Addiction Medicine

When it comes to state funding for tobacco prevention and cessation, the American Lung Association grades on a curve. It did not help.

The ALA gave failing grades to 43 states in its new State of Tobacco Control report, along with three A’s, one C, and four D’s, despite a grading formula that passed anything better than a 50%.

Each state’s annual funding for tobacco prevention and cessation was calculated and then compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended spending level. That percentage became the grade, with any level of funding at 80% or more of the CDC’s recommendation getting an A and anything below 50% getting an F, the ALA explained.

The three A’s went to Alaska – which spent $10.14 million, or 99.4% of the CDC-recommended $10.2 million – California (96.0%), and Maine (83.5%). The lowest levels of spending came from Georgia, which spend just 2.8% of the CDC’s recommendation of $106 million, and Missouri, which spent 3.0%, the ALA reported.

States’ grades were generally better in the four other areas of tobacco-control policy: There were 24 A’s and 9 F’s for smoke-free air laws, 1 A and 35 F’s for tobacco excise taxes, 3 A’s and 17 F’s for access to cessation treatment, and 10 A’s and 30 F’s for laws to raise the tobacco sales age to 21 years, the ALA said in the report.

Despite an overall grade of F, the federal government managed to earn some praise in that last area: “In what could only be described as unimaginable even 2 years ago, in December 2019, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco products to 21,” the ALA said.

The federal government was strongly criticized on the subject of e-cigarettes. “The Trump Administration failed to prioritize public health over the tobacco industry with its Jan. 2, 2020, announcement that will leave thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market,” the ALA said, while concluding that the rising use of e-cigarettes in recent years “is a real-world demonstration of the failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to properly oversee all tobacco products. … This failure places the lung health and lives of Americans at risk.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

When it comes to state funding for tobacco prevention and cessation, the American Lung Association grades on a curve. It did not help.

The ALA gave failing grades to 43 states in its new State of Tobacco Control report, along with three A’s, one C, and four D’s, despite a grading formula that passed anything better than a 50%.

Each state’s annual funding for tobacco prevention and cessation was calculated and then compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended spending level. That percentage became the grade, with any level of funding at 80% or more of the CDC’s recommendation getting an A and anything below 50% getting an F, the ALA explained.

The three A’s went to Alaska – which spent $10.14 million, or 99.4% of the CDC-recommended $10.2 million – California (96.0%), and Maine (83.5%). The lowest levels of spending came from Georgia, which spend just 2.8% of the CDC’s recommendation of $106 million, and Missouri, which spent 3.0%, the ALA reported.

States’ grades were generally better in the four other areas of tobacco-control policy: There were 24 A’s and 9 F’s for smoke-free air laws, 1 A and 35 F’s for tobacco excise taxes, 3 A’s and 17 F’s for access to cessation treatment, and 10 A’s and 30 F’s for laws to raise the tobacco sales age to 21 years, the ALA said in the report.

Despite an overall grade of F, the federal government managed to earn some praise in that last area: “In what could only be described as unimaginable even 2 years ago, in December 2019, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco products to 21,” the ALA said.

The federal government was strongly criticized on the subject of e-cigarettes. “The Trump Administration failed to prioritize public health over the tobacco industry with its Jan. 2, 2020, announcement that will leave thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market,” the ALA said, while concluding that the rising use of e-cigarettes in recent years “is a real-world demonstration of the failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to properly oversee all tobacco products. … This failure places the lung health and lives of Americans at risk.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

When it comes to state funding for tobacco prevention and cessation, the American Lung Association grades on a curve. It did not help.

The ALA gave failing grades to 43 states in its new State of Tobacco Control report, along with three A’s, one C, and four D’s, despite a grading formula that passed anything better than a 50%.

Each state’s annual funding for tobacco prevention and cessation was calculated and then compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended spending level. That percentage became the grade, with any level of funding at 80% or more of the CDC’s recommendation getting an A and anything below 50% getting an F, the ALA explained.

The three A’s went to Alaska – which spent $10.14 million, or 99.4% of the CDC-recommended $10.2 million – California (96.0%), and Maine (83.5%). The lowest levels of spending came from Georgia, which spend just 2.8% of the CDC’s recommendation of $106 million, and Missouri, which spent 3.0%, the ALA reported.

States’ grades were generally better in the four other areas of tobacco-control policy: There were 24 A’s and 9 F’s for smoke-free air laws, 1 A and 35 F’s for tobacco excise taxes, 3 A’s and 17 F’s for access to cessation treatment, and 10 A’s and 30 F’s for laws to raise the tobacco sales age to 21 years, the ALA said in the report.

Despite an overall grade of F, the federal government managed to earn some praise in that last area: “In what could only be described as unimaginable even 2 years ago, in December 2019, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco products to 21,” the ALA said.

The federal government was strongly criticized on the subject of e-cigarettes. “The Trump Administration failed to prioritize public health over the tobacco industry with its Jan. 2, 2020, announcement that will leave thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market,” the ALA said, while concluding that the rising use of e-cigarettes in recent years “is a real-world demonstration of the failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to properly oversee all tobacco products. … This failure places the lung health and lives of Americans at risk.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Ms. L, age 17, seeks treatment because she has an ongoing struggle with multiple substances, including benzodiazepines, heroin, alcohol, cannabis, and prescription opioids.

