cannabis for coping reasons.

Participants who used cannabis for coping and enjoyment both reported experiencing negative consequences from cannabis use. These included feeling increased anxiety, making decisions that were later regretted and getting in trouble with school or an employer.

The researchers noted several limitations of the study, including a lack of diversity, with nearly 88% of the survey participants identifying as white. Another limitation was that the participants’ cannabis usage was self-reported. The study results may also be specific to regions like Seattle, where cannabis has been legalized for adults.

“The current study suggests that encouraging substance-free activities that are fun for adolescents and help adolescents cope with negative feelings may help them use less cannabis and experience fewer negative consequences from use,” said Jason J. Ramirez senior author of the study. Ramirez is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington and a faculty member of the Center for the Study of Health and Risk Behaviors.

Additional authors include Tessa Frohe from the University of Washington and Christopher J. Correia from Auburn University.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has a website and a national hotline, at 1-800-662-4357, for individuals and families facing substance use disorders. Information about cannabis use disorder is available on the Centers for Disease Control webpage.

This research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21DA045092) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (F32AA028667, T32AA007455, K01AA030053)

December 11, 2023

Source: https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/teens-use-cannabis-for-coping-enjoyment/2023/12

Filed under: Addiction,Cannabis/Marijuana,Latest News,Prevention and Intervention,USA,Youth :

The lowered rates of substance use that youth reported after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic remained steady into 2023. However, the rate of fatal drug overdoses among youth, which rose in 2020, remained increased well into 2022.

After the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated school closures began in 2020, youth reported that they were using illicit substances significantly less, according to the 2023 Monitoring the Future survey. Among 12th graders, use of any illicit substances in the previous year fell from 36.8% in 2020 to 32% in 2021. Among 10th graders, the rate fell from 30.4% to 18.7%, while it fell from 15.6% to 10.2% among 8th graders.

Rate of Reported Past-Year Illicit Substance Use Among 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders.

Many schools have returned to in-person learning since the fall of 2021, and yet the percentage of students reporting any illicit substance use in 2023 has held steady at the lowered levels reported during the pandemic, according to the most recent Monitoring the Future survey. In 2023, 31.2% of 12th graders, 19.8% of 10th graders, and 10.9% of 8th graders reported any illicit substance use in the past year.

Monitoring the Future has tracked national substance use among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders at hundreds of schools across the country annually since 1975. It is conducted by the University of Michigan and funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

Addressing substance use among youth, especially with regard to prevention, should involve not only reaching out to institutions like schools, but also connecting with families to engage them, said Anish Dube, M.D., M.P.H.

“This is encouraging news,” said Anish Dube, M.D., M.P.H., chair of APA’s Council on Children, Adolescents, and Their Families. “Peers have a huge influence on young people and the types of decisions they make. For better or worse, the pandemic limited the amount of time young people physically spent with their peers, and this may be at least one reason why we saw less risk-taking behavior among youth.”

Youth who responded to the survey most commonly reported drinking alcohol, vaping nicotine, and using cannabis in the past year. Compared with 2022 levels, past-year use of alcohol fell among 12th graders and remained stable for 10th and 8th graders. Nicotine vaping declined among 12th and 10th graders and remained stable among 8th graders. Finally, cannabis use remained stable among students in all three grades.

Unintentional Drug Overdose Death Rates Among U.S. Youth Aged 15-19.

Simultaneously, however, in recent years the rate of fatal overdoses among youth has increased. A 2022 study published in JAMA found that, beginning in 2020 until June 2021, adolescents experienced a greater relative increase in overdose mortality compared with the overall population. An analysis by NIDA published last December found that the upward trends previously reported continued into the summer of 2022. Between the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020, the rate of unintentional overdose deaths per 100,000 population among youth aged 15 to 19 rose from 0.89 to 1.32. The rate has not declined since that increase. In the summer of 2022, the rate was 1.63.

“In my own clinical experience, one of the biggest challenges has been the widespread availability of fentanyl and its derivatives, their lethality, and the ease with which they can be laced into other substances that young people are trying,” Dube said.

When youth weren’t seeing their friends during the COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns, they did not have the peer interactions that may lead to substance use, said Oscar Bukstein, M.D., M.P.H.

The illicit substances available now are highly addictive and can provide a quick and intense high, said Oscar Bukstein, M.D., M.P.H. That is part of the reason the rate of overdose deaths among adults is so high, and the same is likely true for youth.

“Young people in particular are usually novice drug users,” Bukstein pointed out. Just like younger adolescents are more likely to experience alcohol poisoning, youth who are using other illicit substances may similarly be unaware of the true danger of what they are using, he explained. Bukstein is a member of APA’s Council on Children, Adolescents, and Their Families and a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

Bukstein also noted that, because Monitoring the Future surveys youth in schools, those who are not in school due to high-risk behaviors such as truancy or dropping out are less likely to be included. That means the survey may not capture youth who are at the highest risk for substance use. These youth need far more resources than are available to them, such as residential treatment for those who need more than intensive outpatient care, Bukstein said.

Overall, Bukstein is optimistic about Generation Z, he added. “I’ve noticed that there’s a greater sense among the general adolescent population that they want something out of life,” he said. “They know these substances are dangerous, that they are not going to get them where they want to go, and they don’t need them.”

Source: https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2024.03.3.10

Filed under: Addiction,Health,Latest News,Social Affairs,USA,Youth :

Illicit fentanyl, the driving force behind the U.S. overdose epidemic, is increasingly being used in conjunction with methamphetamine, a new report shows.

The laboratory Millennium Health said 60% of patients whose urine samples contained fentanyl last year also tested positive for methamphetamine. Cocaine was detected in 22% of the fentanyl-positive samples.

Millennium officials said the report represents the impact of the “fourth wave” of the nation’s overdose epidemic, which began over a decade ago with the misuse of prescription opioids, then came a heroin crisis and more recently an increase in the use of illicit fentanyl. The study found that people battling addiction are increasingly using illicit fentanyl along with other substances, including stimulants such as methamphetamine and cocaine.

The report suggests heroin and prescription opioids are being abused less often than they were a decade ago. Of the urine samples containing fentanyl analyzed in the report, 17% also contained heroin and 7% showed the presence of prescription opioids.

The Millennium report is based on analyses of urine samples collected from more than 4.1 million patients in 50 states from Jan. 1, 2013, to Dec. 15, 2023. The samples were collected in doctors’ offices and clinics that see patients for pain, addiction and behavioral health treatment.

Overall, 93% of fentanyl samples tested positive for at least one other substance, a concerning finding, said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

“I did not expect that number to be so high,” she said.

Overdose deaths climb

Drug overdose deaths in the United States surged past 100,000 in 2021 and increased again in 2022. Provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed overdose deaths through September 2023 increased about 2% compared with the year before.

Other reports show that stimulants, mostly methamphetamine, are increasingly involved in fentanyl overdoses. In 2021, stimulants were detected in about 1 in 3 fentanyl overdose deaths, compared with just 1 in 100 in 2010.

The finding of methamphetamine in so many samples is especially concerning, said Eric Dawson, vice president of clinical affairs Millennium Health.

“Methamphetamine is more potent, more pure and probably cheaper than it’s ever been at any time in this country,” Dawson said. “The methamphetamine product that is flooding all of our communities is as dangerous as it’s ever been.”

Methamphetamine has no rescue drugs, treatments

As methamphetamine use appears to play a larger role in the addiction crisis, the medical community does not have the same tools to counter its misuse.

Naloxone and similar overdose reversal medications counteract opioid overdoses by blocking opioid receptors in the brain to quickly reverse the effects of an overdose. Narcan, a nasal spray version of naloxone, can be purchased and is kept in stock by public health departments, schools, police and fire departments and federal agencies nationwide. Chain retailers such as CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid and Walmart began selling Narcan over the counter without a prescription.

But there is no medication approved by the Food and Drug Administration for overdoses involving stimulants such as methamphetamine.

Opioid substitute medications such as methadone and buprenorphine are used to reduce cravings and ease withdrawal symptoms from opioids. There are no equivalent medications, however, for people who are dependent on methamphetamine or other stimulants, Dawson said.

That deficit is glaring, Dawson said: “We need effective treatments for stimulant-use disorder.”

Meth samples more common in the West

The Millennium report also found that drug use differed by region, and methamphetamine samples were detected more frequently in the western U.S.

Methamphetamine was detected in more than 70% of fentanyl-positive urine samples in the Pacific and Mountain West states. Meth showed up least often in fentanyl-positive samples in the mid- and south-Atlantic states, the report said.

Cocaine appeared to be more prevalent in the eastern U.S. More than 54% of fentanyl-positive samples in New England also had cocaine. By comparison, fewer than 1 in 10 of the samples showed cocaine in the mountain region of the West, the report said.

Other findings from the report:

∎ The presence of cocaine samples in fentanyl-positive specimens surged 318% from 2013 to 2023.

∎ The presence of heroin in fentanyl-positive specimens dropped by 75% after a peak in 2016.

∎ The presence of prescription opioids in fentanyl-positive specimens dropped to an all-time low in 2023, which researchers cite as evidence that the U.S. addiction crisis has shifted from pain medications.

Nationwide, the addiction epidemic has evolved to a phase in which people are often using multiple substances, not just fentanyl, Volkow said. This polysubstance abuse complicates matters for public health authorities seeking to slow the nation’s overdose deaths.

Volkow said reports such as Millennium Health’s are important because they give researchers a snapshot of the nation’s evolving drug use and provide more timely data than death investigations from overdoses can offer.

Source: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2024/02/21/methamphetamine-plays-increasing-role-in-addiction-crisis/72661430007/

Filed under: Addiction,Latest News,Methamphetamine/GHB/Hallucinogens/Oxycodone,Social Affairs,USA :

The United States is knee-deep in what some experts call the opioid epidemic’s “fourth wave,” which is not only placing drug users at greater risk but is also complicating efforts to address the nation’s drug problem.

These waves, according to a report from Millennium Health, began with the crisis in prescription opioid use, followed by a significant jump in heroin use, then an increase in the use of synthetic opioids like fentanyl.

The latest wave involves using multiple substances at the same time, combining fentanyl mainly with either methamphetamine or cocaine, the report found.

“And I’ve yet to see a peak,” said one of the co-authors, Eric Dawson, vice president of clinical affairs at Millennium Health, a specialty laboratory that provides drug testing services to monitor use of prescription medications and illicit drugs.

The report, which takes a deep dive into the nation’s drug trends and breaks usage patterns down by region, is based on 4.1 million urine samples collected from January 2013 to December 2023 from people receiving some kind of drug addiction care.

Its findings offer staggering statistics and insights. Its major finding: How common polysubstance use has become. According to the report, an overwhelming majority of fentanyl-positive urine samples — nearly 93% — contained additional substances.

“And that is huge,” said Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health.

The most concerning, she and other addiction experts said, is the dramatic increase in the combination of meth and fentanyl use. Methamphetamine, a highly addictive drug often in powder form that poses several serious cardiovascular and psychiatric risks, was found in 60% of fentanyl-positive tests last year. That is an 875% increase since 2015.

“I never, ever would have thought this,” Volkow said.

Among the report’s other key findings:

The nationwide spike in methamphetamine use alongside fentanyl marks a change in drug use patterns.
Polydrug use trends complicate overdose treatments. For instance, though naloxone, an opioid-overdose reversal medication, is widely available, there isn’t an FDA-approved medication for stimulant overdose.
Both heroin and prescribed opioid use alongside fentanyl have dipped. Heroin detected in fentanyl-positive tests dropped by 75% since peaking in 2016. Prescription opioids were found at historic low rates in fentanyl-positive tests in 2023, down 89% since 2013.

But Jarratt Pytell, an addiction medicine specialist and assistant professor at the University of Colorado’s School of Medicine, warned these declines shouldn’t be interpreted as a silver lining.

A lower level of heroin use “just says that fentanyl is everywhere,” Pytell said, “and that we have officially been pushed by our drug supply to the most dangerous opioids that we have available right now.”

“Whenever a drug network is destabilizing and the product changes, it puts the people who use the drugs at the greatest risk,” he said. “That same bag or pill that they have been buying for the last several months now is coming from a different place, a different supplier, and is possibly a different potency.”

In the illicit drug industry, suppliers are the controllers. It may not be that people are seeking out methamphetamine and fentanyl but rather that they’re what drug suppliers have found to be the easiest and most lucrative product to sell.

“I think drug cartels are kind of realizing that it’s a lot easier to have a 500-square-foot lab than it is to have 500 acres of whatever it takes to grow cocaine,” Pytell said.

Dawson said the report’s drug use data, unlike that of some other studies, is based on sample analysis with a quick turnaround — a day or two.

Sometimes researchers face a months-long wait to receive death reports from coroners. Under those circumstances, you are often “staring at today but relying on data sources that are a year or more in the past,” said Dawson.

Self-reported surveys of drug users, another method often used to track drug use, also have long lag times and “often miss people who are active for substance use disorders,” said Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College. Urine tests “are based on a biology standard” and are good at detecting when someone has been using two or more drugs, he said.

But using data from urine samples also comes with limitations.

For starters, the tests don’t reveal users’ intent.

“You don’t know whether or not there was one bag of powder that had both fentanyl and meth in it, or whether there were two bags of powder, one with fentanyl in it and one with meth and they took both,” Caulkins said. It can also be unclear, he said, if people intentionally combined the two drugs for an extra high or if they thought they were using only one, not knowing it contained the other.

Volkow said she is interested in learning more about the demographics of polysubstance drug users: “Is this pattern the same for men and women, and is this pattern the same for middle-age or younger people? Because again, having a better understanding of the characteristics allows you to tailor and personalize interventions.”

All the while, the nation’s crisis continues. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 107,000 people died in the U.S. in 2021 from drug overdoses, most because of fentanyl.

Caulkins said he’s hesitant to view drug use patterns as waves because that would imply people are transitioning from one to the next.

“Are we looking at people whose first substance use disorder was an opioid use disorder, who have now gotten to the point where they’re polydrug users?” he said. Or, are people now starting substance use disorders with methamphetamine and fentanyl, he asked.

One point was clear, Dawson said: “We’re just losing too many lives.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Source: https://dailymontanan.com/2024/03/17/fourth-wave-of-opioid-epidemic-crashes-ashore-propelled-by-fentanyl-and-meth/

Filed under: Addiction,Drug Specifics,Latest News,Methamphetamine/GHB/Hallucinogens/Oxycodone,USA :

Jim Carroll is the former director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy — informally known as the U.S. Drug Czar — and said the three biggest factors in dealing with the drug epidemic locally and nationally is enforcement, treatment, and prevention.

“It’s the only way to really tackle this issue is one, reducing the availability of drugs in our community, recognizing that there are people who are suffering from addiction and that recovery is possible that if we can get them in to help, that they can recover,” Carroll said. “It’s important to do all three; it’s possible to reduce the number of fatalities.”

Carroll said the issue is getting worse, with the number of fentanyl deaths going up 50% in the last four years, up to around 115,000 from around 70,000 in 2019.

Uttam Dhillon is the former acting director of the Drug Enforcement Agency, and said that the reason the drug epidemic has become such a serious issue is because of the crisis at the southern border.

“The two biggest cartels are the Sinaloa cartel and the…CJNG, and they fight for territory and the ability to bring precursor chemicals in from China to make methamphetamine and fentanyl, and then transport those drugs into the United States,” Dhillon said. “The battle between the cartels is actually escalated and they are now actually using landmines in Mexico… so this is a brutal war in Mexico between the cartels.”

Dhillon said the reason the stakes are so high in Mexico is because the demand for illicit drugs in the United States is so large.

“Basically every state in the union has activity from the drug cartels in Mexico in them, and that’s really important to understand, because that’s why we are being flooded by drugs,” Dhillon said. “We never declared Mexico a narco state during the Trump Administration, but as I stand here today, I would say in my opinion, Mexico is a narco state.”

In terms of dealing with the nation’s drug epidemic, Dhillon said we first have to start by enforcing the law, which in part begins at the southern border.

Increased enforcement at the border, however, does not fully solve America’s drug epidemic. That is where the panel said local partners in prevention and recovery come in.

Kaitlyn Krolikowski is the director of administrative services at the Purchase District Health Department and said that prevention and treatment is about more than keeping people out of jail.

In January and February, there have been four overdoses in west Kentucky, according to the McCracken County coroner.

“Dead people don’t recover,” Krolikowski said. “We are here to help people recover and to help our community. For our community to prosper, we need healthy community members and the way that we’re going to get that is by offering them treatment, saving lives, and giving them the resources that they need to be members of our community that we’re proud of.”

While many members of the audience were police officers, non-nursing students, and community leaders, the event was designed to help give clinicians more context about the world they will practice in after graduation.

Dina Byers is the dean of the School of Nursing and Health Professions at MSU, and said that its important to hear what is going on at the national, state, and local level when it comes to illicit drugs.

“It was important that they hear what’s going on,” Byers said. “And that was the purpose of this event was to provide a collaborative effort, a collaborative panel discussion around many topics today.”

If you or someone you know is struggling with addiction, you can call the police without fear of being arrested, or call your local health department to get resources that can help saves lives.

Filed under: Addiction,Drug Specifics,Political Sector,USA :

Nearly 50 million Americans experienced a substance use disorder in the past year.
Despite the widespread need, only a tiny fraction (9.1%) of those with co-occurring mental health issues and SUDs receive treatment for both conditions.
Over 70% of individuals with alcohol abuse or dependence never receive treatment.
Suicidal thoughts are alarmingly common, affecting over 13 million US adults and 3.4 million adolescents in the past year.
Addiction doesn’t discriminate: heroin use has increased across all income levels in recent years.

This article draws on the most recent and reliable data sources available. By focusing on up-to-the-minute information, we gain the clearest possible picture of the challenges and the best ways to address them.

Prevalence of Substance Use Disorders by Drug Type

Substance use disorders (SUDs) affect a significant portion of the US population. In 2022, the numbers reveal the varying prevalence of different substance-related disorders:

Overall Substance Use Disorders

An estimated 48.7 million Americans aged 12 or older had a substance use disorder (SUD) in the past year.

Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD)

Alcohol use disorders were the most common, affecting 29.5 million people.

Drug Use Disorder (DUD)

27.2 million people had a drug use disorder.
Of those with DUD, 8.0 million also had an alcohol use disorder, highlighting the overlap between the two.

Illicit Drug Use

Around 70.3 million people aged 12 or older used illicit drugs in the past year.
Marijuana was the most common illicit drug, used by 61.9 million people (22.0% of those aged 12+).

Mental Health & Substance Use

Mental health issues are closely linked to SUDs. Nearly 1 in 4 adults (59.3 million) experienced any mental illness (AMI) in the past year.
Among adolescents (12-17), 19.5% (4.8 million) experienced a major depressive episode (MDE) in the past year.

Suicidal Thoughts & Behaviors

Suicidal thoughts are concerningly common, especially linked to mental health struggles:

1 in 20 US adults (13.2 million) had serious suicidal thoughts in the past year.
Over 1 in 8 adolescents (13.4% or 3.4 million) had serious suicidal thoughts in the past year.

These statistics show the widespread impact of substance use disorders. It’s crucial to address both substance use and mental health needs, as they often go hand-in-hand.

Age and Gender Differences in Addiction Rates

Substance use and addiction rates vary significantly based on both age and gender. Here’s a breakdown of the key trends:

Gender Differences

Males vs. Females

Generally, men are more likely to use illicit drugs and have higher rates of alcohol use/dependence. However:

Women are equally likely to develop substance use disorders (SUDs).
Women may be more prone to cravings and relapse, impacting their recovery process.

