Medicines

Transmitted by Gary Christian – President, Drug Free Australia – September 18, 2025

Attached is the Drug Free Australia submission to the TGA Consultation re medicinal cannabis which is not only in  Australian National interest but also this is of concern  worldwide. DFA hopes to bring the present appropriateness of access via the Special Access Scheme (SAS) and Authorised Prescriber (AP) under control into the safety and regulatory oversight of unapproved medicinal cannabis products to protect Australia’s  future generations from harm.

From DFA’s submission’s Executive Summary:

This document addresses three of the TGA consultation questions:

  • Contraindications for medical cannabis – see Appendix A
  • Claims for medical cannabis not supported by rigorous science – See Appendix B
  • Lack of quality assurance in the production of medicinal cannabis – See Appendix C

DFA recommendations are found on page 8.

To access the full document:

  1. Click on the ‘Source’ link below.
  2. An image  – the front page of the full document will appear.
  3. Click on the image to open the full document.

Source:  TGA Medicinal Cannabis submission

Press Office, Media Relations – press-office@brunel.ac.uk

The UK’s science minister, Sir Patrick Vallance, has sounded the alarm over the country’s declining investment in medicines. He warned that the NHS risks losing out on important treatments and the country could lose its place at the cutting edge of medical research if spending does not recover. It comes at a sensitive time – this year drug-makers including Merck and AstraZeneca have backtracked on plans to invest in the UK.

Vallance is correct that there is a need to encourage pharmaceutical firms to keep investing and launching new medicines in the UK. On the other side, there is a need to protect public funds from being wasted on treatments that do not offer enough benefit for their cost.

At the moment, just 9% of NHS healthcare spending goes on medicines. This is less than Spain (18%), Germany (17%) and France (15%). At a time when some experts believe the UK is getting sicker, this might come as a surprise.

But the UK is unusual among major health systems in how carefully it regulates drug spending. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) has, since its creation, judged new treatments not only on clinical evidence but on cost-effectiveness.

That means asking whether a drug’s health benefits – measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) – justify its price compared with existing care. For most treatments the threshold is about £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY. This is not a perfect measure, but it gives the NHS a consistent way of deciding whether the health gained is worth the money spent.

The value of this approach is clear. Nice’s record shows that medicines that pass its tests have added millions of QALYs to patients in England, while also preventing waste on drugs that bring only marginal improvements at high cost.

A study published earlier this year in medical journal The Lancet found that many of the new medicines recommended by Nice between 2000-2020 brought substantial benefit to patients. But it also noted that some high-cost drugs deliver much less health gain than investments in prevention or early diagnosis could.

The study emphasises that maintaining rigorous thresholds around cost-effectiveness ensures that public funds go to treatments that really improve lives. In other words, the discipline of cost-effectiveness has protected the public purse while ensuring access to genuine innovations.

This regulatory strength is reinforced by national pricing schemes for branded medicines. These cap overall growth in the NHS drugs bill and require companies to pay rebates if spending rises too fast. In practice, this means that if total spending on branded medicines exceeds an agreed annual limit, pharmaceutical companies must pay back a percentage of their sales revenue to the Department of Health.

In recent years that rebate rate has been as high as 20–26% of sales, effectively lowering the price the NHS pays. This is made possible by the buying power of the health service.

Together with Nice’s appraisals, these measures have helped the NHS maintain relatively low medicines spending compared with many countries. At the same time, it still secures access to major advances in cancer therapy, immunology and rare disease treatment.

For a publicly funded service under constant financial strain, these protections are vital. Despite the pressure on its budget, the NHS has secured meaningful access to new therapies. For example, by March 2024, nearly 100,000 patients in England – many of whom would otherwise face long delays or rejection – had benefited from early access via the Cancer Drugs Fund to more than 100 drugs across 250 conditions.

The balance with Big Pharma

However, strict controls on price and access can have unintended consequences. If companies see the UK as a low-return market, they may choose to launch new drugs elsewhere first, or to limit investment in research and early trials here.

There is a danger that patients could face delays in receiving new treatments. Or the scientific ecosystem, which relies on steady collaboration with industry, could weaken.

Still, the answer is not to abandon cost-effectiveness. Without it, the NHS would risk paying high prices for small gains. This would divert money from staff, diagnostics or prevention – areas that often bring more health benefit per pound spent.

In such cases, raising thresholds or relaxing scrutiny would do more harm than good. Cost-effectiveness is not just about saving money. It is about fairness, ensuring that treatments funded genuinely improve lives relative to their cost.

The challenge, then, is balance. The UK should continue to hold firm on value for money, while finding ways to encourage investment. That might mean improving the speed and clarity of Nice processes, so that companies know where they stand earlier and patients can access good drugs more quickly.

It could involve reviewing thresholds periodically to account for inflation and medical progress, without undermining the principle that treatments must show sufficient benefit. And it certainly means supporting research and development through stable partnerships with universities, tax incentives and grants.

What should not be underestimated is the UK’s scientific strength. The country remains home to world-class universities, skilled researchers and an innovative biotech sector. The rapid development of the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID vaccine showed what UK science can deliver at scale and speed.

Pharmaceutical companies know this, and many – including AstraZeneca, GSK, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and most recently Moderna – continue to invest in British labs and trials because of the talent and infrastructure. Danish firm Novo Nordisk has strengthened its ties with the University of Oxford, committing £18.5 million to fund 20 postdoctoral fellowships as part of its flagship research partnership.

The UK’s approach to assessing value has won respect internationally. That discipline must be preserved. Reversing the decline in investment means creating a predictable, transparent environment for industry while maintaining the protections that safeguard patients and taxpayers alike. If done well, the UK can continue to be both a responsible buyer of medicines and a world leader in science.

Source: https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/The-UK-must-invest-in-medicines

by Flagstaff Business News, Arizona, USA –  

By Roy DuPrez – Roy DuPrez, M.Ed., is the CEO and founder of Back2Basics Outdoor Adventure Recovery in Flagstaff. DuPrez received his B.S. and M.Ed. from Northern Arizona University. Back2Basics helps men, ages 18 to 35, recover from addiction to drugs and alcohol.

The challenge is real, but so is the opportunity: together, we can make prevention a priority and create healthier, more resilient communities.

Substance abuse continues to be one of the most pressing challenges facing families and communities today. While issues such as alcohol and illicit drug use are well known, prescription drug abuse has become a growing concern in recent years. The easy access to medications in many households, combined with misconceptions about their safety, makes prevention more important than ever.

