Explore the vast range of titles available.

The treatment of opioid withdrawal is an important area of clinical concern when treating patients with chronic, non-cancer pain, patients with active opioid use disorder, and patients receiving medication for opioid use disorder. Current standards of care for medically supervised withdrawal include treatment with μ-opioid receptor agonists, (eg, methadone), partial agonists (eg, buprenorphine), and α2-adrenergic receptor agonists (eg, clonidine and lofexidine). Newer agents likewise exploit these pharmacological mechanisms, including tramadol (μ-opioid receptor agonism) and tizanidine (α2 agonism). Areas for future research include managing withdrawal in the context of stabilising patients with opioid use disorder to extended-release naltrexone, transitioning patients with opioid use disorder from methadone to buprenorphine, and tapering opioids in patients with chronic, non-cancer pain.

Pre-existing mental disorders are linked to COVID-19-related outcomes. However, the findings are inconsistent and a thorough analysis of a broader spectrum of outcomes such as COVID-19 infection severity, morbidity, and mortality is required. We investigated whether the presence of psychiatric diagnoses and/or the use of antidepressants influenced the severity of the outcome of COVID-19. This retrospective cohort study evaluated electronic health records from the INSIGHT Clinical Research Network in 116,498 individuals who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and February 23, 2021. We examined hospitalization, intubation/mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure, severe sepsis, and death as COVID-19-related outcomes. After using propensity score matching to control for demographics and medical comorbidities, we used contingency tables to assess whether patients with (1) a history of psychiatric disorders were at higher risk of more severe COVID-19-related outcomes and (2) if use of antidepressants decreased the risk of more severe COVID-19 infection. Pre-existing psychiatric disorders were associated with an increased risk for hospitalization, and subsequent outcomes such as acute kidney failure and severe sepsis, including an increased risk of death in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders or bipolar disorders. The use of antidepressants was associated with significantly reduced risk of sepsis ( p  = 0.033), death ( p  = 0.026). Psychiatric disorder diagnosis prior to a COVID-19-related healthcare encounter increased the risk of more severe COVID-19-related outcomes as well as subsequent health complications. However, there are indications that the use of antidepressants might decrease this risk. This may have significant implications for the treatment and prognosis of patients with COVID-19.

Adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often co-occurs with substance use disorders (SUD) and is associated with early onset and more severe development of SUD and with reduced treatment effectiveness. Screening tools allow for a good recognition of possible ADHD in adults with SUD and should be used routinely, followed by an ADHD diagnostic process initiated as soon as possible. Simultaneous and integrated treatment of ADHD and SUD, using a combination of pharmaco- and psychotherapy, is recommended. Long-acting methylphenidate, extended-release amphetamines, and atomoxetine with up-titration to higher dosages may be considered in patients unresponsive to standard doses. This paper includes evidence- and consensus-based recommendations developed to provide guidance in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of patients with ADHD-SUD comorbidity.

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) commonly occurs and carries a notable economic and functional burden at both individual and societal levels. While there are no clearly efficacious medication treatments for CUD, 20 years of committed and high-quality research in the human laboratory and clinical settings have resulted in medications with demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of cannabis withdrawal, the ability to reduce cannabis use, and results that point to promising future work. The current state of pharmacology research for CUD highlights the need to consider particular characteristics of patients, such as gender, impulsivity, and severity of cannabis use, when selecting a medication in the off-label treatment of CUD or cannabis withdrawal. As a field, the body of work also exposes some areas in need of improvement in study design, selection of outcome measures, interpretation of results, and the overall process of evaluating candidate medications. Coming to a consensus as a field and addressing these gaps in future research will likely lend itself to further advances in improving the lives of patients with CUD.

IntroductionHarms due to methamphetamine use disorder (MAUD) are rising globally. Untreated withdrawal symptoms perpetuate the cycle of dependence and are a barrier to treatment. There is no pharmacotherapy approved for methamphetamine withdrawal. Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) dimesylate has potential as an agonist therapy to ameliorate symptom severity during acute methamphetamine withdrawal and increase duration of initial abstinence and retention in treatment.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of LDX in reducing symptom severity during acute methamphetamine (MA) withdrawal. One hundred eighty-four adults with moderate to severe MAUD presenting to a health service requesting MA withdrawal treatment who report use of MA within the last 72 hours will be recruited. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive a tapering dose of lisdexamfetamine (250 mg on day 1, reducing by 50 mg per day to 50 mg on day 5, followed by 2 days of placebo washout on days 6 and 7), or placebo for 7 days. The study will be conducted over 7 days in an inpatient unit, and all participants will also receive standard inpatient withdrawal care. Participants will be followed up in the community to day 84. The primary outcome is efficacy, defined as the between-group difference in average withdrawal severity measured over the 7-day admission by the Amphetamine Withdrawal Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are retention in treatment, treatment satisfaction, sleep and concomitant medication use (symptomatic medications and medications for other indications to day 7); safety, craving for MA, post-treatment withdrawal symptoms, depression, anxiety and stress, insomnia and cost effectiveness (to day 28) and MA use, mental, physical and social health and post-withdrawal treatment utilisation (to day 84). A First Nations qualitative substudy will assess the experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants, ensuring the treatment meets the needs of First Nations people.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was first approved by the St Vincent’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee on 15/05/2024 (2024/ETH00788). All participants will be provided with a participant information sheet and consent form, be fully informed about the study and given ample time to consider participation. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. Findings will be presented such that individual participants will not be identifiable.Trial registration numberACTRN12624001061527.