Specific Substances

Marijuana: Use is lower among females, but they may experience different effects.
Alcohol: Men have historically had higher AUD rates, but this gap is narrowing.
Prescription Drugs: Women are more likely to overdose or seek emergency care due to prescription drug misuse.
Stimulants: Abuse rates are similar, but women may start using earlier and experience stronger cravings.

Age Differences

Adolescents: Alcohol use rates are surprisingly similar for boys and girls aged 12-17.
Young Adults: Females aged 12-20 may have slightly higher rates of alcohol misuse than males.
Older Adults: Women 65+ have significantly higher rates of prescription painkiller addiction than their male peers.

Treatment & Recovery Considerations

Gender-Specific Care: Treatment programs tailored to the unique needs of men or women can be more effective.
Telescoping Effect: Women often progress from substance use to dependence more quickly than men, impacting treatment approaches.

Socioeconomic Factors and Addiction Risk

Socioeconomic status plays a significant role in addiction risk. Here’s how factors like income, education, and social circumstances contribute:

Income & Addiction

Smoking is much more common among low-income individuals than those with high incomes.
Contrary to stereotypes, higher income levels are linked to increased alcohol and drug use among teens and young adults.

Education & Parental Influence

Low parental education levels correlate with an increased risk of heroin use in children.
Students who skip school (truancy) are far more likely to experiment with or become addicted to heroin.

Socioeconomic Disparities

People in the lowest income brackets are more likely to report problems associated with substance abuse.
Lower socioeconomic status dramatically increases the risk of alcohol-related death and opioid addiction.

Unexpected Trends

Heroin use has increased across all income groups in the US.
Upper-middle-class youth face a surprisingly high risk of drug and alcohol addiction.

Poverty, Marginalization, & Substance Use

Poverty and social disadvantage create a cycle where substance use becomes both a cause and a consequence of hardship.

Addiction doesn’t discriminate based on socioeconomic status. Effective prevention and treatment must address the unique challenges faced by people from all backgrounds.

Co-occurring Mental Health Disorders and Addiction

People can struggle with both substance use disorders (SUDs) and mental health conditions, known as co-occurring disorders or dual diagnoses. Here’s a look at how prevalent this is:

Prevalence of Co-occurring Disorders

7.7 million US adults experience co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders.
Of adults with SUDs, 37.9% also have a mental illness. Among adults with a mental illness, 18.2% have a co-occurring SUD.
Over 60% of teens in substance use treatment programs also meet the criteria for a mental health disorder.

Treatment & Barriers

Only 9.1% of people with co-occurring disorders receive treatment for both conditions.
Common reasons for not seeking help include cost (cited by 52.2% of those needing mental health care) and not being ready to stop using substances (38.4%).

Specific Conditions

SUDs frequently co-occur with anxiety disorders like generalized anxiety, panic disorder, and PTSD.
Depression, bipolar disorder, and other mood disorders are also highly prevalent alongside substance use disorders.

Additional Statistics

Co-occurring serious mental illness (SMI) and SUDs in young adults (18-25) rose from 1.7% in 2015 to 2.8% in 2019.
Of those with heroin use disorder, over 66% are nicotine-dependent, and significant percentages struggle with alcohol or cocaine addiction.
People with co-occurring disorders are much more likely to be arrested, highlighting the complex challenges they face.

Global Perspective

Studies across cultures show high rates (50-80%) of psychiatric conditions among people with drug use disorders.

The significant overlap between mental health and addiction underscores the need for treatment that addresses both conditions simultaneously.

Treatment Rates and Barriers to Accessing Care

Despite the importance of treatment, many individuals with mental health and substance use disorders never receive the help they need. Here’s a look at the numbers:

Treatment Rates

Co-occurring Disorders: Only 9.1% of the 7.7 million adults with co-occurring disorders receive treatment for both conditions.
Substance Use Disorders (SUDs): Treatment gaps are wide, with the vast majority (78.1%) of individuals with alcohol abuse/dependence going untreated.
Mental Health Disorders: Over half of people with conditions like depression, anxiety disorders, and bipolar disorder do not receive treatment.

Barriers to Accessing Care

There are various barriers to accessing proper care for SUD treatment. Closing the treatment gap requires addressing these obstacles:

Cost & Insurance: High costs and inadequate insurance coverage prevent many from seeking care (37% for mental health, 31% for SUD treatment).
Provider Shortages: Lack of mental health professionals, especially in rural areas, limits access.
Stigma: Fear of judgment or confidentiality concerns deter individuals from seeking help.
Lack of Awareness: People may not know what resources exist or how to recognize signs of needing help.
Systemic Issues: Long waitlists, fragmented care systems, and socioeconomic factors like poverty create additional barriers.

Summary

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are a widespread problem in the US. It affects nearly 50 million people. This crisis cuts across all demographics and has devastating consequences for individuals, families, and communities.

Alarmingly, despite the need, treatment rates remain low. Only a tiny fraction receive help, especially for co-occurring mental health issues.

We must strive for improved access to treatment programs that address both substance use and mental health needs. Considering the unique challenges different populations face will lead to more effective solutions.

Source: https://www.addictiongroup.org/resources/addiction-statistics/#:~:text=An%20estimated%2048.7%20million%20Americans%20aged%2012%20or,substance%20use%20disorder%20%28SUD%29%20in%20the%20past%20year

Filed under: Addiction,Latest News,USA :

Colorado appears doomed to repeat failure

After two fouled attempts to sway the Colorado Legislature that these sites will curb the state’s overdose crisis, harm reduction advocates persuaded a majority in the House Health and Human Services Committee to pass the bill on a 9-4 party-line vote.

These sites are illegal under federal law; the bill, however, appears poised to pass the House in the same party-line fashion.

While persistence may be on the proponents’ side, the facts, when thoroughly considered, are not in their corner.

Bill advocates use a sole metric of “effectiveness” to support their claim that these sites will reduce overdose deaths.

In the North American communities where these sites have been piloted, including Vancouver, British Columbia, San Francisco, and New York’s Harlem neighborhood, there are virtually no reported overdose deaths on the sites themselves. Conveniently omitted is the data showing that drug overdose rates have soared in the communities surrounding the pilot sites.

In Vancouver, where the normalization of such behavior over 20 years is likely to have had some effect, deaths due to illicit drug toxicity have risen by 840% since its first site opened in 2004. Heroin possession and trafficking incidents increased by nearly 170% from 2004 to 2018.

Still, a more thorough look at the overdose death rate should not be the sole metric used by the Colorado Legislature to evaluate comprehensive effectiveness.

One consideration is whether these sites reduce overall harm to a person struggling with addiction.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classifies addiction as a medical condition, a brain disease that needs treatment.

San Francisco’s site experiment revealed that “revived” drug abusers often continue to take the drugs and overdose. There are documented cases of the same person being revived from an overdose more than 30 times, making them further subject to toxic brain injury, according to the Brain Injury Association. Repeated drug abuse destroys frontal lobe tissue, the source of motor function and judgment, and can lead to further injury to the brain, including hypoxia or brain anoxia, in which the body forgets how to breathe. Enabling the disease is hardly a benign effort.

Further, legislators should evaluate the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. The neighbors of the sites in Harlem reported an uprising of drug markets where dealers have unlimited access to customers. At the same time, Harlem’s children are forced to navigate used syringes along the sidewalks. In San Francisco, the neighbors endured a similar experience, which led the city to shut down the site within one year of operations.

The linking of site visitors to treatment programs must also be considered. In Vancouver, less than 2% of the site visitors access treatment of any sort. In the San Francisco pilot program, it was less than 1%. Notably, the site operators in Harlem don’t measure this indicator.

Finally, Colorado legislators must consider last week’s bipartisan repeal of Oregon’s Measure 110 by its Legislature. In 2020, Measure 110 was overwhelmingly passed by Oregon voters, who were told that the decriminalization of drugs would “reduce stigma” and reduce use for those struggling with addiction. In three short years, Oregon is now one of the nation’s leaders in addiction and overdose death rates and now has the second-highest increase in homelessness in the country.

More than 1 in 10 Coloradoans struggle with addiction — one of the highest rates in the nation. Colorado’s homeless population grew by nearly 40% in 2023 over 2022. Colorado can ill afford another public policy experiment that rejects recovery and restoration that is not only possible for the individual struggling with addiction but also necessary for a functioning society.

Colorado lawmakers must serve as the backstop to this failed policy. They must look through the portal of experience versus through the narrow lens imparted by the bill’s authors to see the broad implications to all Coloradoans if HB 24-1028 were to pass.

Source: https://www.iwf.org/2024/03/29/safe-injection-sites-are-no-answer-to-addiction/

Filed under: Addiction,Drug use-various effects,Environment,USA :

A CONVERSATION WITH … Dr. Nora Volkow, who leads the National Institutes of Drug Abuse, would like the public to know things are getting better. Mostly. Volkov says: “People don’t really realize that among young people, particularly teenagers, the rate of drug use is at the lowest risk that we have seen in decades,”

By Matt Richtel NYTimes April 6, 2024

Historically speaking, it’s not a bad time to be the liver of a teenager. Or the lungs.

Regular use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs among high school students has been on a long downward trend.

In 2023, 46 percent of seniors said that they’d had a drink in the year before being interviewed; that is a precipitous drop from 88 percent in 1979, when the behavior peaked, according to the annual Monitoring the Future survey, a closely watched national poll of youth substance use. A similar downward trend was observed among eighth and 10th graders, and for those three age groups when it came to cigarette smoking. In 2023, just 15 percent of seniors said that they had smoked a cigarette in their life, down from a peak of 76 percent in 1977.

Illicit drug use among teens has remained low and fairly steady for the past three decades, with some notable declines during the Covid-19 pandemic.

In 2023, 29 percent of high school seniors reported using marijuana in the previous year — down from 37 percent in 2017, and from a peak of 51 percent in 1979.

There are some sobering caveats to the good news. One is that teen overdose deaths have sharply risen, with fentanyl-involved deaths among adolescents doubling from 2019 to 2020 and remaining at that level in the subsequent years.

Dr. Nora Volkow has devoted her career to studying use of drugs and alcohol. She has been the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse since 2003. She sat down with The New York Times to discuss changing patterns and the reasons behind shifting drug-use trends.

What’s the big picture on teens and drug use?

People don’t really realize that among young people, particularly teenagers, the rate of drug use is at the lowest risk that we have seen in decades. And that’s worth saying, too, for legal alcohol and tobacco.

What do you credit for the change?

One major factor is education and prevention campaigns. Certainly, the prevention campaign for cigarette smoking has been one of the most effective we’ve ever seen.

Some of the policies that were implemented also significantly helped, not just making the legal age for alcohol and tobacco 21 years, but enforcing those laws. Then you stop the progression from drugs that are more accessible, like tobacco and alcohol, to the illicit ones. And teenagers don’t get exposed to advertisements of legal drugs like they did in the past. All of these policies and interventions have had a downstream impact on the use of illicit drugs.

Does social media use among teens play a role?

Absolutely. Social media has shifted the opportunity of being in the physical space with other teenagers. That reduces the likelihood that they will take drugs. And this became dramatically evident when they closed schools because of Covid-19. You saw a big jump downward in the prevalence of use of many substances during the pandemic. That might be because teenagers could not be with one another.

The issue that’s interesting is that despite the fact schools are back, the prevalence of substance use has not gone up to the prepandemic period. It has remained stable or continued to go down. It was a big jump downward, a shift, and some drug use trends continue to slowly go down.

Is there any thought that the stimulation that comes from using a digital device may satisfy some of the same neurochemical experiences of drugs, or provide some of the escapism?

Yes, that’s possible. There has been a shift in the types of reinforcers available to teenagers. It’s not just social media, it’s video gaming, for example. Video gaming can be very reinforcing, and you can produce patterns of compulsive use. So, you are shifting one reinforcer, one way of escaping, with another one. That may be another factor.

Is it too simplistic to see the decline in drug use as a good news story?

If you look at it in an objective way, yes, it’s very good news. Why? Because we know that the earlier you are using these drugs, the greater the risk of becoming addicted to them. It lowers the risk these drugs will interfere with your mental health, your general health, your ability to complete an education and your future job opportunities. That is absolutely good news.

But we don’t want to become complacent.

The supply of drugs is more dangerous, leading to an increase in overdose deaths. We’re not exaggerating. I mean, taking one of these drugs can kill you.

What about vaping? It has been falling, but use is still considerably higher than for cigarettes: In 2021, about a quarter of high school seniors said that they had vaped nicotine in the preceding year. Why would teens resist cigarettes and flock to vaping?

Most of the toxicity associated with tobacco has been ascribed to the burning of the leaf. The burning of that tobacco was responsible for cancer and for most of the other adverse effects, even though nicotine is the addictive element.

What we’ve come to understand is that nicotine vaping has harms of its own, but this has not been as well understood as was the case with tobacco. The other aspect that made vaping so appealing to teenagers was that it was associated with all sorts of flavors — candy flavors. It was not until the F.D.A. made those flavors illegal that vaping became less accessible.

My argument would be there’s no reason we should be exposing teenagers to nicotine. Because nicotine is very, very addictive.

Anything else you want to add?

We also have all of this interest in cannabis and psychedelic drugs. And there’s a lot of interest in the idea that psychedelic drugs may have therapeutic benefits. To prevent these new trends in drug use among teens requires different strategies than those we’ve used for alcohol or nicotine.

For example, we can say that if you take drugs like alcohol or nicotine, that can lead to addiction. That’s supported by extensive research. But warning about addiction for drugs like cannabis and psychedelics may not be as effective.

While cannabis can also be addictive, it’s perhaps less so than nicotine or alcohol, and more research is needed in this area, especially on newer, higher-potency products. Psychedelics don’t usually lead to addiction, but they can produce adverse mental experiences that can put you at risk of psychosis.

Matt Richtel is a health and science reporter for The Times, based in Boulder, Colo. More about Matt Richtel

Filed under: Addiction,Education,Prevention and Intervention,Social Affairs,Treatment and Addiction :

In 2020 Oregon voters approved Measure 110, the nation’s first law decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs, including fentanyl, heroin and methamphetamines. Under Measure 110, people cited for drug possession had the option of paying a $100 fine or calling a hotline for treatment. Oregon committed marijuana tax revenue to addiction and recovery services, but in the first year after decriminalization, only 136 people in the state chose to enter treatment. Instead, the state saw a proliferation of open-air drug markets and a rise in crime, homelessness and overdoses.

A public backlash ensued, and last summer a poll of 1,000 registered voters found that two-thirds wanted a major change in the law. A campaign to “fix and improve” Measure 110 has proposed to recriminalize the possession of fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine, prohibit the use of these drugs in public, and make drug treatment mandatory.

Popular opinion holds that an addict cannot be helped until he or she wants to quit, and there is overwhelming agreement among experts that it is preferable for people to choose to enter care rather than be forced into it. But research has borne out the conclusion of a 1990 Institute of Medicine report that “criminal justice pressure does not seem to vitiate treatment effectiveness, and it probably improves retention.”

Most people who are addicted do not want to enter a treatment program. Data from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration show that in 2022, a staggering 94.8% of people with a drug or alcohol use disorder within the past year “did not seek treatment and did not think they should get treatment.” Those who do voluntarily enter treatment usually don’t complete it. About one-third of voluntary patients drop out of treatment before completion, according to government data. Other studies show that up to 80% leave by the end of the first year. Among dropouts, relapse within a year is the rule.

One of the earliest demonstrations of the value of compelled treatment comes from the California Civil Addict program, established in the 1960s for both criminal and non-criminal drug addicts. The program included an average of 18 months in residential treatment. Patients received drug treatment, job training and education with transition services. Upon release, they were to spend up to five additional years being closely monitored and undergoing weekly urine toxicology tests. During the program’s first two years, however, judges and other officials mistakenly released about half the patients from mandatory treatment after only minimal exposure to the initial, residential part of the program.

A natural experiment was born, allowing researchers to compare people who finished treatment with those who were inadvertently released. After reviewing records and interviewing almost 1,000 “out of control” heroin-addicted participants, the researchers found that, seven years after admission to the program, participants who were prematurely released went back to using heroin at more than twice the rate of those who completed 18 months of compulsory residential care.

Today the U.S. has about 4,000 drug courts that offer an alternative to incarceration for addicts who commit nonviolent crimes. Defendants who choose drug court remain in treatment for one to two years under close supervision, including routine urine testing. Once participants complete the treatment program, their record is expunged—a big dangling carrot. A 2002 study in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency looked at 235 arrestees in Baltimore who were randomly assigned to either drug court or typical community supervision, which might include regular meetings with probation officers and referral to drug treatment services. The study found that those in drug court were one-third as likely to be rearrested after a year.

These and other studies show that people who are mandated to undergo addiction treatment fare at least as well as those who volunteer. In the 2000s, a group of Stanford researchers compared a group of patients required by a court attend drug treatment with others who entered care voluntarily. At one year and five years following enrollment, the mandated and voluntary patients made similar improvements in areas such as drug use, criminal activity and employment status. Notably, the groups were equally satisfied with their treatment experience.

Compulsory treatment offers a chance to rescue people earlier in their “careers” of drug addiction, when intervention can produce greater lifetime benefits. And mandated care can ensure that people remain in treatment and don’t drop out, which is consistently shown to be one of the best predictors of a successful outcome. The longer participants stay in care, the more likely they are to internalize the values and goals of recovery.

Some critics say that compelling treatment for addiction is unethical because addiction is a disease. But it is not a classic, involuntary illness; it is a behavior that entails choice and responds to consequences. An approach known as “contingency management” offers people undergoing drug treatment a positive incentive by offering small rewards for meeting expectations; for instance, a negative drug test might earn movie tickets or a gift cards.

As for negative incentives, almost everyone who enrolls in Dr. Satel’s methadone clinic arrives under pressure, whether from a fed-up spouse, an angry boss or a probation officer. And mandatory treatment is far less restrictive than jail, where many addicts end up when they commit drug-related crimes such as theft, child neglect or threatening public safety.

For people who are so chronically intoxicated that they can’t meet their own basic needs, there is also the alternative of civil commitment. In October, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law reforming the state’s conservatorship system to make it easier to compel treatment for people suffering from mental illness or drug addiction.

PHOTO: MARY HUDETZ/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Workers clear syringes and other drug paraphernalia from a vacant lot in Albuquerque, N.M.,August 2019. Mandatory treatment programs can offer accountability when drug users threaten public safety.

Critics are correct, however, to point to the inconsistent quality of addiction treatment programs. Until relatively recently, many drug courts were reluctant to allow participants to use proven medications such as methadone or buprenorphine for opioid addiction. In Oregon, the effort to expand treatment under Measure 110 failed in part because the infrastructure was not put in place quickly enough. If mandated treatment becomes more common nationwide, services will need to ramp up quickly.

Oregon may no longer incarcerate people solely for possessing a small amount of drugs, but there is still a need for accountability when someone with a substance use disorder threatens public safety. By mandating high-quality treatment programs for offenders, and providing care for those who can’t otherwise maintain their own safety, the state could turn its failed experiment into a valuable lesson.