A holistic approach – grounded in education, family support and healthy development – can go a long way in reducing the risks of substance misuse, particularly with prescription drugs.

The Importance of Early Prevention

Prevention starts long before young people are confronted with the temptation to experiment with drugs or alcohol. Building resilience, confidence and strong family connections early in life can provide powerful protection against substance abuse.

Here are some proven prevention strategies:

Developing Skills and Talents
Encouraging children to pursue sports, arts, music or other hobbies gives them positive outlets for their energy and creativity. These activities not only foster a sense of accomplishment but also help build healthy peer groups, reducing the influence of negative social pressures.

Building Self-Esteem
Confidence is one of the strongest safeguards against risky behaviors. When children feel good about who they are, they are less likely to seek validation through dangerous choices like substance use.

Fostering Family Connections
Open, honest communication within families makes it easier to address difficult topics, including substance abuse. Parents who create a safe space for discussion – and even role-play peer pressure situations – can help their children feel prepared to handle real-world challenges.

Educational Programs
Schools and community organizations play a key role in prevention. Beyond simply warning about the dangers of drugs, the best programs focus on building self-esteem, strengthening family relationships and giving students practical tools to make healthy decisions.

Understanding Prescription Drug Abuse

Even with preventive measures in place, prescription drug abuse remains a significant concern. Many families underestimate the dangers of medications that may already be in their own homes.

Commonly Misused Medications

  • Painkillers: Percocet (oxycodone), Vicodin (hydrocodone)
  • Anti-anxiety medications: Valium (diazepam)
  • Stimulants: Adderall, Ritalin and other ADHD medications

Safe Practices for Families

  • Secure Storage – Medications should be kept in locked cabinets, out of reach from children, teens and visitors.
  • Proper Disposal – Use local drug take-back programs or approved disposal sites. Throwing medications in the trash or flushing them can create environmental hazards and accidental risks.
  • Education and Awareness – Families should understand that “prescribed” doesn’t always mean “safe.” Community workshops, brochures and forums can provide helpful tools to increase awareness.

A Path Forward

Substance abuse prevention – especially when it comes to prescription drugs – requires a community-wide effort. Addiction does not discriminate; it impacts families across every socioeconomic and cultural background.

By strengthening family connections, building self-esteem, encouraging positive outlets and practicing safe medication habits, we can give the next generation the tools they need to thrive.

The challenge is real, but so is the opportunity: together, we can make prevention a priority and create healthier, more resilient communities. 

Source: https://www.flagstaffbusinessnews.com/substance-abuse-prevention-and-the-challenge-of-prescription-drug-abuse/

by Allysia Finley       Wall Street Journal          Sept. 14, 2025

What causes a young man to spiral from success toward loneliness, self-destruction and violence?

A police officer guards Tyler Robinson’s apartment complex in Washington, Utah, Sept. 12. Photo: andrew hay/Reuters

The descent of Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man suspected of murdering Charlie Kirk, is itself a tragedy worth mourning. How did a high-school whiz kid devolve into an assassin?

Such spirals aren’t so uncommon among young men, even if Mr. Robinson’s played out in a more calamitous and public way than most. Political violence is a problem. But so is the atomized culture in which young men retreat into confused inner worlds and virtual realities, which can be as addictive and destructive as any drug.

Mr. Robinson’s relatively normal background makes his actions jarring. He came from a good middle-class family. Having excelled in high school, he was awarded a scholarship to Utah State University, though he dropped out after one semester.

At some point, he appears to have become steeped in a dark digital world and videogames. He inscribed ammunition with obscure online memes (“Notices bulges OwO what’s this?”), lyrics to an anti-Fascist Italian song, and an apparent reference to the videogame “Helldivers 2,” a satire of a fascist interstellar empire inspired by the 1997 movie “Starship Troopers.”

Marinating in an internet cesspool can’t be good for the young and malleable male mind. Might killing villains in videogames desensitize the conscience? Studies have found an association between playing violent videogames and aggressive behavior, though most people who assume online avatars and fight monsters don’t become violent.

A broader problem, as Jonathan Haidt explains in his book “The Anxious Generation,” is that videogames cause boys to get lost in cyberspace. They have “put some users into a vicious cycle because they used gaming to distract themselves from feelings of loneliness,” Mr. Haidt notes. “Over time they developed a reliance on the games instead of forming long-term friendships.” They “retreat to their bedrooms rather than doing the hard work of maturing in the real world.”

The same is true of social-media platforms like Discord and Reddit, where young men often seek fraternity under pseudonyms. The platforms become substitutes for real-world camaraderie and can lead men down dark holes. Frequent social-media use has been found to rewire neurological pathways in young brains and compromise judgment.

Mr. Robinson’s spiral recalls Luigi Mangione, the 27-year-old University of Pennsylvania graduate who allegedly shot and killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a New York City street. Attractive and athletic, Mr. Mangione developed an obsession with self-improvement even as he suffered bouts of excruciating back pain. He was also an avid videogame player and active on Reddit.

Prior to the shooting, he cut off communications with family and friends. Men in their late teens and 20s sometimes experience psychotic breaks. Mr. Mangione’s apparent mental-health struggles, however, seem to have gone unnoticed as he got lost in a digital wilderness.

Or consider Thomas Crooks, the 20-year-old who attempted to assassinate President Trump at a rally last summer. Crooks graduated high school with high honors and scored 1530 on the SAT, then enrolled in an engineering program at a community college. His father said his mental health began declining in the year before the shooting.

Crooks lost social connections as he started spending more time online, visiting news sites, gaming platforms, Reddit and weapons blogs. He at one point searched for information on “major depressive disorder” and “depression crisis,” suggesting he suspected he had a mental illness. Instead of psychiatric treatment, he turned to the internet.

Like drugs, the internet can fuel delusions. Patrick Joseph White, 30, last month opened fire on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters in Atlanta, then fatally shot himself. He was apparently exercising his rage against Covid shots, which he wrote were “always meant to indiscriminately murder as many as possible” and believed had caused his depression.

He had threatened self-harm numerous times in the previous year. In April police officers came to his home after he called a veterans’ crisis line and said he had been drinking and taking medication. White told officers he had called the crisis line “just to talk to someone.”

Videogames and the digital world may not cause mental illness, but they can be a form of self-medication that provides illusory relief from emotional troubles even as they propel antisocial behavior. The solution isn’t to ban them, but to create social structures that prevent young men from falling through the cracks.