BackgroundAttention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is frequently diagnosed in patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), including opioids. There remains concern about the safety and efficacy of prescription amphetamines (PAs) and their impact on effectiveness of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment with buprenorphine.ObjectivesTo assess the effect of PAs on OUD buprenorphine treatment retention and/or SUD-related emergency admission or drug-related poisonings.MethodsWe used a retrospective cohort design with a secondary analysis of data from Merative MarketScan Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid Databases from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2016. Individuals included were aged 12–64 years, had an OUD diagnosis and were prescribed buprenorphine. Our analysis used multivariable Cox regression to evaluate the relationship between PA receipt and time to buprenorphine discontinuation. The second part focused on subsamples of buprenorphine initiators who had either (1) any SUD-related emergency admissions or (2) drug-related poisoning. These outcomes were modelled as a function of PA exposure using conditional logistic regression models as part of a within-person, case-crossover design.FindingsOur sample had 90 269 patients with OUD (mean age 34.2 years (SD=11.3)) who initiated buprenorphine. Being prescribed a PA was associated with improved buprenorphine retention among individuals both with (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.91 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.97)) and without a concurrent psychostimulant use disorder (PSUD) (aHR 0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.93)).ConclusionsPA use was associated with improved buprenorphine retention in people with OUD with and without co-occurring PSUD. The risks of acute SUD-related events and drug-related poisonings associated with PA use did not differ when comparing PA-using days with days without PA use.Clinical implicationsPatients with OUD on buprenorphine should receive treatment with a PA when indicated.

IntroductionIn the USA, opioid analgesic use and overdoses have increased dramatically. One rapidly expanding strategy to manage chronic pain in the context of this epidemic is medical cannabis. Cannabis has analgesic effects, but it also has potential adverse effects. Further, its impact on opioid analgesic use is not well studied. Managing pain in people living with HIV is particularly challenging, given the high prevalence of opioid analgesic and cannabis use. This study’s overarching goal is to understand how medical cannabis use affects opioid analgesic use, with attention to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol content, HIV outcomes and adverse events.Methods and analysesWe are conducting a cohort study of 250 adults with and without HIV infection with (a) severe or chronic pain, (b) current opioid use and (c) who are newly certified for medical cannabis in New York. Over 18 months, we collect data via in-person visits every 3 months and web-based questionnaires every 2 weeks. Data sources include: questionnaires; medical, pharmacy and Prescription Monitoring Program records; urine and blood samples; and physical function tests. Using marginal structural models and comparisons within participants’ 2-week time periods (unit of analysis), we will examine how medical cannabis use (primary exposure) affects (1) opioid analgesic use (primary outcome), (2) HIV outcomes (HIV viral load, CD4 count, antiretroviral adherence, HIV risk behaviours) and (3) adverse events (cannabis use disorder, illicit drug use, diversion, overdose/deaths, accidents/injuries, acute care utilisation).Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine institutional review board. Findings will be disseminated through conferences, peer-reviewed publications and meetings with medical cannabis stakeholders.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03268551); Pre-results.

RationaleAgonist-based pharmacologic intervention is an accepted approach in treatment of opioid and tobacco use disorders.ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate usefulness of an agonist approach as treatment of (psycho)stimulant use disorder (PSUD).MethodsWe reviewed PubMed/Medline, LILACS, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases searching for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design studies evaluating outcomes of individuals treated for cocaine- or amphetamine-type substance use disorder. We combined results of all trials that included the following prescription psychostimulants (PPs): modafinil, methylphenidate, or amphetamines (mixed amphetamine salts, lisdexamphetamine, and dextroamphetamine). The combined sample consisted of 2889 patients. Outcomes of interest included the following: drug abstinence (defined as 2–3 weeks of sustained abstinence and the average maximum days of consecutive abstinence), percentage of drug-negative urine tests across trial, and retention in treatment. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE system.ResultsThirty-eight trials were included. Treatment with PPs increases rates of sustained abstinence [risk ratio (RR) = 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.10, 1.92)] and duration of abstinence [mean difference (MD) = 3.34, 95% CI = (1.06, 5.62)] in patients with PSUD, particularly those with cocaine use disorder (very low-quality evidence). Prescription amphetamines were particularly efficacious in promoting sustained abstinence in patients with cocaine use disorder [RR = 2.44, 95% CI = (1.66, 3.58)], and higher doses of PPs were particularly efficacious for treatment of cocaine use disorder [RR = 1.95, 95% CI = (1.38, 2.77)] (moderate-quality evidence). Treatment with prescription amphetamines also yielded more cocaine-negative urines [MD = 8.37%, 95% CI = (3.75, 12.98)]. There was no effect of PPs on the retention in treatment.ConclusionPrescription psychostimulants, particularly prescription amphetamines given in robust doses, have a clinically significant beneficial effect to promote abstinence in the treatment of individuals with PSUD, specifically the population with cocaine use disorder.