Dr. Sally Satel is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and medical director of a methadone clinic in Washington, D.C. Kevin Sabet, Ph.D., is a former White House adviser and President and CEO of the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/addiction-treatment-can-work-even-when-its-not-voluntary-a81f86ac

Filed under: Addiction,Treatment and Addiction :

The study by Sadananda et al published in the current issue of the IJMR highlights the neurophysiological basis of altered cognition in subjects with opioid addiction. The study demonstrated aberrant network activity between the default mode network (DMN) and fronto-parietal attentional network (FAN) as a major cause for working memory deficits in drug addiction. Working memory is an important to retain the cognitive information essential for goal directed behaviours. Human beings are endowed with an efficient cognitive faculty of working memory, essential for efficient functioning of the executive network system of the brain. As working memory is the key to carry out any cognitive process involving attention, volition, planning, goal directed behaviour, etc., consciousness is linked largely to working memory processing. The importance of integrating neuroscience knowledge especially the executive functions of human brain in leadership has been taught in neuro-leadership programs as a mean to maximize the human capabilities, productivity, creativity, leadership, wellness, positive attitude.

Aberrant network activities and structural deficits in brain areas of executive functioning impede most of our intellect including mental flexibility, novel problem solving, behavioural inhibition, memory, learning, planning, judgement, emotion regulation, self-control and other social functioning. Deficits in working memory and attention owing to reduced fronto-parietal network (FPN) activity is reported in schizophrenia, autism, attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) and anxiety disorders. Opioid addiction is reported to impede such dynamicity of the executive system leading to a wide range of deficits in cognition. Opioid addiction alters the network integrity between DMN and FPN networks and weakens the cognitive information processing in cognitively challenging paradigms. Dysfunctional dynamics of DMN activity is believed to contribute to impaired self-awareness, negative emotions and addiction related ruminations. Aberrant DMN activity and reduced medial prefrontal cortical functions are common neural phenotypes of cognitive deficits in conditions like mental illness, drug addiction, sleep deprivation and neurodegenerative disorders. People with substance use disorders develop mental illnesses as a serious comorbidity that in turn, leads to severe behavioural impairments at the social, emotional and cognitive domains. Chronic sleep deprivation associated with drug addiction and substance abuse is another predisposing factor that worsen the behavioural impairments. Over all, drug addiction, substance abuse and the subsequent maladaptive behaviours including mental illness and sleep deprivation trigger a complex set of network instability in the domains of cognition and affect. The euphoria and hallucinating experience of drugs of abuse would soon lead to psychological distress and to cognitive and emotional behavioural impairments due to the disruption of various top down and bottom-up network dynamics.

Substance use disorders are an imminent socio-economic burden and have become a major public health concern worldwide. Despite knowing the harmful effects and consequences of drug use, reports say that the youth especially the adolescents have a tendency to continue the habit. There is a need to have effective measures in place such as educational programmes to improve the self-efficacy of parents and family members to help their children to develop the right behavioural attitude, enhance the capacity building in teachers to strengthen the self-esteem and wellness of students to organize substance use control awareness programmes in coordination with NGOs at educational institutions, involvement of television and other visual and social media platforms to organise substance abuse control programmes and for interactive opportunity for children/youth with educators, researchers and professionals, organization of knowledge dissemination programmes to the public/schools/colleges to highlight the adverse effects of drug abuse on mental health and cognition. Introduction to such knowledge sharing platforms such as the Virtual Knowledge Network (VKN) at NIMHANS, Bengaluru, provide interactive skill building opportunities to safeguard them from substance abuse and addiction. People should have easy access to such services and rehabilitation centers. Various behavioural intervention strategies such as cognitive retraining, psychotherapy, yoga therapy, mindfulness-based intervention programmes etc. are reported to improve cognitive abilities, regulation of negative emotions and restoration of motivational behaviours. A study on single night exposure to olfactory aversive conditioning during sleep helped to quit addiction to cigarette smoking temporarily. Such studies highlight the possibility of learning new behaviours during sleep and its positive impact on wake associated behaviours. Such approaches are quite useful, easily testable and cost-effective. Thanks to the incredible phenomenon of adult brain plasticity, it is possible to re-establish social intelligence, prosocial motivation among people with substance abuse.

Source: Drug addiction – How it hijacks our cognition & consciousness – PMC (nih.gov) October 2021

Filed under: Addiction,Brain and Behaviour,Drug use-various effects,Heroin/Methadone,Nicotine,Treatment and Addiction :

Substance use has often been described as “bad learning” linked with impairments in reward processing and decision-making, but there is little substantial research to support this idea. A recent study by Byrne et al. suggests that substance misuse not only promotes harmful habit formation, which might undermine survival, but also makes it difficult to stop using.

Model-free vs. Model-based Learning

The “Dual Systems” theory of reinforcement learning defines two distinct systems:

The model-based, or goal-directed system, where actions are planned and purposeful, and we learn about the connection between actions and outcomes, and how to modify our behavior to achieve the desired outcome. This system requires more cognitive processing and is more flexible and controlled.
The model-free, or habit-based system, where learning is informed by reflexive responses to stimuli – like compulsive substance use and cravings. This system of learning is less flexible and is more controlled by automatic processing.

The differences between the two systems of learning have been highlighted by researchers in relation to harmful habitual behaviors such as substance use. One school of thought suggests that learning informed by the model-free system, with more of a focus on instinctual response to stimuli and less of a focus on conscious and informed decision-making, sets a person up to be more likely to engage in detrimental behaviors like substance use.

There is evidence that progressing from first use to misuse and addiction is paralleled by a shift from planned, purposeful, and goal-directed behavior to behavior that is habitual and reflexive. This progression and subsequent loss of control has been discussed by National Institutes on Drug Abuse Director Dr. Nora Volkow in her keynote speech at the APA and in her blog about free will. Model-free, conditioned learning means it is harder for a person to engage their frontal lobes, the part of the brain that helps us prioritize healthy, long-term and rational decisions. Repeated problematic substance use initiates a process where humans begin to respond more instinctually to the substance, wanting more and more of it over time. Use begets use, which leads to maladaptive behaviors centered around obtaining and using the substance to trigger the very same dopamine response that drives and reinforces model-free, habitual learning.

Substance Use and Reward Devaluation

Reward devaluation is a process that occurs in the brain where the value of a desirable outcome, like singing in a band, mentoring, or maintaining sobriety is reduced significantly. This process plays into why improving treatment outcomes can be so hard – treatment for addiction is not as “reinforcing” in the brain as substance use. Compulsive drug use is considered “highly pleasurable” by the parts of the brain that control decision-making when people are heavily addicted and feel as though they need the substance to survive. But treatment? not so much — long-term treatment is difficult to complete without continual support and a long-term treatment plan. Many patients stop attending treatment and/or support groups, and taking prescribed medications unless they are compelled to follow a set treatment plan and have adequate supports in place to help keep them on track.

Addiction is correlated to a considerable decrease in a person’s ability to devalue or disengage from habits learned through the model-free system. This means that problematic substance use affects our ability to make decisions and as the disorder progresses, we begin to put less value on long-term rewards and more value on immediately satisfying a need. Gradually, short term needs, like substance use, override long-term needs, like maintaining employment or investing in personal relationships.

Goals of Study

To examine the associations between model-based and model-free learning with a wide array of substance use behaviors. The process used to determine this was measuring individual variations in eye-blink rate, an indirect proxy for dopamine functioning, a key neural process related to model-free learning.
To assess whether problematic substance use predicted reward disengagement.

Why is This Important?

Patients with substance use disorders are driven to use despite harmful consequences, and although addiction is understood more and more as an acquired brain disease, many are still mystified as to why those suffering can’t manage to break their “habit.” This study helps foster a greater understanding of the mechanisms that explain why. Use may be thought of as “recreational” by the user, but it poses a challenge to the brain, reinforcement systems, and reward hierarchies, which can change a person quickly and in a way that is hard for those around them to understand. Once reward-outcome associations are well established— i.e., taking drugs makes a person “feel good”— individuals with substance use disorders have changed the most basic mechanisms in their brain, and will have more difficulty disengaging from the habitual tendencies. It is not clear how individual experiences, genetics, trauma, and other factors change the speed of these changes. That said, the results of this study are consistent with previous data depicting how alcohol dependence indicates a greater likelihood that a person has habit-based learning strategies over goal-directed strategies. The results do not, however, provide us with more information about whether biological recovery is possible, and how we could make recovery more likely and sustainable for patients.

Authors state that current findings highlight how problems with substance use go beyond the realms of habit formation: they also influence the process of disengaging or “breaking” habits by making it more difficult for individuals with substance use disorders to stop using substances. A better understanding of the mechanisms in the brain that take over once substance use becomes problematic may help us create more effective prevention campaigns and treatments once substance use progresses to a harmful habit.

Source: Why are habits so hard to break? (addictionpolicy.org) May 2019, updated October 2022

Filed under: Addiction,Brain and Behaviour,Drug use-various effects,Treatment and Addiction :

DRP0013

1.Aims Cannabis Skunk Sense (also known as CanSS Ltd) provides straight-forward facts and research-based advice on cannabis. We raise awareness of the continued and growing dangers to children, teenagers and their families of cannabis use.

2.We provide educational materials and information for community groups, schools, colleges and universities; and guidance to wide range of professions, Parliament and the general public – with a strong message of prevention not harm reduction.

3.The Inquiry document says: ‘Government’s stated intention in its 2017 drug strategy is to reduce all illicit and other harmful drug use…….’

4.Missing from this Inquiry document is the following 2017 Strategy statement: ‘preventing people – particularly young people – from becoming drug users in the first place’. Prevention should be first and foremost in any statement as well as in the minds of us all. FRANK was mentioned just once in this strategy; ‘develop our Talk to FRANK service so that it remains a trusted and credible source of information and advice for young people and concerned others’. This claim will be challenged in this report.

5.If prevention (pre-event) were to be successful, there would be little need for a policy of reducing harmful use. Unfortunately, for fifteen or sixteen years now, prevention has taken a back seat.

6.In 1995 Prime Minister John Major’s government produced ‘Tackling Drugs Together’ saying, ‘The new programme strengthens our efforts to reduce the demand for illegal drugs through prevention, education and treatment’.

7.Objectives included: ‘to discourage young people from taking drugs’ and to ensure that schools offer effective programmes of drug education, giving pupils the facts, warning them of risks, and helping them to develop the skills and attitudes to resist drug use – all good common sense.

8.On harm reduction, the government said, ‘The ultimate goal is to ensure people do not take drugs in the first place, but if they do, they should be helped to become and remain drug-free. Abstinence is the ultimate goal and harm reduction should be a means to that end, not an end in itself’.

9.In 1998 the Second National Plan for 2001-2, ‘Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain’ was published. Although prevention was still the aim, the phrase ‘informed choice’ appeared, the downhill slide from prevention had started.

10.The` Updated Strategy in 2002 contained the first high-profile mention of ‘Harm Minimisation (Reduction)’. David Blunkett in the Foreword said, ‘Prevention, education, harm minimisation, treatment and effective policing are our most powerful tools in dealing with drugs’.

Some bizarre statements appeared, e.g.: ‘To reduce the proportion of people under 25 reporting use of illegal drugs in the last month and previous year substantially’. Is infrequent use of drugs acceptable?

In October 2002 at a European Drugs Conference, Ashford, Kent, Bob Ainsworth, drugs spokesman for the Labour government, said that harm reduction was being moved to the centre of their strategy. Prevention was abandoned, ‘informed choice’ and ‘harm reduction’ ruled.

The official government website for information on drugs is FRANK set up in 2003. It continued with the harm reduction policy of the Labour Government.

From the beginning, FRANK was heavily criticised. The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), founded by Iain Duncan-Smith MP in 2004, consistently criticised FRANK for being ill-informed, ineffective, inappropriate and shamefully inadequate, whilst citing a survey conducted by national treatment provider Addaction who found that only one in ten children would call the FRANK helpline to talk about drugs. Quite recently, when asked about sources where they had obtained helpful information about alcohol or smoking cigarettes, young people put FRANK at the bottom.

The CSJ recommended that FRANK be scrapped, and an effective replacement programme developed to inform young people about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse based on prevention rather than harm reduction.

The IHRA (International Harm Reduction Alliance) gives the following definition of harm reduction:

Harm reduction refers to policies, programmes and practices that aim to minimise negative health, social and legal impacts associated with drug use, drug policies and drug laws. Harm reduction is grounded in justice and human rights – it focuses on positive change and on working with people without judgement, coercion, discrimination, or requiring that they stop using drugs as a precondition of support.

The use of Harm reduction instead of Prevention is tantamount to condoning drug use – a criminal activity. The legitimate place for harm reduction is with ‘known users’ on a one to one basis as part of a treatment programme to wean them off completely and attain abstinence in a safer manner than abrupt stoppage which can be very dangerous. One example of this is to inhale the fumes of heroin rather than injection, thus avoiding blood-borne diseases such as AIDS, hepatitis and septicaemia.

An opioid substitute drug for heroin addiction, methadone has the advantage of being taken orally and only once/day. As the dosage is reduced, abstinence will be attained more safely. However, methadone users are often ‘parked’ for months on this highly addictive drug without proper supervision or monitoring. In 2008 in Edinburgh, more addicts died of methadone than heroin.

Harm reduction is a green light. If children are encouraged to use drugs by being given tips on how to use them more safely, many will do it. The son of a friend told his mother. ‘It’s OK we go on to the FRANK website and find out how to take skunk safely by cutting our use and inhaling less deeply’. He is now psychotic!

Prevention works. Between 1997 and 1991 America saw drug use numbers plummet from 23 to 14 million, cocaine and cannabis use halved, daily cannabis use dropped by 75%.

In 2005, Jonathan Akwue of In-Volve writing in Drink and Drugs News, criticised the campaign for lacking authenticity; its ill-judged attempts at humour which try to engage with youth culture; and diluting the truth to accommodate more socially acceptable messages.

The conservatives regained power under David Cameron. FRANK did not change.

In 2005, Mr Iain Duncan Smith again criticised FRANK, saying “Drugs education programmes, such as Talk to FRANK, have failed on prevention and intervention, instead progressively focussing on harm reduction and risk minimisation, which can be counter-productive”

In 2011 it was announced FRANK would be re-launched and the team commissioned ‘A Summary of Health Harms of Drugs’ from The John Moore’s University Liverpool, a hotbed of harm reduction. A psychiatrist from The FRANK Team was involved. Their section on cannabis is totally inadequate, out of date, no recognition of deaths, brain shrinkage, violence, homicides, suicides, the huge increase of strength of THC etc. Professor Sir Robin Murray’s research on mental illness (2009) and the discovery that CBD is virtually absent from skunk are of vital importance.

Many worrying papers have been written since, especially about brain development, all of which are ignored. CanSS met with the FRANK team prior to their re-launch in 2011 where it was agreed that the cannabis section would, with their assistance, be re-written. All but two very small points were ignored, one about driving after taking alcohol with cannabis and the effect on exam results. The harm reduction advice about cannabis was removed at the request of CanSS.

Scientific evidence detailing FRANK’s inaccuracies was given to the Government by CanSS and other drug experts over the years – all of it ignored. Complaints and oral evidence were submitted to the HASC in April and September 2012 and the Education Select Committee in 2014. Government drugs spokesmen have also been contacted with concerns about FRANK.

As the official government source of information on drugs for the UK public, the FRANK site must be regularly updated and contain the many new accurate findings from current scientific research. The public is owed a duty of care and protection from the harm of drugs, especially cannabis, the most commonly used.

The following list contains some of the glaring omissions and vital details from the FRANK website:

Deaths from cancers except lung, road fatalities, heart attacks/strokes, violent crime, homicides, suicides. Tobacco doesn’t cause immediate deaths either.

Alcohol with cannabis can be fatal. An alcohol overdose can be avoided by vomiting but cannabis suppresses the vomiting reflex.

Cases of severe poisoning in the USA in toddlers are increasing, mostly due to ‘edibles’ left within reach. Accidental ingestion by children should be highlighted.

Hyperemesis (violent vomiting) is on the increase.

Abnormally high levels of dopamine in the brain cause psychosis (the first paper on this was written in 1845) and schizophrenia, especially in those with genetic vulnerabilities, causing violence, homicides and suicides. Skunk-induced schizophrenia costs the country around £2 billion/year to treat.

Young people should understand how THC damps down the activities of the whole brain by suppressing the chemical messages for several weeks. It is fat soluble and remains in the cells. Messages to the hippocampus (learning and memory) fail to reach its cells, some die, causing permanent brain damage. IQ points are lost. Few children using cannabis even occasionally will achieve their full potential.

Serotonin is depleted, causing depression and suicides. The huge increase in the strength of THC in cannabis due to the prevalence of skunk (anything from 16% to over 20%) and the almost total lack of CBD is ignored as is the gateway theory, medical cannabis, passive smoking and lower bone mineral density, bronchitis, emphysema and COPD.

They need to be taught that there is reduced ability to process information, self-criticise and think logically. Users lack attention and concentration, can’t find words, plan or achieve routines, have fixed opinions, whilst constantly feeling lonely and misunderstood. They should know of the risk of miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

Amazingly, the fact THC damages our DNA is virtually unknown among the public. In the 1990s, scientists found new cells being made in the adult body (white blood, sperm and foetal cells), suffered premature ‘apoptosis’ (programmed cell death) so were fewer in number. Impotence, infertility and suppressed immune systems were reported. This is important.

In 2016 an Australian paper discovered THC badly interferes with cell division i.e. where chromosomes replicate to form new cells. They fail to segregate properly causing numerous mutations as chromosomes shatter and randomly rejoin. Many cells die (about 50% of fertilized eggs (zygotes). Any affected developing foetus will suffer damage. Resultant foetal defects include gastroschisis (babies born with intestines outside the body), now rising in areas of legalisation, anencephaly (absence of brain parts) and shortened limbs (boys are about 4 inches shorter). Oncogenes (cancer-causing) can be switched on. Bladder, testicle and childhood cancers like neuroblastoma have all been reported. The DNA in mitochondria (energy producers in cells) can also be damaged.

Parliament controls the drug laws, so why are the police able to decide for themselves how to deal with cannabis possession?

Proof of the liberalisation of the law on cannabis possession appeared in the new Police Crime Harm Index in April 2016, where it appeared 2^nd bottom of the list of priorities. In the following November it fell to the bottom. Class ‘A’ drug possession was immediately above. Possession has clearly become a very low priority. In 2015, Durham Police decided they would no longer prosecute those smoking the drug and growing it ‘for their own use’. Instead, officers will issue a warning or a caution. Then Durham Chief Constable Mike Barton announced that his force will stop prosecuting all drug addicts from December 2017 and plans to use police money to give free heroin to addicts to inject themselves twice a day in a supervised ‘shooting gallery’. This surely constitutes dealing. The police can it seems, alter and ‘soften’ laws at will.

Several weeks ago, I happened to check the FRANK website. Quietly, stealthily and without fanfare, a new version had appeared – completely changed. Absent were the patronising videos, games and jokes. Left were A to Z of Drugs, News, Help and Advice (e.g. local harm reduction information) and Contact.

There is poor grammar, i.e. ‘are’ instead of ‘is’ and ‘effect’ where it should be ‘affect’. Mistakes like these do not enhance its credibility.

The drug information is still inadequate with scant essential detail, little explanation and still out of date. This is especially true of cannabis. THC can stay in the brain for many weeks – still sending out its damping-down signals.

What shocked me though were the following:

Our organisation recently received an email about a call to FRANK requesting advice. A friend, a user who also encouraged others to use as well, had lied in a court case where her drug use was a significant factor. He contacted FRANK about her disregard for the law for a substance that was illegal. The advisor raised his voice whilst stating the friend has the right to do what she wants in her own home and mocked him about calling the police. He was shocked and upset by the response.