Lost boys pose a broader cultural problem. The share of men 20 to 34 who work has been declining over the past 30 years, even as employment among young women has increased. Too many young men spend their days playing videogames, watching porn, smoking pot and trolling the internet rather than engaging with the real world.

Mr. Kirk sought to bring young people like Mr. Robinson out of their virtual caves. It’s harder to hate someone you meet in the flesh than an avatar in a digital dystopia.

Source:  Drug Watch International – www.drugwatch.org

by Liz Mineo – Harvard Staff Writer -September 16, 2025

Study examining potential solution to treatment gap — especially in rural areas — gets federal funding cut

Between 1999 and 2023, approximately 806,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet of the estimated 2.4 million U.S. adults with opioid use disorder, only one in four receives medications that can reduce overdose risk.

Telehealth has shown promise as a potential tool to prevent opioid overdose deaths, but funding for a study launched last year by health economist Haiden Huskamp examining its use and impact was terminated as part of the mass cancellation of federal research grants by the Trump administration in May.

“A lot of our research, including that for this grant, is looking at why so few people are getting evidence-based treatments for substance use disorder,” said Huskamp, Henry J. Kaiser Professor of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School. “Medications for opioid use disorder are highly efficacious. They reduce opioid use; they reduce overdose risk and other negative outcomes. These medications save lives.”

A shortage of clinicians specialized in treating opioid use disorders — particularly in rural areas — presents a major barrier to receiving care, she said.

“Our work has been trying to understand, since the pandemic in particular, who was using telemedicine for opioid use disorder,” said Huskamp, “and whether the availability of care, via telemedicine, has meant that clinicians who treat substance use disorders are now seeing more patients in areas where there aren’t enough doctors who do this work.”

217Americans, on average, died each day from an opioid overdose in 2023, according to the CDC

For the past five years Huskamp, Ph.D. ’97, has been studying telemedicine as a strategy to expand access to opioid use disorder treatment and life-saving medications such as methadone, buprenorphine, and the quick overdose-reversal drug naloxone.

“Given the opioid epidemic that we are still in the middle of, telemedicine might be an answer because it could address a number of barriers to treatment access,” said Huskamp.

Although in May the CDC reported that opioid overdose deaths dropped from 83,140 in 2023 to 54,743 in 2024, the death toll remains high. According to the CDC, in 2023, on average, 217 people died each day from an opioid overdose.

The goal of Huskamp’s terminated four-year study, launched last year with a team of 15 researchers, was to provide evidence-based information on the efficacy of telemedicine that can guide policymakers as they address the opioid epidemic. It was a renewal of a previous grant, which yielded 24 different publications whose findings have informed new rules by the Drug Enforcement Agency to expand telemedicine access for treating opioid dependence. Funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the latest research sought to examine quality of care and clinical outcomes by analyzing data from Medicare, Medicaid, commercial insurance, and national pharmacy claims.

Telemedicine for opioid use disorder became more widespread across the country during the COVID-19 pandemic, and researchers have been eager to probe the data to find out if it improved access to care for patients in remote areas, and how the quality of care compared to traditional in-person care.

“Anything we can do to try to improve the healthcare system to more effectively allow people to access care and to do so in a more efficient way is really important,” said Huskamp. “We need research like this to guide policymaking, so that we can improve the system as much as possible for people to get the treatment that they need.”

 

Source:  https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/09/only-1-in-4-addicted-to-opioids-takes-life-saving-meds-why/

Opening comment by John Coleman – DWI.

This article raises some good points. While it’s reasonable to compare today’s commercial cannabis industry with the Big Tobacco industry of the 20th century – indeed there are many similarities – we should also consider comparing it to the prescription opioid “epidemic” (as the White House called it) of the 2000s. We will not be alone in drawing the comparisons –  I’m sure the cannabis industry and their lawyers understand the history and chronology as well as we do but, of course, they are looking at it from a different perspective.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Putatively, the “first” pill mill was discovered in June 2001 at a “pain clinic” in Myrtle Beach, SC. The official name of the clinic was the Comprehensive Care and Pain Management Center and it was run by a group of physicians led by the owner, David Michael Woodward, MD. In 1994, Woodward opened a sleep center but quickly found that there was more money to be made prescribing opioids and switched his operation to a pain clinic. When his medical license was suspended in 1996 for improper relationships with female patients, he turned to hiring physicians facing difficult personal and financial problems to write his opioid prescriptions for him.

Myrtle Beach is a small seaside summer resort with a permanent population of 35,000 but, as would later be shown in court, it led the region and entire state in Purdue’s sales of OxyContin – mostly the result of Woodward and his band of troubled docs. In June 2001, DEA raided the clinic, arrested Woodward and eight other physicians and charged them with “conspiracy to distribute controlled substances [and] unlawfully distributing and dispensing … oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance,[etc.]”(USA v. Woodward)

One of the docs subsequently took his life, another ran off to New Zealand, was captured, and returned to face the music. Most cooperated and testified against Woodward who was sentenced to 15 years in prison (later reduced to 13 years). The others received lesser sentences of two years or more.

Woodward was not the first or only entrepreneur looking to cash in on the burgeoning prescription opioid craze. There were people thinking of doing the same thing in Florida, a state that had few, if any, restrictions on pain clinics. It wasn’t long before Florida became the epicenter of the pain clinic aka pill mill industry. Its pill dispensing docs often had dozens and dozens of people lined up before the mill opened each morning. Some, as shown on TV news, drove to the Florida clinics from as far away as Ohio and further west.

“Patients” would often exit the mills carrying gallon-sized clear Ziploc bags of hundreds of loose pills, mostly OxyContin tablets or a generic form of a 30mg oxycodone tablet made and sold by Mallinckrodt. This was a blue tablet with the company’s traditional “M” logo and quickly became known on the street as “M&Ms.”

For several years, Florida and its lax pharmacy and medical laws led the nation in pill mill activity. At the same time, it was becoming a national scourge, with parents and policymakers from surrounding states demanding action. Even the Florida media mocked the state as depicted in this cartoon (my favorite) from the South Florida Sentinel:

The Florida pill mill era came to an abrupt halt in July 2011 when the state legislature enacted an emergency health act that immediately closed down about half of the state’s estimated 1,000 pill mills and severely affected the status of the other half. The emergency legislation prohibited physician-dispensing of controlled substances, meaning the pill mills no longer could prescribe and dispense pills from the same location at the same time.