Importance Cannabis use is increasingly viewed by adolescents as not harmful. Youths with cannabis use disorder (CUD) are recognized by clinicians as being at risk for adverse outcomes, yet little is known about the associations between subclinical cannabis use (ie, nondisordered cannabis use [NDCU]) and adverse psychosocial events. Objective To describe the prevalence and demographics of NDCU and to compare associations of cannabis use with adverse psychosocial events among adolescents with no cannabis use, NDCU, and CUD. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used a nationally representative sample derived from the 2015 to 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Participants were adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, separated into 3 distinct groups: nonuse (no recent cannabis use), NDCU (recent cannabis use below diagnostic threshold), and CUD. Analysis was conducted from January to May 2022. Exposures CUD, NDCU, or cannabis nonuse. NDCU was defined as endorsing recent cannabis use but not meeting theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-5) CUD criteria. CUD was defined usingDSM-5criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes were prevalence of adolescents meeting criteria for NDCU and associations between adverse psychosocial events and NDCU, adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics. Results The 68 263 respondents (mean [SD] age, 14.5 [1.7] years; 34 773 [50.9%] males) included in the analysis represented an estimated yearly mean of 25 million US adolescents during 2015 to 2019. Among respondents, 1675 adolescents (2.5%) had CUD, 6971 adolescents (10.2%) had NDCU, and 59 617 adolescents (87.3%) reported nonuse. Compared with nonusers, individuals with NDCU had approximately 2 to 4 times greater odds of all adverse psychosocial events examined, including major depression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.67-2.08), suicidal ideation (aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.88-2.29), slower thoughts (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.58-1.96), difficulty concentrating (aOR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.65-2.00), truancy (aOR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.67-2.16), low grade point average (aOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.62-2.00), arrest (aOR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.17-5.43), fighting (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.80-2.31), and aggression (aOR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.79-2.62). Prevalence of adverse psychosocial events was greatest for adolescents with CUD (range, 12.6% to 41.9%), followed by NDCU (range, 5.2% to 30.4%), then nonuse (range, 0.8% to 17.3%). Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of US adolescents, past-year NDCU was approximately 4 times as prevalent as past-year CUD. A stepwise gradient association was observed for odds of adverse psychosocial events between adolescent NDCU and CUD. In the context of US normalization of cannabis use, prospective research into NDCU is necessary.

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based framework for assessing and addressing risky substance use. This study evaluated the substance-related attitudes of medical students who participated in an Enhanced Pre-Clinical SBIRT Curriculum designed to reduce stigma, help students empathize with the experiences of people using alcohol and drugs, understand substance use in-context, and feel more optimistic about efforts to prevent and treat substance use disorders (SUDs). Students (N=118; 73.8% of eligible) completed the Attitudes and Opinions Survey for alcohol and drugs before and after this 2-year, multi-modality curriculum. The authors classified attitudes as \"positive\" or \"negative\" and grouped students by pre-post attitudinal change: persistently negative, persistently positive, negative-to-positive, positive-to-negative. Using chi-square tests, the authors assessed differences by sex, race/ethnicity, and whether students had a family member or friend with an SUD. Most students (>90%) reported persistently positive attitudes regarding physicians in recovery, societal contributions of patients with SUDs; ability to learn from such patients; and general attitudes toward SUD treatment. This skewed distribution precluded the investigation of subgroup differences. Fewer students reported persistently positive attitudes regarding SUD patients' healthcare utilization (alcohol 58.5%; drug 57.8%) and impact on other patients' care (alcohol 73.7%; drug 72.4%), compared to other attitudinal domains (at p-values < 0.0001 in the McNemar's tests). Approximately, 1 in 5 students reported more negative healthcare utilization attitudes on follow-up. There were no demographic differences in these two attitudinal domains. Unlike previous studies of medical student attitudes, most students who participated in the Enhanced Pre-Clinical SBIRT Curriculum reported an enduring appreciation for the educational and societal contributions of patients with SUDs. Attitudes toward healthcare utilization and the impact of patients with SUDs on the care of other patients were more resistant to change, possibly due to the predominance of acute-care inpatient settings in clinical training.