Ecstasy – Physical health risks

Because the strength of ecstasy pills are so unpredictable, if you do decide to take ecstasy, you should start by taking half or even a quarter of the pill and then wait for the effects to kick in before taking anymore – you may find that this is enough.
If you’re taking MDMA, start by dabbing a small amount of powder only, then wait for the effects to kick in.
Users should sip no more than a pint of water or non-alcoholic drink every hour.

The ‘NEWS’ consisted of 8 pictures with text. In 2 of the 8 items, opportunity is taken to give more ecstasy harm reduction advice. One is titled, ‘Heading out this weekend with Mandy or Molly?’ This is blatant normalisation. The others aren’t ‘news’ items either, but more information about problems.

The section on each drug entitled, ‘Worried about drug x’ mostly consists of giving FRANK’s number. ‘If you are worried about your use, you can call FRANK on 0300 1236600 for friendly, confidential advice’. Any perceptions that FRANK is anything but a Harm Reduction advice site are dispelled completely.

Mentor International is a highly respected worldwide Prevention Charity. Government-funded Mentor UK is in charge of school drug-education with their programme, ADEPIS (Alcohol and Drug Education and Prevention Information Service). Mentor UK masquerades as a ‘Prevention’ charity but practices ‘Harm Reduction’ and has done so from its inception in 1998. A founding member, Lord Benjamin Mancroft, is currently prominent in the APPG: Drug Policy Reform, partly funded by legaliser George Soros’s Open Society Foundation.

Professor Harry Sumnall of John Moores University Liverpool, a trustee on Mentor UK’s board, signed a ‘Legalisation’ letter in The Telegraph 23^rd November 2016 along with the university, Professor David Nutt, The Beckley Foundation, Nick Clegg, Peter Lilley, Transform, Volte-face and other well-known legalisation advocates. Eric Carlin, former Mentor UK CEO (2000-2009), is now a member of Professor David Nutt’s Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD). At a July 2008 conference in Vienna, he said “we are not about preventing drug use, we are about preventing harmful drug use”.

Examples of their activities:

The ‘Street Talk’ programme, funded by the Home Office, carried out by the charities Mentor UK and Addaction and completed in March 2012 was aimed to help vulnerable young people aged 10 – 19, to reduce or stop alcohol and drug misuse. Following the intervention, the majority of young people demonstrated a positive intention to change behaviour as follows: “I am confident that I know more about drugs and alcohol and can use them more safely in the future” – 70% agreed, 7% disagreed’.

Two CanSS members attended a Mentor UK meeting on 7^th January 2014 at Kent University, where Professor Alex Stevens, a sociology professor favouring the opening of a ‘coffee shop’ in Kent and supporting ‘grow your own’ was the main speaker. The audience consisted mainly of young primary school teachers. He became increasingly irritated as CanSS challenged his views, becoming incandescent when told knowledge of drug harms is the most important factor in drug education. The only mention of illegality (by CanSS) was met by mirth!

In a Mentor UK project ‘Safer at school’ (2013), the greatest number of requests from pupils, by 5 to 6 times, were: – effects of drugs, side-effects, what drugs do to your body and consequences. Clearly it had been ignored. Coggans 2003 said that, ‘the life skills elements used by Mentor UK may actually be less important than changing knowledge, attitudes and norms by high quality interactive learning’.

Paul Tuohy, the Director of Mentor UK in February 2013 emailed CanSS, ‘Harm reduction approaches are proven and should be part of the armoury for prevention……..there are many young people harming their life chances who are already using and need encouragement to stop, or where they won’t, to use more safely’.

In 2015 Mentor incorporated CAYT (Centre for Analysis of Youth Transitions) with their ‘The Climate Schools programmes’. Expected Outcomes: ‘To show that alcohol and drug prevention programmes, which are based on a harm minimisation approach and delivered through the internet, can offer a user-friendly, curriculum-based and commercially-attractive teaching method’.

In November 2016, Angelus and Mentor UK merged, ‘The Mentor-Angelus merger gives us the opportunity to reach a wider audience through the delivery of harm-prevention programs that informs young people of the harms associated with illicit and NPS drug-taking, to help support them in making conscientious healthy choices in the future’.

The under-developed brains in young people are quite incapable of making reasoned choices. Nor should they. Drug-taking is illegal.

Michael O’Toole (CEO 2014 –2018) said in an ACMD Briefing paper.

‘Harm reduction may be considered a form of selective prevention – reducing frequency of use or supporting a narrowing range of drugs used’. “It is possible to reduce adverse long-term health and social outcomes through prevention without necessarily abstaining from drugs”.

It is a puzzle that any organisation, including the Government, can condone drug-taking, an illegal activity, either by testing drugs or dishing out harm reduction advice, without being charged with ‘aiding and abetting’ a crime.

Mary Brett, Chair CanSS and Lucy Dawe,Administrator CanSS www.cannabisskunksense.co.uk

Source: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/health-and-social-care-committee/drugs-policy/written/97965.html March 2019

Filed under: Addiction,Alcohol,Cannabis/Marijuana,Drug use-various effects,Ecstasy,Education,Legal Sector,Political Sector,Prevention and Intervention,Youth :

NEARLY 800 babies were born suffering the effects of their mother’s drug addiction in the past three years in Scotland – with experts warning the true toll is likely to be higher.

New figures show 774 babies were recorded as affected by addiction or suffering withdrawal symptoms from drugs between 2014 and 2017.

The drugs pass from mother to foetus through the bloodstream, resulting in babies suffering a range of withdrawal symptoms after birth and developmental delays in childhood.

Consultant neonatologist Dr Helen Mactier, honorary secretary of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine, said there was a “hidden” number of women who took drugs in pregnancy and varying definitions of drug misuse in pregnancy which meant figures were likely to be an underestimate.

She said: “The problem largely in Scotland is opioid withdrawal – heroin and methadone.

“The baby withdraws from these substances and they are very irritable, cross, unhappy children who can be quite difficult to feed until they finally get over the withdrawal.”

Dr Mactier said at birth the babies were usually small, and had small heads and visual problems. She added there is evidence they suffer developmental delays in early childhood.

The figures, revealed in a written parliamentary answer, show an increase of 80% in cases from the three-year period from 2006-9, when 427 babies were born with the condition.

However, it said the data over time should be treated with caution as there has been an improvement in recording drug misuse.

The highest numbers over the past three years were recorded in Grampian, which had 169 cases. Glasgow had 137 cases, while Tayside recorded 90, Lanarkshire 78 and Lothian 72.

Numbers have been dropping since 2011-14, when a peak of 1,073 cases were recorded.

Dr Mactier, who works at Glasgow’s Princess Royal Maternity Hospital, said having to treat babies born addicted to drugs was becoming less common in recent years.

She said: “The numbers are coming down, but we are not sure why. It is partly because women who use drugs intravenously tend to be older, so are becoming too old to have children.”

However, she pointed out one controversial area was stabilising pregnant addicts on heroin substitutes such as methadone.

She added: “That may be good for the mum, to keep her more stable and out of criminality. It is not entirely clear if that is safe for the babies, so we need more research.”

Scottish Conservative health spokesman Miles Briggs, who obtained the figures, said: “It’s a national tragedy that we see such numbers of babies being born requiring drug dependency support – we need to see action to help prevent this harm occurring.”

Martin Crewe, director of Barnardo’s Scotland, said: “We know how important it is for children to get a good start in life. We would like to see no babies born requiring drug dependency support.”

Source: https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/hundreds-of-babies-suffering-because-of-mums-drug-addiction October 2018

Filed under: Addiction,Drug use-various effects on foetus, babies, children and youth,Heroin/Methadone :

Abstract

The recent demonstration that addiction-relevant neuronal ensembles defined by known master transcription factors and their connectome is networked throughout mesocorticolimbic reward circuits and resonates harmonically at known frequencies implies that single-cell pan-omics techniques can improve our understanding of Substance Use Disorders (SUD’s). Application of machine learning algorithms to such data could find diagnostic utility as biomarkers both to define the presence of the disorder and to quantitate its severity and find myriad applications in a developmental pipeline towards therapeutics and cure. Recent epigenomic studies have uncovered a wealth of clinically important data relating to synapse-nucleus signalling, memory storage, lineage-fate determination and cellular control and are contributing greatly to our understanding of all SUD’s. Epigenetics interacts extensively with glycobiology. Glycans decorate DNA, RNA and many circulating critical proteins particularly immunoglobulins. Glycosylation is emerging as a major information-laden post-translational protein modification with documented application for biomarker development. The integration of these two emerging cutting-edge technologies provides a powerful and fertile algorithmic-bioinformatic space for the development both of SUD biomarkers and novel cutting edge therapeutics.

Hypotheses: These lines of evidence provide fertile ground for hypotheses relating to both diagnosis and treatment. They suggest that biomarkers derived from epigenomics complemented by glycobiology may potentially provide a bedside diagnostic tool which could be developed into a clinically useful biomarker to gauge both the presence and the severity of SUD’s. Moreover they suggest that modern information-based therapeutics acting on the epigenome, via RNA interference or by DNA antisense oligonucleotides may provide a novel 21st century therapeutic development pipeline towards the radical cure of addictive disorders. Such techniques could be focussed and potentiated by neurotrophic vectors or the application of interfering electric or magnetic fields deep in the medial temporal lobes of the brain.

Source: Pathways from epigenomics and glycobiology towards novel biomarkers of addiction and its radical cure – PubMed (nih.gov) July 2018

Filed under: Addiction,Brain and Behaviour,Drug use-various effects :

Abstract

Background: Inconsistent findings exist regarding long-term substance use (SU) risk for children diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The observational follow-up of the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA) provides an opportunity to assess long-term outcomes in a large, diverse sample.

Methods: Five hundred forty-seven children, mean age 8.5, diagnosed with DSM-IV combined-type ADHD and 258 classmates without ADHD (local normative comparison group; LNCG) completed the Substance Use Questionnaire up to eight times from mean age 10 to mean age 25.

Results: In adulthood, weekly marijuana use (32.8% ADHD vs. 21.3% LNCG) and daily cigarette smoking (35.9% vs. 17.5%) were more prevalent in the ADHD group than the LNCG. The cumulative record also revealed more early substance users in adolescence for ADHD (57.9%) than LNCG (41.9%), including younger first use of alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, and illicit drugs. Alcohol and nonmarijuana illicit drug use escalated slightly faster in the ADHD group in early adolescence. Early SU predicted quicker SU escalation and more SU in adulthood for both groups.

Conclusions: Frequent SU for young adults with childhood ADHD is accompanied by greater initial exposure at a young age and slightly faster progression. Early SU prevention and screening is critical before escalation to intractable levels.

Keywords: ADHD; Attention deficit disorder; adolescence; drug abuse.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: J.M.S. acknowledges research support, advisory board/speaker’s bureau and/or consulting for Alza, Richwood, Shire, Celgene, Novartis, Celltech, Gliatech, Cephalon, Watson, CIBA, UCB, Janssen, McNeil, Noven, NLS, Medice, and Lilly. J.T.M. received royalties from New Harbinger Press. L.E.A. received research funding from Curemark, Forest, Lilly, Neuropharm, Novartis, Noven, Shire, Supernus, and YoungLiving and consulted with or was on advisory boards for Gowlings, Neuropharm, Novartis, Noven, Organon, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Seaside Therapeutics, Sigma Tau, Shire, and Tris Pharma and received travel support from Noven. L.H. received research support, served on advisory boards and was speaker for Eli Lilly, Glaxo/Smith/Kline, Ortho Janssen, Purdue, Shire and Ironshore. Other authors have no disclosures.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29315559 June 2018

Filed under: Addiction,Brain and Behaviour,Cannabis/Marijuana,Drug use-various effects,Nicotine,Youth :

Legalization advocates and the weed industry can support necessary reforms while being honest about the risks of marijuana use, the study’s author says.

A large percentage of marijuana users around the world report signs of dependence, even as cannabis appears to be one of the safest and most commonly used drugs overall, according to the results of a survey released on Wednesday.

The findings are contained in the 2018 Global Drug Survey, a detailed questionnaire that compiled responses from more than 130,00 people in over 40 countries in the past year. One section of the survey used the “Severity of Dependence Scale,” or SDS, a popular tool that asks respondents five questions regarding impaired control over drug use and anxieties related to consumption and quitting.

Around 50,000 of the survey respondents reported having used marijuana in the last 12 months. Only alcohol and tobacco use were more common.

Of all cannabis users, 20.2 percent showed substantial signs of dependence, measured by affirmative answers to at least four of the five SDS questions. Crystal methamphetamine was the drug most closely associated with dependence, with nearly 25 percent of users scoring four or higher on the SDS.

A positive SDS score is not the same as a clinical diagnosis of dependence, Adam Winstock, a British addiction psychiatrist and founder of the Global Drug Survey, told HuffPost. But it does suggest that many marijuana users have considerable misgivings about their habits.

“You’ve got 20 percent of the people who are significantly worried about the impact of their use on their life,” said Winstock. “It’s a measure of subjective worry and concern, but those questions tap into things like how much you use, how often, your sense of control and your desire to stop.”

The responses to individual SDS questions offer a window into some of those feelings of dependence.

Cannabis was the substance most frequently associated with anxiety over the prospect of quitting, for example. Although nearly 74 percent of users said the idea of stopping “never or almost never” made them anxious, 19.7 percent said it “sometimes” did, with the rest reporting that it “often” or “always” did.

A total of 21.4 percent of marijuana users said it would be “quite difficult” for them to stop using, with 6.4 percent responding that it would be either “very difficult” or “impossible.” Around 72 percent said quitting would not be difficult.

Nearly 30 percent of cannabis users reported that their cannabis use was at least occasionally “out of control,” with 22.6 percent of respondents saying it was only “sometimes” an issue, 5.3 percent saying it was “often” an issue and 1.6 percent saying it was “always or nearly always” an issue.

The survey also sought to measure the overall safety of substances by asking respondents if they’d sought emergency medical treatment after using various drugs. Just 0.5 percent of all cannabis users reported seeking treatment after use, the second-lowest rate of any substance. Magic mushrooms appeared to be the safest recreational drug for the second year in a row, with just 0.2 percent of users saying they’d pursued medical intervention.

The cannabis dependence results were particularly surprising to Winstock, who said he would’ve expected to see around 10 to 15 percent of marijuana users report signs of dependence.

“You’re legalizing a drug that a fair number of people who use it have worries about themselves,” Winstock said. “The question is what do you do about that?”

The Global Drug Survey may hold some answers. Since 2014, the independent research company has partnered with medical experts and media groups to conduct an annual survey with the goal of making drug use safer through increased access to education and treatment resources.

Around 300,000 marijuana users have partaken in Global Drug Surveys over the years, said Winstock. Those respondents have consistently shown high levels of support for establishing government guidelines around safe marijuana use. Among cannabis users who have expressed a desire to use less frequently or quit entirely, many have said they’d like assistance in doing so. But very few end up seeking help.

Taken together, the surveys suggest elected officials and the marijuana industry should be engaging in a more honest discussion about the risks associated with cannabis use so they can better address issues that may arise as laws are liberalized, said Winstock.

That advice may be particularly salient in the U.S., where a number of states are considering legalizing recreational marijuana in the face of growing public opposition to prohibition. Eight states, as well as Washington, D.C., have already legalized weed.

“Clearly arresting someone and giving them a criminal record for smoking a joint is a futile and pointless exercise and … nothing I’m suggesting is me saying cannabis is a bad drug and the government made a mistake,” said Winstock.

“What I’m saying is that at the point they regulated cannabis, they should have mandated a whole bunch of things that allowed it to be easier for people to reflect on their cannabis use and how it impacted on them and how to control their use,” he went on. “There should have been mandated health warnings and advice and an index of harm for different products.”

Among the 3,400 U.S. marijuana users surveyed this year, just under 25 percent expressed a desire to use less ― compared to 29.3 percent of users globally. Just over 25 percent reported getting high more than 300 days out of the past year, though that may not be reflective of broader marijuana trends, because the survey didn’t randomly sample users nationwide.

Sixteen percent of the American marijuana users who said they wanted to cut back also responded that they’d like help doing so. Nearly 50 percent of all U.S. users said they’d attempted to quit at some point, with 67 percent of those saying they’d tried in the previous year.

Winstock says it makes sense to increase access to harm reduction tools in order to reach those who say they want help with their dependence on cannabis. But broad support for this sort of comprehensive approach requires people on all sides to confront the fact that marijuana, like pretty much any drug, can lead to dependence with some frequency.

Instead, the legalization debate has played out in a far more polarized fashion, with advocates often pushing back against decades of government anti-weed hysteria by claiming cannabis is a harmless drug, especially when compared to alcohol or tobacco.

In light of the cataclysmic failures of the nation’s war on drugs, there is plenty of reason to be tempted by that portrayal.

“It could just be that so many people are saying we’ve raised billions in taxes, saved thousands of hours of police time, saved loads of innocent young lives from having their careers ruined and being banged up in prison,” said Winstock. “Those are such huge wins that I could see people going, ‘That’s enough.’”

But just because the status quo has been so bad for so long and marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco ― legal drugs that kill more people each year than all illicit drugs combined ― doesn’t mean the push to legalize cannabis can’t learn from past mistakes.

For Winstock, it’s not too late for legal weed states and leaders in the marijuana industry to place more focus on public health.

“Stop for a moment and think about how you cannot become the tobacco industry or the alcohol industry,” said Winstock. “Be the best you can be, don’t just make the biggest profit. Be the most responsible industry you can, and that means be honest.”

Source: Marijuana Users Report High Rates Of Dependence In Global Drug Survey | HuffPost UK Health (huffingtonpost.co.uk) May 2018

Filed under: Addiction,Brain and Behaviour,Cannabis/Marijuana,Drug use-various effects,Global Drug Legalisation Efforts,Methamphetamine/GHB/Hallucinogens/Oxycodone :

Michael Weaver, MD Medical director, Center for Neurobehavioral Research on Addiction Dr. Weaver has disclosed that he has no relevant financial or other interests in any commercial companies pertaining to this educational activity.

I first met 32-year-old Miranda after a drug relapse that followed a stay in a residential addiction treatment facility. She had begun experimenting recreationally with prescription opioids in her early 20s, but her use escalated after she was involved in a car accident a few years later and a doctor began prescribing opioids for pain. Because of her increased use, Miranda decided on her own to enter a 28-day detox and rehab, but relapsed immediately upon discharge. Several months later, she made an appointment with me to discuss opioid agonist treatment. I prescribed buprenorphine, and for the first few months of treatment she appeared to be doing well.

Addiction treatment often begins with high hopes and apparent success, but it’s important to remember that addiction is a disease with a relapse rate of 40%–60% (McLellan et al, JAMA 2000;284(13):1689–1695; Dawson DA et al, Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2007;31:2036–2045). Be realistic: Expect that patients will go through cycles of relapse and recovery. Learn the warning signs for relapse, the measures you can take to prevent it, and what to do after it has occurred.

Recognizing relapse

There are a number of clues that someone has relapsed—or may be headed that way:

- Reduced eye contact during a session

- A more anxious demeanor than usual

- Less engagement, or a sense of holding back from the treatment process

- Exacerbated emotional distress or worsening co-anxiety or depression

- Vague answers to questions

- Reduced attendance at 12-step programs or therapeutic groups

- Missed visits with a psychiatrist or other caregiver

None of these red flags individually spell impending relapse—instead, it’s the pattern of behavior that tells the story. Your patient may not actually have used yet, but (wittingly or unwittingly) is starting to go down that road. This is known as desire thinking (Martino F et al, Addict Behav 2017;64:118–122), and in 12-step programs, it’s called “drinking thinking.”