Florida’s anti-pill mill act increased penalties for dispensing drugs on an invalid prescription and turned misdemeanor pharmacy offenses into felonies. Pharmacists were required to call the local sheriff to report all fraudulent prescriptions. Clinics were required to have a medical director, a medical physician, in residence or in ownership.

Importantly, Florida’s emergency legislation requires distributors of controlled substances to inform the state health department when distributions over a set amount of drugs are delivered to customers.

The results were dramatic:

While the pill mill era was centered in Florida, corrupt medical professionals in other states operated similar “pain clinics” but with a much lower exposure. Over time, many of these were identified via complaints or PDMPs that revealed improper prescribing practices.

Now, how does this brief history of the U.S. pill mill industry compare with what we now see in the commercial cannabis industry? Several similarities come to mind and I’ll mention them briefly to save time:

  1. The pharmaceutical industry, led by Purdue Pharma, spent huge sums of money generating the notion that pain in America was not treated or undertreated;
  2. Medical schools in the 1990s were still teaching in the 1940s mode that narcotics should be used only in terminal cancer patients;
  3. Modern opioids, like Purdue’s new extended-release OxyContin, were promoted as less addictive;
  4. Pain patients, according to JAMA (“Porter & Jick”), rarely became addicted to their opiates;

The industry successfully “sold” these ideas to the public and to Congress, subtly suggesting that obsolete government regulations might be why chronic pain was undertreated in the U.S. Feeling the heat, if not the pain, the government caved and became the pharmaceutical industry’s new best friend. On Halloween (October 31), 2000, industry lobbyists were successful in getting President Bill Clinton to sign into law a bill creating the Decade of Pain Control and Research.

 (Ironically, by the end of the “pain” decade some ten years later, FDA records would show that of 219 drugs and biologics designated and approved during the decade as “new molecular entities,” only nine were indicated for treating acute pain, including three for treating migraine. Only one, Tapentadol®, was indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe acute pain. NONE was indicated for treating chronic pain. Later, after the decade was over, an extended-release form of Tapentadol would receive an additional indication for treating chronic pain.)

 The same month, October 2000, perhaps to curry favor with the President, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a 57-page booklet titled, “Pain as the 5th Vital Sign Toolkit.” Authorship was given in the booklet to James Campbell, MD, president of the American Pain Society. Next on industry’s list of who’s nice was the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), a professional organization of medical experts who certify hospitals and clinics in the U.S. Its “best practices” are viewed as important for attracting federal grants and other forms of federal aid for treating the elderly, disabled, and poor under Medicaid or Medicare. Performance reviews of hospital facilities are conducted regularly by JCAHO members and certification is considered a requisite for continued operation.

In 2001, JCAHO issued new standards for pain care in response to what it called “the national outcry about the widespread problem of undertreatment.” Henceforth, upon admission to the hospital, each patient was to receive as assessment of their “fifth vital sign – pain” along with the normal assessment of their other four vital signs.

With the government squarely in the pocket (literally) of the industry, the private sector was covered. Not to be undone by the competition, the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM, since renamed National Academy of Medicine) was commissioned by HHS to study pain in America. Its publication, “Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research,” was published in 2011 and reported, among other things, that 100 million Americans suffered from chronic pain.

Later, several watchdog groups would show that many of the experts associated with these and other famous public and private pain organizations were secretly on the payroll of the pharmaceutical industry.

By 2011, when the IOM published its report, the industry was moving rapidly and cashing in on the media’s trashing of anyone who dared to be “anti-pain.” It was a movement, an ideology, a belief system, that threatened to excommunicate anyone who differed in any way with the orthodoxy of pain treatment.

Agencies like the DEA that regulated the manufacture, distribution, prescribing, and dispensing of controlled substances was the enemy and the physicians the agency cited were often called “martyrs” by their peers and the public. To counter this, DEA published a booklet for several years (since discontinued) that was titled, simply enough, “Cases Against Doctors.” This booklet was available on the DEA website and catalogued charges and errant behaviors of hundreds of registrant-doctors each year charged and convicted of state or federal law violations involving the prescribing and/or dispensing of controlled substances. (I have an archived copy of this publication if anyone wants to email me for a copy.)

What brought this to an end (or at least to a manageable state) were several factors that can be reduced to these (there may be more but these are what come to mind):

  1. The emergency legislation in 2011 in Florida closing up half the state’s 1,000 pill mills overnight and the strict regulation of the remaining 500 clinics to prohibit physician-dispensing of controlled substances;
  2. The rising death toll attributed to prescription opioid overdoses (ironically, this was miscalculated by the CDC that until 2016 mistakenly counted all fentanyl-related death cases as involving prescribed or administered pharmaceutical fentanyl, not the street version);
  3. The prosecution and conviction of Purdue Pharma and its top three executives (President, Chief Medical Officer, and General Counsel) for federal criminal law violations by the United States Attorney for the Western District of VA in 2007;
  4. Item #3 set the stage for the 2017 Multi-District Litigation (MDL) case involving approximately 3,000 plaintiffs, including state attorneys general, private and public health plans, unions, towns, cities, municipalities, individuals, Indian tribes, etc., brought against Purdue and other companies involved in making, distributing, and dispensing prescription opioids. This case was assigned to the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) and is currently in negotiations for an omnibus settlement along the lines of what came out of the Big Tobacco settlement of the 1990s. A number of companies have settled individual “pilot” cases thus far and the total settlement is estimated to eventually reach the $26 billion mark;
  5. Purdue and Mallinckrodt entered and exited bankruptcy as a result of settlements and judgments related to the MDL;
  6. The companies have largely abandoned the freewheeling and unlawful sales of opioids that they promoted in the heyday of the previous decade;
  7. Personnel changes at the top of many defendant companies have resulted in folks at the top being more responsible today than ever for what the company is doing at the retail level;
  8. While prescription opioid overdose deaths are down substantially compared with what they once were, unfortunately the craving for a substitute drug in the form of heroin or fentanyl-laced heroin has increased leading to only a modest decrease in overdose opiate-involved deaths.

Conclusion:

From the above brief (and this is brief for a story that took almost two decades to happen) analysis, the comparisons with today’s commercial cannabis industry are stark and unmistakable. We have been led (or more correctly, misled) by the previous HHS leadership that our control of cannabis for medical purposes was outdated, too narrow, and did not comport with modern ways of evaluating the safety and efficacy of medicinal drugs.