After three months of buprenorphine treatment, I began to notice worrisome signs of potential relapse during one of our sessions. Miranda’s answers to my questions were more vague than usual, her eye contact faltered, and she seemed a little more anxious. Before that session, we had started talking about smoking cessation, but that day she didn’t seem interested.

At that point, I told Miranda I would need a urine sample. She hemmed and hawed for a minute, then admitted that she had started using again within the past few days. She had been spending time with her sister, who also abused a variety of illegal and prescription drugs; while there, her sister had told her, “I know you can’t use opioids, but here are some benzodiazepines. Why don’t you try those?” Miranda acquiesced, and that quickly escalated to use of marijuana and finally opioids.

Miranda’s story is fairly typical. Pressure from peers not in recovery, or simply spending time with old friends not in recovery, is cause for concern. In fact, if a patient divulges spending time with past friends to you, this can be a clue that’s just as telling as poor eye contact or unusual jitteriness.

The marijuana Miranda’s sister provided only complicated things more. For many people, using marijuana or alcohol provides a false sense of confidence. They think, “I can smoke some pot or have a couple of drinks because they aren’t my problems, and I can handle them.” But these substances are called gateway drugs for a reason—they can impair judgment and lead people to the very drugs they want to avoid.

Proactive is better than reactive
It’s much easier to prevent a problem than to treat one, so I spend a lot of time teaching patients how to identify their own risk factors for relapse. The key is reminding patients that any unusual event can reduce their resolve because if they are caught off guard, it is hard to stay focused on abstinence goals. Examples of such events include things like visits by a disliked in-law, a chance meeting with someone from the patient’s drug-using past, and waylaid plans for a vacation.

I find it helpful to talk to patients about potential challenges they might face, and then help them cope with the stress of such situations by rehearsing responses and planning tactics. For a troublesome in-law, for example, you can encourage the patient to express concerns to her spouse and to explain the need to keep away for much of the visit. You can do some role-playing to simulate a chance conversation with a past friend who still uses so the patient has a script that will make saying “no” easier and more automatic. Responses can range from, “No thanks, I’ve decided not to use because I don’t want any problems at my new job” to, “Maybe another time,” which is non-judgmental and helps avoid confrontation.

Relapse triggers are often situational. For instance, if everyone from work is going out for a drink, a patient might feel obligated to drink too. Walk the patient through a discussion about whether attending the event but not imbibing alcohol would actually affect his job security. For example, if he nursed a club soda rather than an alcoholic beverage, would anybody really care?

To help patients deal with temptations, I encourage them to write daily in a journal, even if it’s only half a page. This helps them identify what might be troubling them, put the issues in perspective, and work out solutions. (Ed note: For more information about relapse prevention skills based on cognitive behavioral therapy, see Cognitive Behavioral Skills Therapy Manual: A Clinical Research Guide for Therapists Treating Individuals With Alcohol Abuse and Dependence: https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/ProjectMatch/match03.pdf.)

If a relapse is already in progress
You can’t always capture the problem before it has occurred. If your patient has relapsed, the most important task is to help minimize the severity of the relapse. Substance-using patients often slip into an all-or-nothing attitude, in which they say to themselves, “I’ve relapsed; I’ve failed treatment. My abstinence is over, so I might as well give in to the drugs and forget about treatment altogether.” (For more information on cognitive distortions in substance use disorder, see Beck A et al, Cognitive Therapy of Substance Abuse. New York: Guilford Press, 1993.)

In such cases, it’s important to reassure patients that a relapse doesn’t mean the end of the world—in fact, it doesn’t even mean the treatment didn’t work. Just like any chronic disease process, addiction treatment involves remissions and exacerbations, and sometimes all that’s needed is a change of approach. I will often give patients the analogy of treating an infection: “Say you have an infection that requires oral antibiotics. If the infection comes back, you don’t decide that the treatment was worthless. Instead, you talk about it with your doctor, who might need to prescribe stronger oral antibiotics, or even recommend a hospital stay for intravenous antibiotics. It’s the same thing here. Our first approach to maintaining recovery only worked for so long, so now we’ll try a different approach.”

How do you step up your treatment game to help a relapsing patient? There are many next steps, depending on the circumstances:

- Seeing the patient more frequently on an outpatient basis

- Requiring more frequent urine testing to keep the patient accountable and provide an incentive to think twice about using

- Having the patient go to more 12-step meetings or more group or individual therapy sessions

- Increasing the dosage of medication-assisted therapy, such as an opioid antagonist

- Having the patient undergo a brief inpatient stay for detox

After Miranda’s relapse, I increased her dose of buprenorphine/naloxone from 12 mg/3 mg to 16 mg/4 mg daily to help with cravings and prevent any withdrawal from her recent opioid use. I also asked her to commit to seeing her therapist more frequently. We worked on some of the issues that led to the relapse; specifically, I talked with her about avoiding contact with her sister. In this case, I didn’t suggest 12-step meetings, because she wasn’t particularly interested in that approach. However, because her depression had started to worsen, I made an adjustment to her antidepressant medication.

These steps worked. Miranda went to see her therapist more often, and she responded to the adjustments in her buprenorphine dose. She also stayed away from her sister for a while and worked on refusal skills: “I know you’re trying to be helpful, but it’s not what I want or need right now. Please don’t offer me anything.”

Miranda was highly motivated—more than many other patients. But this doesn’t mean she’s immune to problems leading to other relapses (hopefully short-lived ones), even months or years down the road. That’s often part of the process of recovery—it doesn’t always happen in a straight line.

Like what you just read? Dr. Weaver’s new book, Addiction Treatment, is replete with practical tips for helping addicted patients yourself rather than losing them to follow-up when referring them elsewhere. The 14 brief chapters contain detailed instructions on how to frame sensitive questions to elicit honest answers, user-friendly charts to help you describe what drugs to prescribe in which circumstances, and much more. Feel great about helping your patients pull their lives together. Go to https://thecarlatreport.com/AddictionGuide for more information.

Source: Recognizing and Reversing Relapse | 2017-05-01 | CARLAT PUBLISHING (thecarlatreport.com) May 2017

Filed under: Addiction,Prescription Drugs,Treatment and Addiction :

A pilot programme at Shanghai’s rehab centres taps the technology to measure addiction and determine how to treat it.

In a treatment room at a suburban Shanghai drug rehabilitation centre, “Victor Wu”, a recovering addict, sits in front of a computer screen, viewing assorted scenes through a virtual reality headset.

Wu (not his real name) takes in a lifelike image of a young man and a woman sitting on a sofa drinking a clear liquid through a straw from a small bottle. As he does so, clips attached to three of the fingers on his left hand pick up his physical reactions.

The data reveals to his observers – including police officers who can see on the computer screen what Wu sees – the degree to which this stimulus excites him.

As the woman in this VR-enhanced scene holds her straw out to Wu, enticing him to drink with her and the man, Wu remains captivated for at least 10 seconds – a detail the observers note with interest.

Although he can choose the scenes to view and their duration by using the switch he holds in his right hand, “Wu’s attention is stuck on this scene for a while before [he moves on] to look at other no-drug scenes”, an officer told the South China Morning Post.

“It means he is still a bit interested in having drugs.”

It is all part of a revolutionary effort to use VR technology to reveal the extent of drug users’ addiction – and the type of treatment they need – to help them to turn their lives around.

Clad in the centre’s official inmate uniform of green sleeveless T-shirt, shorts and sandals, Wu and his fellow addicts are part of a trial of VR technology that was expanded this summer to all five of Shanghai’s rehab facilities, from just two in October.

Although the Shanghai centres were not the first in China to begin using VR – some rehab institutes in the eastern province of Zhejiang had employed it last year – their application of the technology is nevertheless distinctive in its application of eyeball movement tracking science.

Being able to read how an inmate’s eyeballs move over certain images gives staff a clearer idea of whether the addict’s gaze is fixed squarely on the repulsive “educational” images of drug addicts he or she must watch.

Tracking eyeball movement also gives staff extra information they can use to gauge the accuracy of the self-evaluations that inmates are required to fill out; many have been known to lie about the degree of their drug dependency in an attempt to speed up their release from the programme.

“In the rehab centre we see those awful pictures of drug addicts through VR helmet several times a month, as part of our education here,” Wu told the Post. “I really abhor drugs now.”

While it is not known how many addicts in China ultimately are to be exposed to the VR programme, the number is expected to be considerable. The five centres in Shanghai and one at Qingdong alone treat 1,800 male addicts.

Xu Ding, a drug rehab veteran from Shanghai Drug Rehabilitation Management Bureau who spearheads the VR project, said the technology’s use has helped alleviate “a major frustration” encountered when trying to treat drug addicts by showing them revolting images of other addicts.

“In the past, to depress the addicts’ desire for drugs, we let them watch TV or presented them horrible pictures of people whose health was seriously affected after long-term consumption of drugs,” Xu said. “But both TV or pictures on papers don’t look real enough.

“What’s more, we can’t tell if these people are really focusing on our education,” Xu said. “They would look at other places, or just close their eyes.”

In 2015, when the VR industry was beginning to get a lot of attention in China, Xu and his colleagues moved to incorporate it in treating addicts. “VR is a kind of embedded viewing experience and is so real,” Xu said.

The VR system that was first used in two of the city’s rehab centres in October was jointly developed by Shanghai Mental Health Centre, East China Normal University’s School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, eyeball movement tracking company Shanghai Qing Tech and the Shanghai drug rehabilitation authority.

In the system, an instrument to trace eyeball movement is installed in the VR headset along with devices to measure electrodermal activity (EDA) and pulse phase, to make observers aware when addicts refuse to look at what they are supposed to see.

EDA measures the change in the electrical characteristics of a person’s skin in response to sweat secretion.

“Shanghai is the first in the world to introduce an eyeball-movement tracking machine to drug rehabilitation, according to the literature I can find on the internet,” Xu said.

Cao Lei, director of the psychotherapeutic department of Shanghai Qingdong Drug Rehab Centre, said the reports on addiction level based on inmates’ responses to watching VR scenes “are objective and people can’t fool the system since they can’t control their EDA and pulse speed”.

Previously, inmates could lie when filling out a questionnaire on their drug dependency to get released early, Cao said.

Under mainland law, people caught possessing drugs must spend two years undergoing treatment at a rehab centre. Inmates who “perform very well” in treatment can get out early.

So far, assessing the VR programme’s effectiveness is difficult, given the lack of concrete results.

Last year, however, the Ministry of Justice said many rehab centres across the country were using innovative methods to try to help people kick drug habits, including virtual reality technology, people.com.cn reported.

The measures, which also included Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, massage and physical exercise, had achieved good results, according to the ministry.

Some 2.55 million people in China had possessed illegal drugs as of the end of last year, according to the 2017 China Drug Situation Report issued in June by the China National Narcotics Control Commission.

Among them, 321,000 were put in rehab centres across the country, about 2 per cent more than in the previous year. More than 60 per cent of addicts possessed synthetic drugs such as methamphetamine, a central nervous system stimulant known in the illicit drug trade as “ice”.

Wu, 28, said his drug habit began six years ago at a pub where a friend offered him ketamine – a synthetic drug that induces a trancelike state and is usually referred to on the street as “K powder”.

“I knew drugs are bad, but at that time I was confident that I could control myself [and would] not become addicted to drugs,” said Wu, a former sales representative with an insurance company.

But he failed to do that. Last year, police, tipped off by his friend that Wu had illegal drugs at home, raided Wu’s house and took him away.

“I think I will not touch drugs after I get out [of the rehab centre],” Wu said. “I don’t want to come back again. I hate losing my freedom.”

Source: How China is using virtual reality to help drug addicts turn their lives around | South China Morning Post (scmp.com) July 2018

Filed under: Addiction,Ketamine,Methamphetamine/GHB/Hallucinogens/Oxycodone,Treatment and Addiction :

It’s no secret that substance use disorders (SUDs) can negatively impact the individual struggling, even putting their life in jeopardy.

“For persons with SUDs, their brain is telling them this lie that, ‘You’ve got to use to stay alive,'” said Sterling Shumway, chair of the Texas Tech University Department of Community, Family & Addiction Sciences and director of the Institute for the Study of Addiction, Recovery & Families.

Likewise, groundbreaking new research now indicates that the same thing is happening in the brains of the people caring for those with addiction.

“To further understand the etiology of SUDs and their associations with family systems, research must expand beyond examining the individual struggling with an SUD,” said Shumway, co-principal investigator (P.I.) for the ongoing project. “This includes research that helps us understand the neurological impact of stress, fear and the impairment found in the family system.”

The original hypothesis was that if the person struggling with an SUD’s brain is compelling them to use as a survival mechanism, perhaps the family member’s brain is doing the same thing as it relates to their loved one’s survival, thus leading to the mostly ineffective and compulsive attempts to rescue their loved one.

“It’s really first-of-a-kind research,” Shumway said, “looking to see if the person and their family member have become similarly, what we call, ‘co-impaired.'”

Looking inside the brain

Over the last four years, Shumway and co-P.I. Spencer Bradshaw, director of the Center for Addiction Recovery Research and an assistant professor in the department, have been using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIR) to monitor reactions in the frontal cortex of both those in recovery from an SUD and family members as they participate in a research protocol presenting certain audio and visual cues meant to stimulate the prefrontal cortex (PFC).

“For the person who struggles with alcoholism, this protocol involves sounds and a variety of images that evoke strong emotional responses, including images associated with alcohol. We look at how their brain lights up differently in response to these various images,” Shumway said. “When family members come in, they aren’t presented a picture of a glass of alcohol, they see instead a current image of their loved one seeking recovery. That’s what makes this research groundbreaking, in that a family member’s PFC lights up in a similar way when looking at their addicted loved one as the PFC of someone with an SUD when looking at their substance of choice.”

When the fNIR results showed that family members often exhibited similar impairment and decision-making difficulties as those with an SUD, Shumway and Bradshaw realized they needed to look deeper inside the brain to explain this phenomenon.

“This is the next step in our research: to look at the family member brain at the level of the midbrain – a much deeper, more primitive part of the brain – and compare it with the brains of those struggling with an SUD,” Shumway said. “We want to know if a similar process is also occurring there with respect to these deeper brain structures and their interaction with the PFC.”

Now, with the help of the Texas Tech Neuroimaging Institute, the two are using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to do just that.

“What comes from the midbrain is what causes addicts to use – it’s this intense pain associated with craving. Craving is the means by which the brain compels a person to do something they wouldn’t normally do as part of a survival response – that is, to use despite harmful consequences,” Shumway said. “In relation to a person struggling with an SUD, their brain is telling them, ‘You must use drugs and alcohol, or you’re going to die.'”

This message becomes so intrusive that it overrides the more rational frontal cortex, which is attempting to get them to consider the negative consequences. Unfortunately, when the disease of addiction is present, the midbrain wins the battle.

“With family members, particularly those who’ve been fighting the longest to keep their loved one alive, we believe similarly that their midbrain begins to compel them toward behaviors that may enable rather than resolve SUD behavior,” Shumway said. “In other words, they’re reacting to keep their loved one alive. They may know it’s not helping, but they’re going to do it anyway just like the person with an SUD is going to find and use their substance. This, because the midbrain is requiring it of them out of a perceived need for survival.”

Testing the hypothesis

Shumway and Bradshaw will use the fMRI to examine different parts of the brain, how they are connected to one another and which parts are being activated by different activities or presentations.

“Brain structures, their connectivity and their functioning are key to what we now understand about the brain of the person with an SUD and are what we are similarly interested in examining with respect to the family member brain,” Bradshaw said.

As before, Shumway and Bradshaw intend to include a control group.

“With a control group, we’ll be able to compare those who have never been around addiction, never been impacted by addiction, and never have had to make the difficult decisions like those in families where addiction is present,” Bradshaw said.

Shumway emphasized the research is likely one-of-a-kind.

“We’re probably the only ones, perhaps in the world, who have looked at the frontal cortex of family members related to the way it is responding,” he said. “And we probably will be one of the first to look at family members and functioning of the midbrain when given certain stimuli.”

‘They need help, too.’

One of the biggest reasons for this research is to try to help the family members of those with an SUD find their own recovery, which also gives their loved one a better chance

“You’ve got two brains – the family member’s and the loved one’s brain –that are trying to keep one person alive. The problem is the family members also suffer

,” Shumway said. “They don’t take care of themselves, and they struggle as well. We’re not very good at taking care of those who struggle with substance use disorders; we’re even worse at taking care of the family members.”

Because dynamics differ between families, the person who is the primary caregiver differs as well – and sometimes that role switches between people within a family.

“It’s often those who have cared for these people the longest who have the most personal investment in their lives and their success,” Bradshaw said. “This person could, at times, be a grandparent, a parent or even a sibling. While we usually find this person to be a close family member, it may include a wide umbrella of people who care about this person.”

This so-called “systems approach” to addiction recovery values everybody in the system. The idea is that if the parents, siblings, etc., are doing well, the person with the disorder has a better chance of doing well. And, reciprocally, if the person with the disorder is doing well, that helps the others in the system do well.

“With SUDs and recovery, it’s a team sport,” Shumway said. “The more people on the team who are healthy makes a big difference in terms of the trajectory of success.”

While the researcher say society if often most concerned about the identified patient with the SUD, and that’s important, it’s not the whole story.

“The health of every family member is important,” Bradshaw said. “Research shows that when family members are impacted by the stress of addiction, they go to the doctor more often, they have higher medical claims and services and they get diagnosed with higher rates of depression.”

Therefore, resources are needed for both the loved one with the SUD and the family member.

“Both deserve happiness and quality of life,” Bradshaw said.

Brain Research: In the Same Way Addiction Sufferers Crave Substances, Their Family Members Crave Them | Texas Tech Today | TTU

Filed under: Addiction,Brain and Behaviour,Drug use-various effects :

Sometimes when your son or daughter is struggling with substance use, it feels like you’ve tried absolutely everything to help. What if you’ve nearly given up hope?

In this short video, Master Addictions Counselor Mary Ann Badenoch, LPC, offers some new ways to think about opportunities for change. For example, instead of focusing on the end goal, be sure to notice the small victories along the way. This can lead to larger positive change and help you remain hopeful.

Filed under: Addiction,Intervention (including testing) (Papers),Parents :

Is addiction a biological disease that is driven by environmental factors or not

Posted Mar 11, 2019

It will come as no surprise to you that childhood trauma, particularly unresolved trauma, can lead to mental health issues and addiction later in life. While less was known about the specific correlation in decades past, today we have a pretty good understanding of just how damaging adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can be on development and coping.

The first few years of life are full of many important developmental milestones in terms of brain pathways, attachment, coping mechanisms and in generally learning how to relate to others and to stress. Those who experience trauma in their early years often develop survival mechanisms that are less than helpful in adulthood. For some people, such interference early on can even drive them towards addiction.

This is an area of addiction that I like to talk about, because people with an addiction are often judged at face-value by who they are right now, without any compassion or understanding of where they have come from or what has happened to them (for more on this mistake see HERE and HERE). Understanding these underlying issues however, becomes KEY in unlocking the secrets of addiction recovery.

“Treat people with respect instead of blaming or shaming them. Listen intently to what they have to say. Integrate the healing traditions of the culture in which they live. Use prescription drugs, if necessary. And integrate adverse childhood experiences science: ACEs.” – Dr. Daniel Sumrok

What are ACEs?

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are traumatic events that occur in childhood.

This may include:

Abuse (physical, emotional, sexual) and/ or neglect
Exposure to parental domestic violence
Household dysfunction e.g. parent with an untreated mental health condition or substance use disorder
Parental separation or divorce
Loss of parent through death, deportation, incarceration or being removed from the family home by child protection services

Stressful experiences in childhood may also stem from outside the family home, for example: bullying, witnessing violence, racism, being an immigrant, homelessness, living in a war zone and moving house often (such as in the case of military families).

A substantial portion of the people I’ve worked with over the past 11 years have experienced at least one of these ACEs. Most have experienced two or more.

What does research say about ACEs and long-term

Much of the research has stemmed from the original CDC-Kaiser Permanente Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, the most prominent investigation to date into childhood abuse and neglect and its impact on adult health and wellbeing. Data was collected between 1995 to 1997 from over 17,000 participants.

The ACE study looks at types of early trauma and the long-term outcomes for these children in later life. Participants were required to answer ten questions about specific forms of childhood trauma and mark whether they had experienced this or not. For each type of trauma, they received a score of 1, the highest being 10. For example, a person who was sexually abused, was exposed to domestic violence and had a parent with a substance use disorder, would have an ACE score of three.

The study found that a person with an ACE score of 4 has nearly double the risk of cancer and heart disease than someone without an adverse childhood experience. What’s more, the likelihood of developing an alcohol use disorder increases 7-fold percent and the likelihood of suicideincreased 12-fold.

People who have had an ACE are two to four times more likely to start using alcohol or drugs at an early age, compared to those without an ACE score. People with an ACE score of 5 or higher are up to ten times more likely to experience addiction compared with people who haven’t experienced childhood trauma.

The research has also revealed that people with higher ACE scores are more likely to experience chronic pain and misuse prescription medication, and are at increased risk of serious health conditions such as:

Heart disease
Cancer
Depression
Substance abuse
Liver or lung disease
Stroke
Diabetes

In the United States, 60% of adults had experienced at least one traumatic event in their childhood and 25% had experienced at least 3 ACEs.

How do we make sense of all the research?

There’s an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting this notion: the majority of people currently experiencing mental health or addiction problems have a history of adverse childhood experiences. That’s not to say that all children who experience trauma will go on to have a substance use disorder, because there are a lot of other factors at play, but it is a nearly-necessary component of a person’s history that requires serious consideration in treatment.

“Ritualized compulsive comfort-seeking (what traditionalists call addiction) is a normal response to the adversity experienced in childhood, just like bleeding is a normal response to being stabbed.” – Dr. Daniel Sumrok, director of the Center for Addiction Sciences at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center’s College of Medicine.

It’s also important to note that the ACE study simply reports on correlations, not causal links. We cannot say that experiencing physical abuse or a messy divorce in childhood will directly lead to a substance use disorder.

What we do know is this: Adverse childhood experiences are bad for your emotional and physical health and wellbeing in adulthood.

We must also consider all the other factors that influence a person’s behavior including socioeconomic factors such as income, education and access to resources.

Now, I don’t want to overwhelm you with all the research that points toward the power of our trauma histories. Your ACE score is not destiny. With help, you can learn healthy coping mechanisms, and how to have healthy relationships. We also need to account for genetic, environmental and spiritual factors that influence our behavior.

And while the research sheds light on how powerful childhood trauma can be in our life’s trajectory, it also helps inform government, communities and individuals about the importance of compassion. The link between adverse childhood experiences and later health problems is even more of a reason to reduce stigma and shame associated surrounding addiction. Children do not have control over their home environment, so therefore, we cannot expect them to overcome their difficulties as adults without compassion and support.

How can we help people with ACEs overcome addiction?

We need to focus on providing resources to the people at greatest risk and making sure those resources go into programs that reduce or mitigate adversity.

Dr. Daniel Sumrock says we can do these things to help people change addiction by:

Address a person’s unresolved childhood trauma through individual and/ or group therapy
Treat people with compassion and respect
Use harm minimization principles such as providing medication treatments for addiction (such as buprenorphine or methadone)
Help people with an addiction find a ‘ritualized compulsive comfort-seeking behavior’ (addiction) that is less harmful to their health.

IGNTD Recovery takes ACEs into account, getting to the “why” of the addiction, not just putting a Band-Aid on the compulsive seeking symptom. Indeed, we believe that focusing on the symptoms is harmful.

So if this is something you’d like to address either for yourself or for someone you know then find out more about my approach to addiction at IGNTD Recovery or in my book The Abstinence Myth.

Disclaimer

The individuals in these before and after drug addiction photos were arrested on drug charges or related charges. There may be errors in arrest record reporting. All persons are considered innocent of these charges until proven guilty. These photos do not necessarily just show people after drugs and addiction; rather, they depict the physical deterioration of individuals who have been involved in repeated arrests, indicative of a life of crime and/or substance abuse.

Source: https://www.rehabs.com/explore/faces-of-addiction/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON PROGRESSIVE EFFECTS OF DRUG ABUSE

Thanks must go to the Daily Telegraph (London) for this second format.

This presents still photographs, in contrast with the animated presentation above.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/pictures/8345461/From-Drugs-to-Mugs-Shocking-before-and-after-images-show-the-cost-of-drug-addiction.html?image=31255

Filed under: Addiction,Alcohol,Cannabis/Marijuana,Cocaine,Drug use-various effects,Ecstasy,Heroin/Methadone,Methamphetamine/GHB/Hallucinogens/Oxycodone :

Abstract

Tobacco and alcohol use are leading causes of mortality that influence risk for many complex diseases and disorders1. They are heritable2,3 and etiologically related4,5 behaviors that have been resistant to gene discovery efforts6,7,8,9,10,11. In sample sizes up to 1.2 million individuals, we discovered 566 genetic variants in 406 loci associated with multiple stages of tobacco use (initiation, cessation, and heaviness) as well as alcohol use, with 150 loci evidencing pleiotropic association.
Smoking phenotypes were positively genetically correlated with many health conditions, whereas alcohol use was negatively correlated with these conditions, such that increased genetic risk for alcohol use is associated with lower disease risk. We report evidence for the involvement of many systems in tobacco and alcohol use, including genes involved in nicotinic, dopaminergic, and glutamatergic neurotransmission. The results provide a solid starting point to evaluate the effects of these loci in model organisms and more precise substance use measures.

Source: Nature Genetics (2019) 14th Jan.201

Filed under: Addiction,Nicotine :

People suffering from opioid addiction in New Jersey and the U.S. have been increasingly abusing Imodium, an over-the-counter anti-diarrhea medicine, to combat their withdrawal symptoms, experts say.
While Imodium and similar medications are harmless when taken at the recommended dose, experts say the medication can stop the heart if it’s taken at an extremely high dose.
Several fatal or near-fatal overdoses have been reported in New Jersey over the past year, said Diane P. Calello, executive and medical director of New Jersey Poison Information and Education System, which recently consulted on several cases.

Imodium’s active ingredient, loperamide, is actually an opioid. The poison control center said that while its effects do not get you high like other opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone), in extremely high doses it does “stimulate the brain in the same way.”
It’s been known for some years that people sometimes use loperamide to get high. But using it to alleviate opioid withdrawal symptoms is something experts have only begun to see within the past five years, Calello said.

“It’s become clear that people are increasingly using (loperamide) to avoid withdrawal,” she said.
While only a few people have died from loperamide overdoses in New Jersey in the past three years, Calello said, it’s becoming a growing problem in the state and nation. She worries that the lack of knowledge about the dangers of the medication may contribute to more deaths. A recent study of loperamide abuse, in which Calello was involved, tied the increasing misuse of the drug to the internet and online forums filled with people casually recommending it as a cheap and readily available alternative to legitimate opioid withdrawal medications like Suboxone, which requires a prescription.
While federal regulations require other medications prone to misuse, like Sudafed, to be purchased behind the counter at pharmacies, Imodium can be bought cheaply and in unlimited amounts.
Because of that, poison control officials are seeing people taking 100 or even 400 times the recommended dose, which can cause fatal heart rhythms and death, Calello said.

“If you take Imodium for diarrhea, you’re not going to have a problem. But if you take 100 times the therapeutic dose, this is what can happen: cardiac arrest,” she said.
Withdrawing from opioids is often an agonizing process. Calello said that may drive people in pain to do desperate and unusual things to alleviate their symptoms, particularly if they don’t have a prescription for legitimate medications.

“People with opioid abuse disorder, they have a significant problem with withdrawal,” she said. “It’s one of the primary burdens of that illness. It’s exceedingly uncomfortable, an insatiable craving for the drug … body aches, flu-like symptoms, vomiting. You feel awful. You can’t function.”
Calello believes the increasing misuse of loperamide should signal that some restrictions should be put into place.
She said too many people are dying. “I think it makes sense.”

Source: https://www.nj.com/healthfit/2019/01 8th Jan.2019

Filed under: Addiction,Drug use-various effects,Health,Prescription Drugs :

Smaller cities and towns carry a unique burden when it comes to drug addiction.

I grew up in Mounds, Ill. It’s a small farming community of about 800 people in the southernmost part of the state. It may seem an unlikely place for a drug epidemic, but opioid addiction and substance abuse have plagued families there for decades. Years ago, the first of my close relatives died after a long struggle with prescription opioids.

That’s one reason why, as deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, I keep the victims of this crisis close to my heart.

Under President Donald Trump, HHS has made the opioid crisis a top priority because it leaves no corner of our country untouched. When the crisis began, we worked mostly in rural areas to address overdoses and opioid-use disorder. The opioid crisis is nationwide and claimed approximately 116 American lives every day in 2016.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides even more grim details. Nearly 64,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2016, a 21 percent increase from the previous year and the largest increase on record. More than 42,000 of those deaths involved opioids, more than the total number of all drug overdose deaths in 2012. Further, provisional data indicate that approximately 72,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2017. In 2015, there were more than 1 million opioid-related hospital stays and emergency-room visits in the U.S.

A publication from the University of Minnesota’s College of Pharmacy brings the crisis closer to this region. Titled “Combating the Opioid Crisis in Northern Minnesota,” it found that the Duluth area in particular has been hit hard. St. Louis County has the highest opioid overdose death rate in the state.

As part of the Trump administration’s focused mission to support states and local communities on the front lines of this fight, one of our primary strategies is to learn directly from those on the ground so we may be able to benefit from the experience and understanding of local leaders and communities. Over the last few months I have traveled to Illinois, Ohio, Florida, Texas, California, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Wisconsin to exchange ideas with medical experts, local officials, and, especially, individuals currently receiving treatment for opioid addiction.

My visit to Duluth in July was part of the same journey — and a personal one as well. My mother was born in Esko. I consider your remarkable region a second home.

While I was there, one family told me of tragic loss. Their son was injured on the job, was prescribed opioids for pain, and soon became addicted. After only a few months, he lost his life to opioid overdose.

I also heard inspiring stories of people in recovery and how well they know the severe hurdles to battling addiction. They are now providing crucial help by connecting others to treatment and educating the public about lifesaving overdose-reversing drugs.

I was particularly encouraged visiting Duluth’s Lake Superior Health Clinic and learning how grants from the Health Resources and Services Administration at HHS are aiding in the clinic’s vital mission of care.

My message that day was clear: HHS stands ready to assist local heroes helping to end this epidemic in their communities. We are backing up that commitment in Minnesota by awarding more than $10.7 million in state-targeted opioid-crisis grants, $6 million in medication-assisted treatment, and more than $24 million in substance-abuse prevention and treatment block grants last year. Additional awards will be announced in the coming months.

As an indication of the priority he places on this effort, President Trump donated a quarter of his salary last year to the planning and design of a large-scale public-awareness campaign to enhance understanding of the dangers of opioid misuse and addiction. He hopes his example will spur Congress to take even more action.

We at HHS recognize that the American people, in local communities like Duluth and all across our great country, will be the ones to end this terrible crisis. It will require nothing less than a united effort from not just government but the business community, our churches, our schools, and all of civil society.

We can win this battle in Minnesota and all across the country.

Source: https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/columns/4481662-deputy-secretarys-view-opioids-battle-can-be-won-beginning-minnesota-and August 2018

Filed under: Addiction,Drug use-various effects,Heroin/Methadone,Political Sector :

You’re aware America is under siege, fighting an opioid crisis that has exploded into a public-health emergency. You’ve heard of OxyContin, the pain medication to which countless patients have become addicted. But do you know that the company that makes Oxy and reaps the billions of dollars in profits it generates is owned by one family?

The newly installed Sackler Courtyard at London’s Victoria and Albert Museum is one of the most glittering places in the developed world. Eleven thousand white porcelain tiles, inlaid like a shattered backgammon board, cover a surface the size of six tennis courts. According to the V&A;’s director, the regal setting is intended to serve as a “living room for London,” by which he presumably means a living room for Kensington, the museum’s neighborhood, which is among the world’s wealthiest. In late June, Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, was summoned to consecrate the courtyard, said to be the earth’s first outdoor space made of porcelain; stepping onto the ceramic expanse, she silently mouthed, “Wow.”

The Sackler Courtyard is the latest addition to an impressive portfolio. There’s the Sackler Wing at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, which houses the majestic Temple of Dendur, a sandstone shrine from ancient Egypt; additional Sackler wings at the Louvre and the Royal Academy; stand-alone Sackler museums at Harvard and Peking Universities; and named Sackler galleries at the Smithsonian, the Serpentine, and Oxford’s Ashmolean. The Guggenheim in New York has a Sackler Center, and the American Museum of Natural History has a Sackler Educational Lab. Members of the family, legendary in museum circles for their pursuit of naming rights, have also underwritten projects of a more modest caliber—a Sackler Staircase at Berlin’s Jewish Museum; a Sackler Escalator at the Tate Modern; a Sackler Crossing in Kew Gardens. A popular species of pink rose is named after a Sackler. So is an asteroid.

The Sackler name is no less prominent among the emerald quads of higher education, where it’s possible to receive degrees from Sackler schools, participate in Sackler colloquiums, take courses from professors with endowed Sackler chairs, and attend annual Sackler lectures on topics such as theoretical astrophysics and human rights. The Sackler Institute for Nutrition Science supports research on obesity and micronutrient deficiencies. Meanwhile, the Sackler institutes at Cornell, Columbia, McGill, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Sussex, and King’s College London tackle psychobiology, with an emphasis on early childhood development.

The Sacklers’ philanthropy differs from that of civic populists like Andrew Carnegie, who built hundreds of libraries in small towns, and Bill Gates, whose foundation ministers to global masses. Instead, the family has donated its fortune to blue-chip brands, braiding the family name into the patronage network of the world’s most prestigious, well-endowed institutions. The Sackler name is everywhere, evoking automatic reverence; the Sacklers themselves, however, are rarely seen.

The descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler, a pair of psychiatrist brothers from Brooklyn, are members of a billionaire clan with homes scattered across Connecticut, London, Utah, Gstaad, the Hamptons, and, especially, New York City. It was not until 2015 that they were noticed by Forbes, which added them to the list of America’s richest families. The magazine pegged their wealth, shared among twenty heirs, at a conservative $14 billion. (Descendants of Arthur Sackler, Mortimer and Raymond’s older brother, split off decades ago and are mere multi-millionaires.) To a remarkable degree, those who share in the billions appear to have abided by an oath of omertà: Never comment publicly on the source of the family’s wealth.

That may be because the greatest part of that $14 billion fortune tallied by Forbes came from OxyContin, the narcotic painkiller regarded by many public-health experts as among the most dangerous products ever sold on a mass scale. Since 1996, when the drug was brought to market by Purdue Pharma, the American branch of the Sacklers’ pharmaceutical empire, more than two hundred thousand people in the United States have died from overdoses of OxyContin and other prescription painkillers. Thousands more have died after starting on a prescription opioid and then switching to a drug with a cheaper street price, such as heroin. Not all of these deaths are related to OxyContin—dozens of other painkillers, including generics, have flooded the market in the past thirty years. Nevertheless, Purdue Pharma was the first to achieve a dominant share of the market for long-acting opioids, accounting for more than half of prescriptions by 2001.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fifty-three thousand Americans died from opioid overdoses in 2016, more than the thirty-six thousand who died in car crashes in 2015 or the thirty-five thousand who died from gun violence that year. This past July, Donald Trump’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, led by New Jersey governor Chris Christie, declared that opioids were killing roughly 142 Americans each day, a tally vividly described as “September 11th every three weeks.” The epidemic has also exacted a crushing financial toll: According to a study published by the American Public Health Association, using data from 2013—before the epidemic entered its current, more virulent phase—the total economic burden from opioid use stood at about $80 billion, adding together health costs, criminal-justice costs, and GDP loss from drug-dependent Americans leaving the workforce. Tobacco remains, by a significant multiple, the country’s most lethal product, responsible for some 480,000 deaths per year. But although billions have been made from tobacco, cars, and firearms, it’s not clear that any of those enterprises has generated a family fortune from a single product that approaches the Sacklers’ haul from OxyContin.

Even so, hardly anyone associates the Sackler name with their company’s lone blockbuster drug. “The Fords, Hewletts, Packards, Johnsons—all those families put their name on their product because they were proud,” said Keith Humphreys, a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University School of Medicine who has written extensively about the opioid crisis. “The Sacklers have hidden their connection to their product. They don’t call it ‘Sackler Pharma.’ They don’t call their pills ‘Sackler pills.’ And when they’re questioned, they say, ‘Well, it’s a privately held firm, we’re a family, we like to keep our privacy, you understand.’ ”

The family’s leaders have pulled off three of the great marketing triumphs of the modern era: The first is selling OxyContin; the second is promoting the Sackler name; and the third is ensuring that, as far as the public is aware, the first and the second have nothing to do with one another.

To the extent that the Sacklers have cultivated a reputation, it’s for being earnest healers, judicious stewards of scientific progress, and connoisseurs of old and beautiful things. Few are aware that during the crucial period of OxyContin’s development and promotion, Sackler family members actively led Purdue’s day-to-day affairs, filling the majority of its board slots and supplying top executives. By any assessment, the family’s leaders have pulled off three of the great marketing triumphs of the modern era: The first is selling OxyContin; the second is promoting the Sackler name; and the third is ensuring that, as far as the public is aware, the first and the second have nothing to do with one another.

If you head north on I-95 through Stamford, Connecticut, you will spot, on the left, a giant misshapen glass cube. Along the building’s top edge, white lettering spells out ONE STAMFORD FORUM. No markings visible from the highway indicate the presence of the building’s owner and chief occupant, Purdue Pharma.

Originally known as Purdue Frederick, the first iteration of the company was founded in 1892 on New York’s Lower East Side as a peddler of patent medicines. For decades, it sustained itself with sales of Gray’s Glycerine Tonic, a sherry-based liquid of “broad application” marketed as a remedy for everything from anemia to tuberculosis. The company was purchased in 1952 by Arthur Sackler, thirty-nine, and was run by his brothers, Mortimer, thirty- six, and Raymond, thirty-two. The Sackler brothers came from a family of Jewish immigrants in Flatbush, Brooklyn. Arthur was a headstrong and ambitious provider, setting the tone—and often choosing the path—for his younger brothers. After attending medical school on Arthur’s dime, Mortimer and Raymond followed him to jobs at the Creedmoor psychiatric hospital in Queens. There, they coauthored more than one hundred studies on the biochemical roots of mental illness. The brothers’ research was promising—they were among the first to identify a link between psychosis and the hormone cortisone—but their findings were mostly ignored by their professional peers, who, in keeping with the era, favored a Freudian model of mental illness.

Concurrent with his psychiatric work, Arthur Sackler made his name in pharmaceutical advertising, which at the time consisted almost exclusively of pitches from so-called “detail men” who sold drugs to doctors door-to-door. Arthur intuited that print ads in medical journals could have a revolutionary effect on pharmaceutical sales, especially given the excitement surrounding the “miracle drugs” of the 1950s—steroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, and psychotropics. In 1952, the same year that he and his brothers acquired Purdue, Arthur became the first adman to convince The Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the profession’s most august publications, to include a color advertorial brochure.