This, by the way, from the same crowd that told us pain was our “Fifth Vital Sign.” States that have approved commercial cannabis “dispensaries” have done so in the finest tradition of helping entrepreneurs in the early 2000s establish pill mills to care for undertreated pain.

And the DEA? Congress has enjoined appropriations for the agency that might be directed against medical marijuana. The FDA? Forget it. The agency’s “Warning Letters” to online cannabinoid dealers are used by the dealers and published online in some cases, to boast about the high THC/CBD content of their products, according to cited FDA lab tests.

As in the cases of Big Tobacco and Big Opiates, at some point, the commercial cannabis industry will reach a point where going after its resources will take it down or reduce it considerably. The analogy I’ve used before compares this with the fermentation of yeast, a process that any home maker of wine or beer understands well. The single cell yeast consumes the sugars of the starting material and in the process excretes alcohol. This continues until the amount of alcohol in the mix reaches a certain level at which time it kills off the yeast producing it. At some point in the future, hopefully soon, the commercial cannabis industry will reach a point whereby its success kills it off – just as in the Big Tobacco and Big Opiates cases.

Source: drug-watch-international – P.O. Box 45218, Omaha, NE 68145-0218, USA

 

The Association of Community Pharmacists of Nigeria (ACPN)

has advocated  urgent, coordinated, and sustained actions

to combat drug abuse which has constituted

a major public health menace.

by Onyebuchi Ezigbo in Abuja

In his message to mark the International Day Against Drug, the National Chairman of ACPN,  Ezeh Ambrose Igwekamma, said that focus should now be home prevention, education, early intervention, and rehabilitation.

“As the National Chairman of ACPN, I join millions around the world to reaffirm our commitment to the fight against drug abuse and to call for urgent, coordinated, and sustained actions to combat this public health menace in our dear country,” he said.

 Igwekamma said the theme for this year’s celebration, “The Evidence is Clear: Invest in Prevention,” resonates deeply with our vision at the ACPN.

“It reminds us that we must shift our focus from reaction to prevention. As community pharmacists—trusted, accessible healthcare providers on the frontlines—we witness firsthand the silent crisis of substance abuse in our communities, especially among our youth.” 

He said ACPN for more than  a decade has demonstrated a concerns on massive awareness creation through  the National Anti-Drug abuse competition among students in secondary school nationwide.

According to him, the essence of the annual competition is for prevention and also to dis abused the minds of younger generations against the consequences of drug abuse which Align with the same with the  UNODC Strategic plan for substance Abuse 

He added: “Every tablet sold without prescription, every codeine cough syrup diverted, and every hard drug traded illegally is not just a crime—it is a threat to our collective future. 

“Drug abuse fuels mental health disorders, crime, school dropout, family breakdown, and premature deaths. It cripples dreams and sabotages national development”.

The ACPN president  called on all stakeholders—government, civil society, security agencies, religious and traditional leaders, parents, and educators—to intensify their roles in prevention, education, early intervention, and rehabilitation.

Source:  https://www.thisdaylive.com/2025/06/27/drug-abuse-attention-must-now-shift-to-prevention-says-acpn/

by Connery, Lucy MPH; Tomilin, Kailyn MPH; Lynch, Joshua DO, FACEP  – Emergency Medicine News 

Introduction

Since the first wave of the opioid epidemic in the 1990s, more than 550,000 people from various backgrounds have died of an overdose in the United States.1 In 2023, opioid overdose deaths decreased 3% nationwide and by 10% in states like New York—the first decline in the last decade.2 Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported a near 24% decline in overdose deaths between October 2023 and September 2024 compared to the previous year.3 While these milestones may bring hope to communities across the country, community leaders are also reporting alarming racial and ethnic disparities in these health trends. Emergency departments (EDs) are at the frontlines of the opioid epidemic, treating individuals who are in acute withdrawal or postoverdose.4 Therefore, emergency physicians and ED staff members must be aware of the changing demographics of the opioid epidemic and the resources available to effectively address opioid use disorder (OUD).

Figure 1: 

The waves of the opioid epidemic

The Waves of the Opioid Epidemic

The distinct waves of the opioid epidemic presented unique challenges in communities across the United States, necessitating rapid and adaptive responses from public, private, and nonprofit sectors to address the evolving patterns of substance use, shifting demographics, and emerging public health threats. Table 1 summarizes the four waves of the opioid epidemic.

Table 1 – Summary of demographics, data, and trends of the opioid epidemic

Wave Time Period Primary Driver Most Impacted Demographics Data Trends & Consequences
First wave 1990-2010 Increased opioid prescribing, aggressive pharmaceutical marketing, and regulatory shortcomings from federal agencies Non-Hispanic White individuals, ages 45-54 1999-2009: Prescription opioid overdose deaths rose from ~3,442 to 13,523
Second wave 2010-2013 Opioid-prescribing regulations tightened, shift from prescription opioids to heroin due to cost and accessibility Non-Hispanic Black individuals, ages 45-64
  1. 2000-2013: Heroin-related overdoses nearly quadrupled
  2. 2010-2016: Heroin-involved deaths increased from 1% per 100,000 to 4.9% per 100,000
Third wave 2013-2019 Proliferation of synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyl Younger individuals (ages 25-34) and non-Hispanic Black populations (ages 45-64)
  1. 2012-2016: Drug overdose deaths rose from 1,600 to over 18,000 nationwide
  2. 2013-2019: Opioid overdose rates from synthetic opioids (particularly fentanyl) increased over 1,000%
Fourth wave 2019-present Increasing presence of fentanyl mixed with stimulants (eg, cocaine, methamphetamine) and other contaminants (eg, xylazine) Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous populations
  1. 2018: Synthetic opioid overdose rates increased 79% for White individuals and over 100% for Black individuals
  2. 2018-2022: EMS agencies’ nonfatal opioid overdose encounters increased 3.4% for White, 7.4% for Black, and 5.7% for Hispanic people

The First Wave

The first wave of the opioid epidemic was marked by a drastic rise in opioid prescribing and overdose deaths across the United States in the 1990s.9 Many experts believe that this surge was driven by marketing strategies from pharmaceutical companies promoting aggressive prescribing for opioids, such as OxyContin.10,11 This, coupled with insufficient oversight and regulatory shortcomings by governmental agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, permitted the dissemination of misleading information about the safety and efficacy of these drugs.10,11