In the 1960s, Arthur was contracted by Roche to develop an advertising strategy for a new antianxiety medication called Valium. This posed a challenge, because the effects of the medication were nearly indistinguishable from those of Librium, another Roche tranquilizer that was already on the market. Arthur differentiated Valium by audaciously inflating its range of indications. Whereas Librium was sold as a treatment for garden- variety anxiety, Valium was positioned as an elixir for a problem Arthur christened “psychic tension.” According to his ads, psychic tension, the forebear of today’s “stress,” was the secret culprit behind a host of somatic conditions, including heartburn, gastrointestinal issues, insomnia, and restless-leg syndrome. The campaign was such a success that for a time Valium became America’s most widely prescribed medication—the first to reach more than $100 million in sales. Arthur, whose compensation depended on the volume of pills sold, was richly rewarded, and he later became one of the first inductees into the Medical Advertising Hall of Fame.

As Arthur’s fortune grew, he turned his acquisitive instincts to the art market, quickly amassing the world’s largest private collection of ancient Chinese artifacts. According to a memoir by Marietta Lutze, his second wife, collecting, exhibiting, owning, and donating art fed Arthur’s “driving necessity for prestige and recognition.” Rewarding at first, collecting soon became a mania that took over his life. “Boxes of artifacts of tremendous value piled up in numerous storage locations,” she wrote, “there was too much to open, too much to appreciate; some objects known only by a packing list.” Under an avalanche of “ritual bronzes and weapons, mirrors and ceramics, inscribed bones and archaic jades,” their lives were “often in chaos.” “Addiction is a curse,” Lutze noted, “be it drugs, women, or collecting.”

When Arthur donated his art and money to museums, he often imposed onerous terms. According to a memoir written by Thomas Hoving, the Met director from 1967 to 1977, when Arthur established the Sackler Gallery at the Metropolitan Museum of Art to house Chinese antiquities, in 1963, he required the museum to collaborate on a byzantine tax-avoidance maneuver. In accordance with the scheme, the museum first soldArthur a large quantity of ancient artifacts at the deflated 1920s prices for which they had originally been acquired. Arthur then donated back the artifacts at 1960s prices, in the process taking a tax deduction so hefty that it likely exceeded the value of his initial donation. Three years later, in connection with another donation, Arthur negotiated an even more unusual arrangement. This time, the Met opened a secret chamber above the museum’s auditorium to provide Arthur with free storage for some five thousand objects from his private collection, relieving him of the substantial burden of fire protection and other insurance costs. (In an email exchange, Jillian Sackler, Arthur’s third wife, called Hoving’s tax-deduction story “fake news.” She also noted that New York’s attorney general conducted an investigation into Arthur’s dealings with the Met and cleared him of wrongdoing.)

In 1974, when Arthur and his brothers made a large gift to the Met—$3.5 million, to erect the Temple of Dendur—they stipulated that all museum signage, catalog entries, and bulletins referring to objects in the newly opened Sackler Wing had to include the names of all three brothers, each followed by “M.D.” (One museum official quipped, “All that was missing was a note of their office hours.”)

Hoving said that the Met hoped that Arthur would eventually donate his collection to the museum, but over time Arthur grew disgruntled over a series of rankling slights. For one, the Temple of Dendur was being rented out for parties, including a dinner for the designer Valentino, which Arthur called “disgusting.” According to Met chronicler Michael Gross, he was also denied that coveted ticket of arrival, a board seat. (Jillian Sackler said it was Arthur who rejected the board seat, after repeated offers by the museum.) In 1982, in a bad breakup with the Met, Arthur donated the best parts of his collection, plus $4 million, to the Smithsonian in Washington, D. C.

Arthur’s younger brothers, Mortimer and Raymond, looked so much alike that when they worked together at Creedmoor, they fooled the staff by pretending to be one another. Their physical similarities did not extend to their personalities, however. Tage Honore, Purdue’s vice-president of discovery of research from 2000 to 2005, described them as “like day and night.” Mortimer, said Honore, was “extroverted—a ‘world man,’ I would call it.” He acquired a reputation as a big-spending, transatlantic playboy, living most of the year in opulent homes in England, Switzerland, and France. (In 1974, he renounced his U. S. citizenship to become a citizen of Austria, which infuriated his patriotic older brother.) Like Arthur, Mortimer became a major museum donor and married three wives over the course of his life.

Mortimer had his own feuds with the Met. On his seventieth birthday, in 1986, the museum agreed to make the Temple of Dendur available to him for a party but refused to allow him to redecorate the ancient shrine: Together with other improvements, Mortimer and his interior designer, flown in from Europe, had hoped to spiff up the temple by adding extra pillars. Also galling to Mortimer was the sale of naming rights for one of the Sackler Wing’s balconies to a donor from Japan. “They sold it twice,” Mortimer fumed to a reporter from New York magazine. Raymond, the youngest brother, cut a different figure—“a family man,” said Honore. Kind and mild-mannered, he stayed with the same woman his entire life. Lutze concluded that Raymond owed his comparatively serene nature to having missed the worst years of the Depression. “He had summer vacations in camp, which Arthur never had,” she wrote. “The feeling of the two older brothers about the youngest was, ‘Let the kid enjoy himself.’ ”

Raymond led Purdue Frederick as its top executive for several decades, while Mortimer led Napp Pharmaceuticals, the family’s drug company in the UK. (In practice, a family spokesperson said, “the brothers worked closely together leading both companies.”) Arthur, the adman, had no official role in the family’s pharmaceutical operations. According to Barry Meier’s Pain Killer, a prescient account of the rise of OxyContin published in 2003, Raymond and Mortimer bought Arthur’s share in Purdue from his estate for $22.4 million after he died in 1987. In an email exchange, Arthur’s daughter Elizabeth Sackler, a historian of feminist art who sits on the board of the Brooklyn Museum and supports a variety of progressive causes, emphatically distanced her branch of the family from her cousins’ businesses. “Neither I, nor my siblings, nor my children have ever had ownership in or any benefit whatsoever from Purdue Pharma or OxyContin,” she wrote, while also praising “the breadth of my father’s brilliance and important works.” Jillian, Arthur’s widow, said her husband had died too soon: “His enemies have gotten the last word.”

The Sacklers have been millionaires for decades, but their real money—the painkiller money—is of comparatively recent vintage. The vehicle of that fortune was OxyContin, but its engine, the driving power that made them so many billions, was not so much the drug itself as it was Arthur’s original marketing insight, rehabbed for the era of chronic-pain management. That simple but profitable idea was to take a substance with addictive properties—in Arthur’s case, a benzo; in Raymond and Mortimer’s case, an opioid—and market it as a salve for a vast range of indications.

In the years before it swooped into the pain-management business, Purdue had been a small industry player, specializing in over-the-counter remedies like ear-wax remover and laxatives. Its most successful product, acquired in 1966, was Betadine, a powerful antiseptic purchased in industrial quantities by the U. S. government to prevent infection among wounded soldiers in Vietnam. The turning point, according to company lore, came in 1972, when a London doctor working for Cicely Saunders, the Florence Nightingale of the modern hospice movement, approached Napp with the idea of creating a timed-release morphine pill. A long-acting morphine pill, the doctor reasoned, would allow dying cancer patients to sleep through the night without an IV. At the time, treatment with opioids was stigmatized in the United States, owing in part to a heroin epidemic fueled by returning Vietnam veterans. “Opiophobia,” as it came to be called, prevented skittish doctors from treating most patients, including nearly all infants, with strong pain medication of any kind. In hospice care, though, addiction was not a concern: It didn’t matter whether terminal patients became hooked in their final days. Over the course of the seventies, building on a slow-release technology the company had already developed for an asthma medication, Napp created what came to be known as the “Contin” system. In 1981, Napp introduced a timed-release morphine pill in the UK; six years later, Purdue brought the same drug to market in the U. S. as MS Contin.

“The Sacklers have hidden their connection to their product,” said Keith Humphreys, a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University School of Medicine. “They don’t call it ‘Sackler Pharma.’ They don’t call their pills ‘Sackler pills.’”

MS Contin quickly became the gold standard for pain relief in cancer care. At the same time, a number of clinicians associated with the burgeoning chronic-pain movement started advocating the use of powerful opioids for noncancer conditions like back pain and neuropathic pain, afflictions that at their worst could be debilitating. In 1986, two doctors from Memorial Sloan Kettering hospital in New York published a fateful article in a medical journal that purported to show, based on a study of thirty-eight patients, that long-term opioid treatment was safe and effective so long as patients had no history of drug abuse. Soon enough, opioid advocates dredged up a letter to the editor published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1980 that suggested, based on a highly unrepresentative cohort, that the risk of addiction from long-term opioid use was less than 1 percent. Though ultimately disavowed by its author, the letter ended up getting cited in medical journals more than six hundred times.

As the country was reexamining pain, Raymond’s eldest son, Richard Sackler, was searching for new applications for Purdue’s timed-release Contin system. “At all the meetings, that was a constant source of discussion—‘What else can we use the Contin system for?’ ” said Peter Lacouture, a senior director of clinical research at Purdue from 1991 to 2001. “And that’s where Richard would fire some ideas—maybe antibiotics, maybe chemotherapy—he was always out there digging.” Richard’s spitballing wasn’t idle blather. A trained physician, he treasured his role as a research scientist and appeared as an inventor on dozens of the company’s patents (though not on the patents for OxyContin). In the tradition of his uncle Arthur, Richard was also fascinated by sales messaging. “He was very interested in the commercial side and also very interested in marketing approaches,” said Sally Allen Riddle, Purdue’s former executive director for product management. “He didn’t always wait for the research results.” (A Purdue spokesperson said that Richard “always considered relevant scientific information when making decisions.”)

Perhaps the most private member of a generally secretive family, Richard appears nowhere on Purdue’s website. From public records and conversations with former employees, though, a rough portrait emerges of a testy eccentric with ardent, relentless ambitions. Born in 1945, he holds degrees from Columbia University and NYU Medical School. According to a bio on the website of the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT, where Richard serves on the advisory board, he started working at Purdue as his father’s assistant at age twenty-six before eventually leading the firm’s R&D; division and, separately, its sales and marketing division. In 1999, while Mortimer and Raymond remained Purdue’s co-CEOs, Richard joined them at the top of the company as president, a position he relinquished in 2003 to become cochairman of the board. The few publicly available pictures of him are generic and sphinxlike—a white guy with a receding hairline. He is one of the few Sacklers to consistently smile for the camera. In a photo on what appears to be his Facebook profile, Richard is wearing a tan suit and a pink tie, his right hand casually scrunched into his pocket, projecting a jaunty charm. Divorced in 2013, he lists his relationship status on the profile as “It’s complicated.”

When Purdue eventually pleaded guilty to felony charges in 2007 for criminally “misbranding” OxyContin, it acknowledged exploiting doctors’ misconceptions about oxycodone’s strength.

Richard’s political contributions have gone mostly to Republicans—including Strom Thurmond and Herman Cain—though at times he has also given to Democrats. (His ex-wife, Beth Sackler, has given almost exclusively to Democrats.) In 2008, he wrote a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journaldenouncing Muslim support for suicide bombing, a concern that seems to persist: Since 2014, his charitable organization, the Richard and Beth Sackler Foundation, has donated to several anti-Muslim groups, including three organizations classified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. (The family spokesperson said, “It was never Richard Sackler’s intention to donate to an anti-Muslim or hate group.”) The foundation has also donated to True the Vote, the “voter-fraud watchdog” that was the original source for Donald Trump’s inaccurate claim that three million illegal immigrants voted in the 2016 election.

Former employees describe Richard as a man with an unnerving intelligence, alternately detached and pouncing. In meetings, his face was often glued to his laptop. “This was pre-smartphone days,” said Riddle. “He’d be typing away and you would think he wasn’t even listening, and then all of the sudden his head would pop up and he’d be asking a very pointed question.” He was notorious for peppering subordinates with unexpected, rapid-fire queries, sometimes in the middle of the night. “Richard had the mind of someone who’s going two hundred miles an hour,” said Lacouture. “He could be a little bit disconnected in the way he would communicate. Whether it was on the weekend or a holiday or a Christmas party, you could always expect the unexpected.”

Richard also had an appetite for micromanagement. “I remember one time he mailed out a rambling sales bulletin,” said Shelby Sherman, a Purdue sales rep from 1974 to 1998. “And right in the middle, he put in, ‘If you’re reading this, then you must call my secretary at this number and give her this secret password.’ He wanted to check and see if the reps were reading this shit. We called it ‘Playin’ Passwords.’ ” According to Sherman, Richard started taking a more prominent role in the company during the early 1980s. “The shift was abrupt,” he said. “Raymond was just so nice and down-to-earth and calm and gentle.” When Richard came, “things got a lot harder. Richard really wanted Purdue to be big—I mean really big.”

To effectively capitalize on the chronic-pain movement, Purdue knew it needed to move beyond MS Contin. “Morphine had a stigma,” said Riddle. “People hear the word and say, ‘Wait a minute, I’m not dying or anything.’ ” Aside from its terminal aura, MS Contin had a further handicap: Its patent was set to expire in the late nineties. In a 1990 memo addressed to Richard and other executives, Purdue’s VP of clinical research, Robert Kaiko, suggested that the company work on a pill containing oxycodone, a chemical similar to morphine that was also derived from the opium poppy. When it came to branding, oxycodone had a key advantage: Although it was 50 percent stronger than morphine, many doctors believed—wrongly—that it was substantially less powerful. They were deceived about its potency in part because oxycodone was widely known as one of the active ingredients in Percocet, a relatively weak opioid- acetaminophen combination that doctors often prescribed for painful injuries. “It really didn’t have the same connotation that morphine did in people’s minds,” said Riddle.

A common malapropism led to further advantage for Purdue. “Some people would call it oxy-codeine” instead of oxycodone, recalled Lacouture. “Codeine is very weak.” When Purdue eventually pleaded guilty to felony charges in 2007 for criminally “misbranding” OxyContin, it acknowledged exploiting doctors’ misconceptions about oxycodone’s strength. In court documents, the company said it was “well aware of the incorrect view held by many physicians that oxycodone was weaker than morphine” and “did not want to do anything ‘to make physicians think that oxycodone was stronger or equal to morphine’ or to ‘take any steps . . . that would affect the unique position that OxyContin’ ” held among physicians.

Purdue did not merely neglect to clear up confusion about the strength of OxyContin. As the company later admitted, it misleadingly promoted OxyContin as less addictive than older opioids on the market. In this deception, Purdue had a big assist from the FDA, which allowed the company to include an astonishing labeling claim in OxyContin’s package insert: “Delayed absorption, as provided by OxyContin tablets, is believed to reduce the abuse liability of a drug.”

The theory was that addicts would shy away from timed-released drugs, preferring an immediate rush. In practice, OxyContin, which crammed a huge amount of pure narcotic into a single pill, became a lusted-after target for addicts, who quickly discovered that the timed-release mechanism in OxyContin was easy to circumvent—you could simply crush a pill and snort it to get most of the narcotic payload in a single inhalation. This wasn’t exactly news to the manufacturer: OxyContin’s own packaging warned that consuming broken pills would thwart the timed-release system and subject patients to a potentially fatal overdose. MS Contin had contended with similar vulnerabilities, and as a result commanded a hefty premium on the street. But the “reduced abuse liability” claim that added wings to the sales of OxyContin had not been approved for MS Contin. It was removed from OxyContin in 2001 and would never be approved again for any other opioid.

The year after OxyContin’s release, Curtis Wright, the FDA examiner who approved the pharmaceutical’s original application, quit. After a stint at another pharmaceutical company, he began working for Purdue. In an interview with Esquire, Wright defended his work at the FDA and at Purdue. “At the time, it was believed that extended-release formulations were intrinsically less abusable,” he insisted. “It came as a rather big shock to everybody—the government and Purdue—that people found ways to grind up, chew up, snort, dissolve, and inject the pills.” Preventing abuse, he said, had to be balanced against providing relief to chronic-pain sufferers. “In the mid-nineties,” he recalled, “the very best pain specialists told the medical community they were not prescribing opioids enough. That was not something generated by Purdue—that was not a secret plan, that was not a plot, that was not a clever marketing ploy. Chronic pain is horrible. In the right circumstances, opioid therapy is nothing short of miraculous; you give people their lives back.” In Wright’s account, the Sacklers were not just great employers, they were great people. “No company in the history of pharmaceuticals,” he said, “has worked harder to try to prevent abuse of their product than Purdue.”

Purdue did not invent the chronic-pain movement, but it used that movement to engineer a crucial shift. Wright is correct that in the nineties patients suffering from chronic pain often received inadequate treatment. But the call for clinical reforms also became a flexible alibi for overly aggressive prescribing practices. By the end of the decade, clinical proponents of opioid treatment, supported by millions in funding from Purdue and other pharmaceutical companies, had organized themselves into advocacy groups with names like the American Pain Society and the American Academy of Pain Medicine. (Purdue also launched its own group, called Partners Against Pain.) As the decade wore on, these organizations, which critics have characterized as front groups for the pharmaceutical industry, began pressuring health regulators to make pain “the fifth vital sign”—a number, measured on a subjective ten-point scale, to be asked and recorded at every doctor’s visit. As an internal strategy document put it, Purdue’s ambition was to “attach an emotional aspect to noncancer pain” so that doctors would feel pressure to “treat it more seriously and aggressively.” The company rebranded pain relief as a sacred right: a universal narcotic entitlement available not only to the terminally ill but to every American.

The company rebranded pain relief as a sacred right: a universal narcotic entitlement available not only to the terminally ill but to every American. By 2001, annual OxyContin sales had surged past $1 billion.

OxyContin’s sales started out small in 1996, in part because Purdue first focused on the cancer market to gain formulary acceptance from HMOs and state Medicaid programs. Over the next several years, though, the company doubled its sales force to six hundred—equal to the total number of DEA diversion agents employed to combat the sale of prescription drugs on the black market—and began targeting general practitioners, dentists, OB/GYNs, physician assistants, nurses, and residents. By 2001, annual OxyContin sales had surged past $1 billion. Sales reps were encouraged to downplay addiction risks. “It was sell, sell, sell,” recalled Sherman. “We were directed to lie. Why mince words about it? Greed took hold and overruled everything. They saw that potential for billions of dollars and just went after it.” Flush with cash, Purdue pioneered a high-cost promotion strategy, effectively providing kickbacks—which were legal under American law—to each part of the distribution chain. Wholesalers got rebates in exchange for keeping OxyContin off prior authorization lists. Pharmacists got refunds on their initial orders. Patients got coupons for thirty- day starter supplies. Academics got grants. Medical journals got millions in advertising. Senators and members of Congress on key committees got donations from Purdue and from members of the Sackler family.

It was doctors, though, who received the most attention. “We used to fly doctors to these ‘seminars,’ ” said Sherman, which were, in practice, “just golf trips to Pebble Beach. It was graft.” Though offering perks and freebies to doctors was hardly uncommon in the industry, it was unprecedented in the marketing of a Schedule II narcotic. For some physicians, the junkets to sunny locales weren’t enough to persuade them to prescribe. To entice the holdouts—a group the company referred to internally as “problem doctors”—the reps would dangle the lure of Purdue’s lucrative speakers’ bureau. “Everybody was automatically approved,” said Sherman. “We would set up these little dinners, and they’d make their little fifteen-minute talk, and they’d get $500.”