During this first wave, non-Hispanic Whites aged 45-54 had the highest opioid overdose mortality rates.12 This health disparity can be associated with inequitable access to health care and medications for addiction treatment (MAT) among different racial and ethnic groups, as well as older adults seeking medical care more frequently than younger populations.13,14 Once efforts were made to control over-prescribing of opioids, many individuals sought illicit substances to manage cravings and withdrawal symptoms. This uptick in illicit opioid use, specifically heroin, led to a second wave of the opioid epidemic by 2010.9

The Second Wave

The second wave of the opioid epidemic was marked by increased overdoses in non-Hispanic Black individuals ages 45-64.15 This age group was most impacted for a variety of reasons; as regulations around opioid-prescribing tightened, access to legally obtained opioids decreased. Many people with OUD transitioned to using illicit opioids to manage cravings and withdrawal symptoms.16 Between 2000 and 2013, the number of heroin-involved overdoses nearly quadrupled.17 Between 2010 and 2016, heroin-involved deaths increased from 1% to 4.9% per 100,000.9 Although there have been many changes in the age of those who are most affected by the opioid epidemic, the shift in race-based demographics has remained consistent.

The Third Wave

In 2013, the third wave of the opioid epidemic emerged and was characterized by overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyl.18 Non-Hispanic Black communities were disproportionally impacted, with the rate of fentanyl overdose deaths increasing among non-Hispanic Black people by about 140% every year between 2011 and 2016.12 Unlike the first and second waves, two distinct age groups experienced the most dramatic increase in opioid-involved overdose deaths during the third wave of the opioid epidemic: opioid overdose death rates increasing by 4.6 per 100,000 for men aged 25-44 and 3.7 per 100,000 for men aged 45-64.19 One potential reason for this shift in age may be that younger people are more likely to misuse illicit substances compared to older adults.20 Older adults are more likely to receive prescription medications like opioids compared to younger people and, therefore, are less likely to seek illicit substances from other sources.21 Figure 1 displays the different waves of the opioid epidemic (as defined by the CDC) and the demographics of those who were most impacted by each wave.5,22-24

The Fourth Wave

Although national leaders like the CDC recognize only three waves of the opioid crisis, many academic journals have published literature on a fourth wave of the epidemic.18,25-27 This fourth, and current, wave is characterized by increased rates of opioid overdose deaths with involvement of stimulants.26,27 This presents a distinct challenge across communities in the United States because many people who use stimulants are not seeking opioids and may not have a tolerance. Fentanyl is the primary driver of all opioid overdose deaths in the United States; because of its shorter period of euphoria compared to heroin, sedatives like xylazine and medetomidine are being added to the illicit fentanyl supply to lengthen its effects.28,29 These sedatives do not respond to naloxone and have effects including hypotension and respiratory depression, further complicating overdose response and prevention strategies.

The disparity in overdose rates among different racial and ethnic populations is particularly evident when looking at the third (and fourth) wave(s) of the opioid epidemic. In May 2024, the CDC announced the first decline in opioid overdose deaths nationwide since 2018, but there were alarming racial disparities in these health outcomes.3,30,31 Notably, opioid overdose deaths decreased among White people by 14%, but decreased by only 6% for Black communities and 2% for Asian or Pacific Islanders. Overdose deaths also increased for Native American/American Indian populations by 2%.30,31 These changes in the demographics of people most impacted by the opioid epidemic call for action at the local, state, and federal levels to address racial bias and health care discrimination.

Emergency Medicine Breeds Innovation

Being that EDs are often the first point of interaction with healthcare services for most people with OUD, emergency medicine physicians and staff members are critical stakeholders in addressing the opioid overdose epidemic across the United States.4 Recent shifts in overdose death rates across races demonstrate the systemic issues in the U.S. healthcare system, including health inequities, discrimination, and implicit bias. To begin addressing these health inequities, EDs must employ various interventions for OUD to meet patients where they are; these interventions should include initiation of MAT, linkage to outpatient treatment, and distribution of harm reduction supplies.4

Medication for Addiction Treatment and Electronic Referrals (MATTERS) is a New York-based initiative that, since its inception in 2016, has supported EDs in linking people with OUD to treatment and resources within their own communities. Its rapid referral platform connects people with OUD to a network of over 250 addiction treatment centers that offer MAT and agree to accept any patient, regardless of insurance status, polysubstance use, or previous treatment history. Developed by Joshua Lynch, an emergency physician, MATTERS was created to address the inefficiencies in the way our healthcare system addressed OUD. Referrals take as little as 3 minutes to complete, and patients are automatically provided with medication and transportation vouchers, peer support referrals, and follow-up services to ensure continuity of care and retention in treatment. These resources are automatically provided to patients at the time of referral—all without making a single phone call. For individuals who are not ready for treatment, MATTERS distributes free harm reduction supplies, including drug checking strips, naloxone, and sterile syringes via direct mail. Additionally, MATTERS has deployed over 20 vending machines across New York State to dispense these free supplies 24/7.

Conclusion

While each wave of the opioid epidemic has affected communities differently, the third and fourth waves have revealed and intensified health disparities, particularly among Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities.32 To effectively reduce overdose rates and address opioid use disorder, it is essential for emergency physicians and ED staff members to prioritize equitable, inclusive, and culturally competent prevention and treatment strategies.4 MATTERS provide various services to patients and providers alike to effectively respond to the opioid epidemic, including linkage to treatment, access to telemedicine services, and distribution of free harm reduction supplies across New York State. Providers seeking resources for OUD can access educational materials and support by visiting www.mattersnetwork.org.

Correction

In the April issue (EMN. 2025;47(3):2,11,15), the 2nd sentence of the 11th paragraph of the article, “STEMI Critics Are Right. We’re Missing Too Many Heart Attacks,” has been changed to Why did we need that? (How do I pronounce that again?)—the case for the new OMI/non-occlusive myocardial infarction (NOMI) paradigm is powerful. This change has been made online.

JOSHUA LYNCH, DO, FACEP is the founder and Chief Medical Officer of the MATTERS program. He is also an associate professor of Emergency & Addiction Medicine at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine, a senior physician with UBMD Emergency Medicine, clinical co-chair of the UB Clinical & Research Institute on Addictions, and medical director of Mercy Flight of Western New York.

LUCY CONNERY, MPH is the marketing coordinator at MATTERS. She also serves as an adjunct professor for Daemen University’s Health Promotion and Master of Public Health departments and secretary of the Urban Roots Cooperative Garden Market’s Board of Directors.

KAILYN TOMILIN, MPH is the program evaluator at MATTERS and has written several evidence-based articles on emerging drug threats and contaminants in the United States. She has a passion for public health and plans to spend her career helping to improve health outcomes for underserved populations.

Source: https://journals.lww.com/em-news/fulltext/2025/05000/the_changing_demographics_of_the_opioid_epidemic.10.aspx

Teen non-medical misuse of medications may be more common than we believed.

by Mark Gold M.D. – Professor of Psychiatry, Yale, Florida and Washington Universities

Updated  |  Reviewed by Gary Drevitch

Key points

  • Teen nonmedical misuse of medications may be more common than previously reported.
  • Adolescents misuse dextromethorphan (DXM) products for their dissociative/hallucinogenic effects and euphoria.
  • A recent alert highlights increasing adolescent interest in using DXM and promethazine together

According to Sharon Levy, MD,Harvard Medical School’s pediatric addiction expert, nonmedical medication misuse may be much more common than previously reported. One of the older fads is in the news again: getting high from cough and cold medicines containing dextromethorphan (DXM). This drug is sometimes combined with prescribed promethazine with codeine. At very high doses, DXM mimics the effects of illegal drugs like phencyclidine (PCP) and ketamine.

More than 125 over-the-counter (OTC) medicines for cough and colds contain DXM. It’s in Coricidin, Dimetapp DM, Nyquil, Robitussin Cough and Cold, and store brands for cough-and-cold medicines. These products are available in pharmacies, grocery stores, and other retail outlets. A safe dose of products with DXM is about 15-30 milligrams (mg) over 24 hours. It usually takes 10 times that amount to make a teenager high.

Teen DXM Slang

syrup head is someone using cough syrups with DXM to get high. Dexing is getting high on products with DXM. Orange Crush alludes to some cough medicines with DXM. (The name may stem from the orange-colored syrup—and packaging—Delsym.)

Poor man’s PCP and poor man’s X are also common terms, because these drugs are inexpensive, but can cause effects similar to PCP or ecstasy at high doses. Red devils refer to Coricidin tablets or other cough medicines. Robo usually refers to cough syrup with DXM. It derives from the brand name Robitussin but is common slang for any cough syrup. Robo-tripping alludes to abusing products with DXM and, specifically, to the hallucinogenic trips people can attain at high doses.

Parents who hear teens using these terms should ask questions when the child and parent are alone.

Prevalence and Trends

The Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey, conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the University of Michigan, provides insights into adolescent substance use. The survey began monitoring OTC cough-and-cold medication abuse every year in 2006. That year, the MTF reported that 4.2% of 8th-graders, 5.3% of 10th-graders, and 6.9% of 12th-graders misused OTC cough-and-cold medications in the previous year. In 2015, 2.6% of 8th-graders, 3.3% of 10th-graders, and 4.0% of 12th-graders reported past-year misuse. The most recent data, in 2024, indicate that the percentage dropped somewhat. However, a recent alert from the National Drug Early Warning System at the University of Florida (NDEWS) suggests a resurgence of interest in DXM and its combination with antihistamines.

DXM+ Combination Dangers

When taken alone, DXM’s dissociative and hallucinogenic effects may include euphoria, altered perception of time, paranoia, disorientation, and hallucinations. Physical symptoms of intoxication are hyperexcitability, problems walking, involuntary eye movements, and irritability. High doses can lead to impaired motor function, numbness, nausea and vomiting, increased heart rate, and elevated blood pressure. Chronic misuse results in dependence and severe psychological or physical health issues.

Combining DXM with other substances, especially alcohol, sleeping pills, antihistamines, or tranquilizers, is highly risky, as is combining DXM with antidepressants affecting serotonin, due to the risk of a possibly life-threatening serotonin syndrome.

Combining DXM With Promethazine

Combining the abuse of the prescribed antihistamine promethazine (Phenergan) with DXM may be increasing. The recent alert from the National Drug Early Warning System suggested that this new combination is an emerging threat.

The NDEWS recently checked for recent reports of saccharine (artificial sugar) being detected in abused drugs. Putting on their detective hats, the NDEWS team discovered that increased saccharine in drugs was caused by users adding cough syrup to promethazine. The signal for this combination was detected in more than double the number noted in early 2024.

Combining DXM and promethazine can amplify central nervous system depression, leading to increased drowsiness, dizziness, and impaired motor function. High doses may cause aggression, severe respiratory depression, hallucinations, delirium, paranoia, and cognitive impairments. Reddit social media reports noted an increased risks of falls and injuries due to severely impaired coordination and balance from the DXM-and-promethazine combination.

Promethazine with codeine is still available by prescription in the U.S., but access is restricted due to its classification as a Schedule V controlled substance at the federal level. Pharmacies and healthcare providers have become more cautious in prescribing promethazine with codeine due to its association with recreational use. Some manufacturers have discontinued production of promethazine with codeine, but generic versions remain on the market under tight regulation.

Purple drank is drug slang for the mixture containing codeine and promethazine mixed with a soft drink such as Sprite or Fanta—and sometimes with candy such as Jolly Ranchers. The drink gets its name from the purple color of some cough syrups. Purple drank has been popularized in certain music and hip-hop cultures, with some artists glorifying its use in their lyrics. However, many rappers who once promoted the drug later warned against its dangers after experiencing serious health consequences themselves or witnessing peers suffer from addiction and overdoses.

Professor Linda Cottler, Ph.D., M.P.H., director of NDEWS. commented: “Healthcare professionals should be aware of the potential for abuse and monitor for signs in patients, especially adolescents and young adults,”  Linda added: “Parents should be aware of these combinations and talk to their children about avoiding “cough” medicines acquired from friends, friend’s siblings, or friends’ parents.”

Summary

While the combination of DXM and promethazine is not commonly reported in drug abuse or emergency-room cases, misuse could lead to significant health risks. Stores have started to keep these cough and cold remedies behind the counter to reduce access and potential for teen abuse. Some makers of OTC medicines with DXM have put warning labels on their packaging about the potential for abuse. Many states have banned sales of meds with DXM to minors. These actions have helped reduce teen DXM abuse. However, recent teen interest in abuse of combined DXM and promethazine is concerning.