Between 1996 and 2001, the number of OxyContin prescriptions in the United States surged from about three hundred thousand to nearly six million, and reports of abuse started to bubble up in places like West Virginia, Florida, and Maine. (Research would later show a direct correlation between prescription volume in an area and rates of abuse and overdose.) Hundreds of doctors were eventually arrested for running pill mills. According to an investigation in the Los Angeles Times, even though Purdue kept an internal list of doctors it suspected of criminal diversion, it didn’t volunteer this information to law enforcement until years later.

As criticism of OxyContin mounted through the aughts, Purdue responded with symbolic concessions while retaining its volume-driven business model. To prevent addicts from forging prescriptions, the company gave doctors tamper-resistant prescription pads; to mollify pharmacists worried about robberies, Purdue offered to replace, free of charge, any stolen drugs; to gather data on drug abuse and diversion, the company launched a national monitoring program called RADARS.

Critics were not impressed. In a letter to Richard Sackler in July 2001, Richard Blumenthal, then Connecticut’s attorney general and now a U. S. senator, called the company’s efforts “cosmetic.” As Blumenthal had deduced, the root problem of the prescription-opioid epidemic was the high volume of prescriptions written for powerful opioids. “It is time for Purdue Pharma to change its practices,” Blumenthal warned Richard, “not just its public-relations strategy.”

It wasn’t just that doctors were writing huge numbers of prescriptions; it was also that the prescriptions were often for extraordinarily high doses. A single dose of Percocet contains between 2.5 and 10mg of oxycodone. OxyContin came in 10-, 20-, 30-, 40-, and 80mg formulations and, for a time, even 160mg. Purdue’s greatest competitive advantage in dominating the pain market, it had determined early on, was that OxyContin lasted twelve hours, enough to sleep through the night. But for many patients, the drug lasted only six or eight hours, creating a cycle of crash and euphoria that one academic called “a perfect recipe for addiction.” When confronted with complaints about “breakthrough pain”—meaning that the pills weren’t working as long as advertised—Purdue’s sales reps were given strict instructions to tell doctors to strengthen the dose rather than increase dosing frequency.

Sales reps were encouraged to downplay addiction risks. “It was sell, sell, sell,” recalled Sherman. “We were directed to lie. Why mince words about it?”

Over the next several years, dozens of class-action lawsuits were brought against Purdue. Many were dismissed, but in some cases Purdue wrote big checks to avoid going to trial. Several plaintiffs’ lawyers found that the company was willing to go to great lengths to prevent Richard Sackler from having to testify under oath. “They didn’t want him deposed, I can tell you that much,” recalled Marvin Masters, a lawyer who brought a class-action suit against Purdue in the early 2000s in West Virginia. “They were willing to sit down and settle the case to keep from doing that.” Purdue tried to get Richard removed from the suit, but when that didn’t work, the company settled with the plaintiffs for more than $20 million. Paul Hanly, a New York class-action lawyer who won a large settlement from Purdue in 2007, had a similar recollection. “We were attempting to take Richard Sackler’s deposition,” he said, “around the time that they agreed to a settlement.” (A spokesperson for the company said, “Purdue did not settle any cases to avoid the deposition of Dr. Richard Sackler, or any other individual.”)

When the federal government finally stepped in, in 2007, it extracted historic terms of surrender from the company. Purdue pleaded guilty to felony charges, admitting that it had lied to doctors about OxyContin’s abuse potential. (The technical charge was “misbranding a drug with intent to defraud or mislead.”) Under the agreement, the company paid $600 million in fines and its three top executives at the time—its medical director, general counsel, and Richard’s successor as president—pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges. The executives paid $34.5 million out of their own pockets and performed four hundred hours of community service. It was one of the harshest penalties ever imposed on a pharmaceutical company. (In a statement to Esquire, Purdue said that it “abides by the highest ethical standards and legal requirements.” The statement went on: “We want physicians to use their professional judgment, and we were not trying to pressure them.”)

Fifty-three thousand Americans died from opioid overdoses in 2016, more than the thirty-six thousand who died in car crashes in 2015 or the thirty-five thousand who died from gun violence that year.

No Sacklers were named in the 2007 suit. Indeed, the Sackler name appeared nowhere in the plea agreement, even though Richard had been one of the company’s top executives during most of the period covered by the settlement. He did eventually have to give a deposition in 2015, in a case brought by Kentucky’s attorney general. Richard’s testimony—the only known record of a Sackler speaking about the crisis the family’s company helped create—was promptly sealed. (In 2016, STAT, an online magazine owned by Boston Globe Media that covers health and medicine, asked a court in Kentucky to unseal the deposition, which is said to have lasted several hours. STAT won a lower-court ruling in May 2016. As of press time, the matter was before an appeals court.)

In 2010, Purdue executed a breathtaking pivot: Embracing the arguments critics had been making for years about OxyContin’s susceptibility to abuse, the company released a new formulation of the medication that was harder to snort or inject. Purdue seized the occasion to rebrand itself as an industry leader in abuse-deterrent technology. The change of heart coincided with two developments: First, an increasing number of addicts, unable to afford OxyContin’s high street price, were turning to cheaper alternatives like heroin; second, OxyContin was nearing the end of its patents. Purdue suddenly argued that the drug it had been selling for nearly fifteen years was so prone to abuse that generic manufacturers should not be allowed to copy it.

On April 16, 2013, the day some of the key patents for OxyContin were scheduled to expire, the FDA followed Purdue’s lead, declaring that no generic versions of the original OxyContin formulation could be sold. The company had effectively won several additional years of patent protection for its golden goose.

Opioid withdrawal, which causes aches, vomiting, and restless anxiety, is a gruesome process to experience as an adult. It’s considerably worse for the twenty thousand or so American babies who emerge each year from opioid-soaked wombs. These infants, suddenly cut off from their supply, cry uncontrollably. Their skin is mottled. They cannot fall asleep. Their bodies are shaken by tremors and, in the worst cases, seizures. Bottles of milk leave them distraught, because they cannot maneuver their lips with enough precision to create suction. Treatment comes in the form of drops of morphine pushed from a syringe into the babies’ mouths. Weaning sometimes takes a week but can last as long as twelve. It’s a heartrending, expensive process, typically carried out in the neonatal ICU, where newborns have limited access to their mothers.

But the children of OxyContin, its heirs and legatees, are many and various. The second- and third-generation descendants of Raymond and Mortimer Sackler spend their money in the ways we have come to expect from the not-so-idle rich. Notably, several have made children a focus of their business and philanthropic endeavors. One Sackler heir helped start an iPhone app called RedRover, which generates ideas for child-friendly activities for urban parents; another runs a child- development center near Central Park; another is a donor to charter-school causes, as well as an investor in an education start-up called AltSchool. Yet another is the founder of Beespace, an “incubator for emerging nonprofits,” which provides resources and mentoring for initiatives like the Malala Fund, which invests in education programs for women in the developing world, and Yoga Foster, whose objective is to bring “accessible, sustainable yoga programs into schools across the country.” Other Sackler heirs get to do the fun stuff: One helps finance small, interesting films like The Witch; a second married a famous cricket player; a third is a sound artist; a fourth started a production company with Boyd Holbrook, star of the Netflix series Narcos; a fifth founded a small chain of gastropubs in New York called the Smith.

Holding fast to family tradition, Raymond’s and Mortimer’s heirs declined to be interviewed for this article. Instead, through a spokesperson, they put forward two decorated academics who have been on the receiving end of the family’s largesse: Phillip Sharp, the Nobel-prize-winning MIT geneticist, and Herbert Pardes, formerly the dean of faculty at Columbia University’s medical school and CEO of New York-Presbyterian Hospital. Both men effusively praised the Sacklers’ donations to the arts and sciences, marveling at their loyalty to academic excellence. “Once you were on that exalted list of philanthropic projects,” Pardes told Esquire, “you were there and you were in a position to secure additional philanthropy. It was like a family acquisition.” Pardes called the Sacklers “the nicest, most gentle people you could imagine.” As for the family’s connection to OxyContin, he said that it had never come up as an issue in the faculty lounge or the hospital break room. “I have never heard one inch about that,” he said.

Pardes’s ostrichlike avoidance is not unusual. In 2008, Raymond and his wife donated an undisclosed amount to Yale to start the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Institute for Biological, Physical and Engineering Sciences. Lynne Regan, its current director, told me that neither students nor faculty have ever brought up the OxyContin connection. “Most people don’t know about that,” she said. “I think people are mainly oblivious.” A spokesperson for the university added, “Yale does not vet donors for controversies that may or may not arise.”

In May, a dozen lawmakers in Congress sent a bipartisan letter to the World Health Organization warning that Sackler-owned companies were preparing to flood foreign countries with legal narcotics.

The controversy surrounding OxyContin shows little sign of receding. In 2016, the CDC issued a startling warning: There was no good evidence that opioids were an effective treatment for chronic pain beyond six weeks. There was, on the other hand, an abundance of evidence that long-term treatment with opioids had harmful effects. (A recent paper by Princeton economist Alan Krueger suggests that chronic opioid use may account for more than 20 percent of the decline in American labor-force participation from 1999 to 2015.) Millions of opioid prescriptions for chronic pain had been written in the preceding two decades, and the CDC was calling into question whether many of them should have been written at all. At least twenty-five government entities, ranging from states to small cities, have recently filed lawsuits against Purdue to recover damages associated with the opioid epidemic.

The Sacklers, though, will likely emerge untouched: Because of a sweeping non-prosecution agreement negotiated during the 2007 settlement, most new criminal litigation against Purdue can only address activity that occurred after that date. Neither Richard nor any other family members have occupied an executive position at the company since 2003.

The American market for OxyContin is dwindling. According to Purdue, prescriptions fell 33 percent between 2012 and 2016. But while the company’s primary product may be in eclipse in the United States, international markets for pain medications are expanding. According to an investigation last year in the Los Angeles Times, Mundipharma, the Sackler-owned company charged with developing new markets, is employing a suite of familiar tactics in countries like Mexico, Brazil, and China to stoke concern for as-yet-unheralded “silent epidemics” of untreated pain. In Colombia, according to the L.A. Times, the company went so far as to circulate a press release suggesting that 47 percent of the population suffered from chronic pain.

Napp is the family’s drug company in the UK. Mundipharma is their company charged with developing new markets.

In May, a dozen lawmakers in Congress, inspired by the L.A. Timesinvestigation, sent a bipartisan letter to the World Health Organization warning that Sackler-owned companies were preparing to flood foreign countries with legal narcotics. “Purdue began the opioid crisis that has devastated American communities,” the letter reads. “Today, Mundipharma is using many of the same deceptive and reckless practices to sell OxyContin abroad.” Significantly, the letter calls out the Sackler family by name, leaving no room for the public to wonder about the identities of the people who stood behind Mundipharma.

The final assessment of the Sacklers’ global impact will take years to work out. In some places, though, they have already left their mark. In July, Raymond, the last remaining of the original Sackler brothers, died at ninety-seven. Over the years, he had won a British knighthood, been made an Officer of France’s Légion d’Honneur, and received one of the highest possible honors from the royal house of the Netherlands. One of his final accolades came in June 2013, when Anthony Monaco, the president of Tufts University, traveled to Purdue Pharma’s headquarters in Stamford to bestow an honorary doctorate. The Sacklers had made a number of transformational donations to the university over the years—endowing, among other things, the Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences. At Tufts, as at most schools, honorary degrees are traditionally awarded on campus during commencement, but in consideration of Raymond’s advanced age, Monaco trekked to Purdue for a special ceremony. The audience that day was limited to family members, select university officials, and a scrum of employees. Addressing the crowd of intimates, Monaco praised his benefactor. “It would be impossible to calculate how many lives you have saved, how many scientific fields you have redefined, and how many new physicians, scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are doing important work as a result of your entrepreneurial spirit.” He concluded, “You are a world changer.”

Source: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a12775932/sackler-family-oxycontin/ October 2017

Filed under: Addiction,Economic,Heroin/Methadone,Legal Sector,Prescription Drugs,Social Affairs,Social Affairs (Papers) :

Last week Scotland’s leading law officer, the Lord Advocate, brought a shuddering halt to a proposal from Glasgow City Council to develop a safe injecting centre in the city. Such a centre would have required a change in UK drug laws to enable individuals in possession of illegal drugs to use those drugs within the centre without fear of prosecution. Supporters of this initiative will be disappointed by the outcome, but they need to recognise that the provision of some level of legal protection covering the possession of illegal drugs within the injecting centre would also, by implication, need to be extended to all of those who might claim, legitimately or otherwise, that their drug possession should be green-lighted because they were en route to the injecting centre. In effect, such an initiative would deliver what many of its supporters actually desire – the legalisation of illegal drugs within at least some part of the UK.

In his judgement, the Lord Advocate has not ruled against setting up a centre where doctors can prescribe opiate drugs to addicts. Rather he has simply pointed out that he is not prepared to offer legal protection to a centre where illegal drugs are being used. The Glasgow proposal sought unwisely to tie the proposal for a doctor-led heroin prescribing clinic, which would be legal, with a setting where individuals are allowed to use illegal drugs which would break UK drug laws. There will be many who rightly question the wisdom (and the cost to the public purse) of linking those two proposals.

It is often said by the supporters of these centres that where they have been established in other countries no individual has actually died in a drug consumption room. That might be so, but the lack of such deaths is not the high-water mark of success for drug treatment services. The rise in addict deaths in Scotland and in England shows that we need to do much more by way of engaging drug users in services. Doing more should entail taking services to drug users themselves wherever they are living and wherever they are using illegal drugs. Setting up a city-centre location where people can use illegal drugs under some level of legal protection betrays a worrying lack of knowledge both about Glasgow itself and about the life of an addict. Glasgow is a territorial city par excellence and there are addicts who cross into different parts of the city at their genuine peril. Similarly, when addicts secure the drugs they so desperately need their first thought is not ‘How do I travel to a city-centre location where I may use these drugs without fear of prosecution?’ but ‘Where is the needle that will enable me to inject now?’ It is for both of those reasons that we should be talking about how to take services to the addicts rather than how to get the addicts to go to the services.

Glasgow’s addiction services have been slow to adopt a focus on recovery, and even to date they are unable to report how many drug users they have treated have managed to overcome their addiction – this despite having a strategy which for the last ten years has emphasised the importance of enabling drug users to become drug-free. That strategy is now being reviewed by the Scottish Government with the real risk that the commitment to abstinence-based recovery will be diluted in preference to the much woollier goal of seeking to reduce the harm associated with addicts’ continued drug use.

Within Scotland we spend more than £100million a year on drug treatment. We should be asking why our services seem to be achieving so little in terms of getting addicts into long-term recovery and why, in the face of that failure, public officials are seeking to promote centres where illegal drug use can take place without fear of prosecution. Injecting on the streets is a terrible reality but the response to that problem should not be the provision of a centre where injecting can occur beyond public view, but actively to discourage injecting at all.

The reason we need to be doing much more to discourage drug injecting is because the substances addicts are injecting are often manufactured, stored, and transported in dreadfully unhygienic conditions with the result that they often contain serious and potentially fatal bacterial contaminants. These drugs do not become safe when they are used in a drug consumption room, but remain harmful wherever they are injected. We need to do all we can to discourage drug use, to discourage injecting, and to ensure that as many addicts as possible are in contact with services focused on assisting their recovery. We need to be very wary of developing initiatives that run the real risk of normalising illegal drug use and driving a possible further increase in the number of people using illegal drugs.

Professor Neil McKeganey is Director of the Centre for Substance Use Research, Glasgow

Source: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/neil-mckeganey-good-sense-kills-not-safe-injecting-centre/ November 2017

Filed under: Addiction,Global Drug Legalisation Efforts,Heroin/Methadone,Needle Exchange :

Legalizing opioids may give Americans greater freedom over their decision-making, but at what cost? One painful aspect of the public debates over the opioid-addiction crisis is how much they mirror the arguments that arise from personal addiction crises.

If you’ve ever had a loved one struggle with drugs — in my case, my late brother, Josh — the national exercise in guilt-driven blame-shifting and finger-pointing, combined with flights of sanctimony and ideological righteousness, has a familiar echo. The difference between the public arguing and the personal agonizing is that, at the national level, we can afford our abstractions.

When you have skin in the game, none of the easy answers seem all that easy. For instance, “tough love” sounds great until you contemplate the possible real-world consequences. My father summarized the dilemma well. “Tough love” — i.e., cutting off all support for my brother so he could hit rock bottom and then start over — had the best chance of success. It also had the best chance for failure — i.e., death. There’s also a lot of truth to “just say no,” but once someone has already said “yes,” it’s tantamount to preaching “keep your horses in the barn” long after they’ve left.

But if there’s one seemingly simple answer that has been fully discredited by the opioid crisis, it’s that the solution lies in wholesale drug legalization. In Libertarianism: A Primer, David Boaz argues that “if drugs were produced by reputable firms, and sold in liquor stores, fewer people would die from overdoses and tainted drugs, and fewer people would be the victims of prohibition-related robberies, muggings and drive-by-shootings.”

Maybe. But you know what else would happen if we legalized heroin and opioids? More people would use heroin and opioids. And the more people who use such addictive drugs, the more addicts you get. Think of the opioid crisis as the fruit of partial legalization. In the 1990s, for good reasons and bad, the medical profession, policymakers, and the pharmaceutical industry made it much easier to obtain opioids in order to confront an alleged pain epidemic. Doctors prescribed more opioids, and government subsidies made them more affordable. Because they were prescribed by doctors and came in pill form, the stigma reserved for heroin didn’t exist. When you increase supply, lower costs, and reduce stigma, you increase use.

And guess what? Increased use equals more addicts. A survey by the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation found that one-third of the people who were prescribed opioids for more than two months became addicted. A Centers for Disease Control study found that a very small number of people exposed to opioids are likely to become addicted after a single use. The overdose crisis is largely driven by the fact that once addicted to legal opioids, people seek out illegal ones — heroin, for example — to fend off the agony of withdrawal once they can’t get, or afford, any more pills. Last year, 64,000 Americans died from overdoses. Some 58,000 Americans died in the Vietnam War.

Experts rightly point out that a large share of opioid addiction stems not from prescribed use but from people selling the drugs secondhand on the black market, or from teenagers stealing them from their parents. That’s important, but it doesn’t help the argument for legalization. Because the point remains: When these drugs become more widely available, more people avail themselves of them. How would stacking heroin or OxyContin next to the Jim Beam lower the availability? Liquor companies advertise — a lot. Would we let, say, Pfizer run ads for their brand of heroin? At least it might cut down on the Viagra commercials. I think it’s probably true that legalization would reduce crime, insofar as some violent illegal drug dealers would be driven out of the business.

I’m less sure that legalization would curtail crimes committed by addicts in order to feed their habits. As a rule, addiction is not conducive to sustained gainful employment, and addicts are just as capable of stealing and prostitution to pay for legal drugs as illegal ones. The fundamental assumption behind legalization is that people are rational actors and can make their own decisions. As a general proposition, I believe that. But what people forget is that drug addiction makes people irrational. If you think more addicts are worth it in the name of freedom, fine. Just be prepared to accept that the costs of such freedom are felt very close to home.

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453304/opioid-crisis-legalization-not-solution November 2017

Filed under: Addiction,Global Drug Legalisation Efforts,Heroin/Methadone :

The Washington County drug court graduation ceremony for Maria Kestner. Photograph: Fred R Conrad

Photographer Fred R Conrad visited a Virginia drug court last year and saw how individuals and families had been given a second chance – so when he went back this summer he had a question: did they take it?