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-outlook/202502/teenage-abuse-of-cough-medicines-and-promethazine

  Polytechnique insights: A REVIEW BY INSTITUT POLYTECHNIQUE DE PARIS

             assisted by Sophie Podevin
            Journaliste Scientifique, Ginkio
Key points:
  • Addictions are widespread among the French population: in 2020, 25.5% of adults smoked every day and 10% drank at least one glass of alcohol a day.
  • Addiction is based on criteria such as craving, continued consumption despite the dangers, or a withdrawal syndrome when the substance is stopped.
  • In France, the most commonly used addictive substances are tobacco (responsible for 75,000 deaths a year), alcohol (41,000 deaths a year) and cannabis.
  • There has been a marked increase in the use of psychostimulant drugs among adults since 2010, and diversion of opiate-based medicines is on the rise.
  • Current research is focusing on studies specifically dedicated to drug users, to better identify effective therapies tailored to their profiles.

As the leading cause of a deregulation in the brain’s reward circuit, addictions are still widespread among the French population. This is largely due to the widespread use of legal psychoactive substances: tobacco and alcohol, which are the two leading causes of premature death in France. In 2020, nearly 25.5% of adults smoked every day (12 million people) and 10% drank at least one glass of alcohol a day (5 million people). So, what is the situation for substance addictions in France for the coming year?

A restricted definition

First of all, to qualify as an addiction, a person must meet at least 2 of the 11 criteria set out in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM‑5), including: craving, a compelling need to consume the substance or perform the activity; loss of control over the quantity and time devoted to consumption; increased tolerance to the product; a strong desire to reduce doses; continued use despite the damage; or the presence of a withdrawal syndrome when the addictive behaviour is abruptly stopped…

To date, only addictions to substances (tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, opium and derivatives) or to video games and gambling are recognised as “addictions”. Social networking, sexual hyperactivity and sugar are not considered as such due to a lack of data and scientific evidence.

Top three

In France, the most widely used addictive substances are still tobacco, alcohol and cannabis. The first two are responsible for 75,000 and 41,000 deaths a year respectively. These are terrifying figures, known but ignored because of habit.

In an article published on 20 October 2024, Doctor Bernard Basset, chairman of the Addictions France association, and psychiatrist and addictologist Amine Benyamina, chairman of the Fédération Française d’Addictologie (FFA), proposed a series of measures combining public health and government debt, such as taxing drinks according to their alcohol content, or introducing a minimum price per drink based on the Scottish model. “In France, we have a real cultural problem with alcohol and very powerful lobbies,” says Amine Benyamina. “All public prevention policies are stifled or censored.” And yet, according to data collected by the Constances epidemiological cohort, which numbered almost 200,000 people in 2018, 19.8% of men and 8% of women in the working population are thought to have a harmful use of alcohol.

While the problem persists, it is changing. Starting with a major positive point made by Guillaume Airagnes, Director of the French Observatory of Drugs and Addictive Tendencies (OFDT) and Doctor of Psychiatry and Addictology: “The general consumption of substances such as tobacco and alcohol has been falling among young people since 2010.” However, there was a downside at the time of Covid, when several addictive activities were on the increase during confinement.

On the other hand, a clear increase in the use of psychostimulant drugs has been observed among adults since 2010, “although the levels of use in the general population remain incomparably lower than those for tobacco, alcohol or cannabis” points out Guillaume Airagnes.

These substances, like ecstasy, have benefited from their image becoming much more commonplace. This is also the case for cocaine, the availability of which has risen steadily over the last ten years, and which used to be the social marker of a wealthy economic category. In 2021, 26.5 tonnes of cocaine were seized, a 67% increase on 2018. “Cocaine benefits from the tenacious stereotype that it does not produce dependence. In reality, while the signs of physical withdrawal are almost non-existent, it is one of the most psychologically tyrannical substances, with extremely powerful cravings,” describes Amine Benyamina, who is also head of the psychiatry and addictology department at the Paul-Brousse hospital in Paris. This increase is set to continue. The 2020 lockdowns demonstrated the adaptability of the drug trade, with home delivery services, marketing, attractive packaging, the use of social networks and instant messaging, and even payments in cryptocurrency.

Misuse of medicines as a new drug

Another less well-known development is the misuse of certain opiate-based drugs, such as codeine or tramadol, which are intended for therapeutic purposes. These are morphine derivatives with a less powerful analgesic effect than morphine. “Paradoxically, this makes them more addictive,” explains Guillaume Airagnes. “As the psychoactive effects are less intense, this leads to greater compulsive consumption.” Misuse of these drugs has been documented for around ten years and remains under close surveillance, although it still only concerns a “very small proportion of users” the director of the OFDT points out.

In his department, Amine Benyamina also sees new types of drug misuse: “More marginal but just as problematic is the use of pregabalin or LYRICA. This is a product designed to treat neuropathic pain or post-traumatic stress syndromes.” This analgesic, which this time is not a morphine derivative, also has a strong addictive potential, encouraging patients to continue taking it beyond the prescription period.

One of the first problems facing carers is the lack of information about drug users themselves. In fact, most of the data on addiction in France comes from surveys carried out on the general population to be more representative. But not for much longer! In April 2024, the first national e‑cohort open only to drug users was launched: ComPaRe Pratiques Addictives. “We already have several thousand subscribers,” says Guillaume Airagnes, who is heading up the study. “The only condition to be eligible is to be a psychoactive substance user at the time of inclusion in the study. Of course, our aim is to follow up participants for at least 5 years, regardless of whether they continue to use substances.”

The responses and the long-term follow-up will enable Guillaume Airagnes and his teams to explore several avenues of research: the question of multiple drug use, which seems to be the rule rather than the exception; the relationship between drug use and economic, demographic or professional situation; the study of the very strong stigmatisation phenomenon among these users, etc. These data will also enable us to better target effective therapies that are adapted to each profile.

In its Guide pratique de psychothérapies les plus utilisées en addictologie of May 2022, the Fédération Française d’Addictologie lists and ranks the different therapies according to their clinical relevance. The behavioural and cognitive therapy (BCT) approach remains the most popular, with a method that can be adapted to addictions with and without substances and solid results confirmed by scientific studies.

But other avenues of treatment are being explored, such as the surprising use of LSD derivatives. “The initial results are surprising and encouraging,” says Professor Amine Benyamina with satisfaction. “Of course, it’s important to remember that these studies are very closely supervised” warns the professor, who is working with his team on the effect of psilocybin on alcohol addiction. “They should not be reproduced at home!”

Filed under: Addiction,Europe,Medicines :

Back to top of page

Powered by WordPress