She reports that she was 13 when she first used a prescription opioid that was not prescribed for her. She also reports engaging in unsafe sexual practices while using these substances, and has been diagnosed and treated for a sexually transmitted disease. She dropped out of school and is estranged from her family. She says that for a long time she has felt depressed and that she uses drugs to “self-medicate my emotions.” She endorses high anxiety and lack of motivation. Ms. L also reports having several criminal charges for theft, assault, and exchanging sex for drugs. She has undergone 3 admissions for detoxification, but promptly resumed using drugs, primarily heroin and oxycodone, immediately after discharge. Ms. L meets DSM-5 criteria for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Ms. L’s case illustrates a disturbing trend in the current opioid epidemic in the United States. Nearly 11.8 million individuals age ≥12 reported misuse of opioids in the last year.¹ Adolescents who misuse prescription or illicit opioids are more likely to be involved with the legal system due to truancy, running away from home, physical altercations, prostitution, exchanging sex for drugs, robbery, and gang involvement. Adolescents who use opioids may also struggle with academic decline, drop out of school early, be unable to maintain a job, and have relationship difficulties, especially with family members.

In this article, I describe the scope of OUD among adolescents, including epidemiology, clinical manifestations, screening tools, and treatment approaches.

Scope of the problem

According to the most recent Monitoring the Future survey of more than 42,500 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students, 2.7% of 12th graders reported prescription opioid misuse (reported in the survey as “narcotics other than heroin”) in the past year.² In addition, 0.4% of 12th graders reported heroin use over the same period.² Although the prevalence of opioid use among adolescents has been declining over the past 5 years,² it still represents a serious health crisis.

Part of the issue may relate to easier access to more potent opioids. For example, heroin available today can be >4 times purer than it was in the past. In 2002, the Drug Enforcement Administration reported that the average purity of retail heroin was 38%, with levels up to 71% in some areas of the northeastern United States.^3,4 This purer form can be inhaled, which reduces the need for injection and makes it more accessible to younger adolescents.

Between 1997 and 2012, the annual incidence of youth (age 15 to 19) hospitalizations for prescription opioid poisoning increased >170%.⁵ Approximately 6% to 9% of youth involved in risky opioid use develop OUD 6 to 12 months after starting to use opiods.^6-8

Continue to: In recent years...

In recent years, deaths from drug overdose have increased for all age groups; however, limited data is available regarding adolescent overdose deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 2015 to 2016, drug overdose death rates for persons age 15 to 24 increased to 28%.⁹

How opioids work

Opioids activate specific transmembrane neuro­transmitter receptors, including mu, kappa, and delta, in the CNS and peripheral nervous system (PNS). This leads to activation of G protein–mediated intracellular signal transduction. Mainly it is activation of endogenous mu opioid receptors that mediates the reward, withdrawal, and analgesic effects of opioids. These effects depend on the location of mu receptors. In the CNS, activation of mu opioid receptors may cause miosis, respiratory depression, euphoria, and analgesia.¹⁰ 

Different opioids vary in terms of their half-life; for most opioids, the half-life ranges from 2 to 4 hours.¹⁰ Heroin has a half-life of 30 minutes, but due to active metabolites its duration of action is 4 to 5 hours. Opioid metabolites can be detected in urine toxicology within approximately 1 to 2 days since last use.¹⁰

Chronic opioid use is associated with neurologic effects that change the function of areas of the brain that control pleasure/reward, stress, decision-making, and more. This leads to cravings, continued substance use, and dependence.¹¹ After continued long-term use, patients report decreased euphoria, but typically they continue to use opioids to avoid withdrawal symptoms or worsening mood.

Criteria for opioid use disorder

In DSM-5, substance use disorders (SUDs)are no longer categorized as abuse or dependence.¹² For opioids, the diagnosis is OUD. The Table¹² outlines the DSM-5 criteria for OUD. Craving opioids is included for the first time in the OUD diagnosis. Having problems with the legal system is no longer considered a diagnostic criterion for OUD. 

Continue to: A vulnerable population

 

 

A vulnerable population

As defined by Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development, adolescents struggle between establishing their own identity vs role confusion.¹³ In an attempt to relate to peers or give in to peer pressure, some adolescents start by experimenting with nicotine, alcohol, and/or marijuana; however, some may move on to using other illicit drugs.¹⁴ Risk factors for the development of SUDs include early onset of substance use and a rapid progression through stages of substance use from experimentation to regular use, risky use, and dependence.¹⁵ In our case study, Ms. L’s substance use followed a similar pattern. Further, the comorbidity of SUDs and other psychiatric disorders may add a layer of complexity when caring for adolescents. Box 1^16-20 describes the relationship between comorbid psychiatric disorders and SUDs in adolescents.

Box 1

Clinical manifestations

Common clinical manifestations of opioid use vary depending on when the patient is seen. An individual with OUD may appear acutely intoxicated, be in withdrawal, or show no effects. Chronic/prolonged use can lead to tolerance, such that a user needs to ingest larger amounts of the opioid to produce the same effects.

Acute intoxication can cause sedation, slurring of speech, and pinpoint pupils. Fresh injection sites may be visible on physical examination of IV users. The effects of acute intoxication usually depend on the half-life of the specific opioid and the individual’s tolerance.¹⁰ Tolerance to heroin can occur in 10 days and withdrawal can manifest in 3 to 7 hours after last use, depending on dose and purity.³ Tolerance can lead to unintentional overdose and death.

Withdrawal. Individuals experiencing withdrawal from opioids present with flu-like physical symptoms, including generalized body ache, rhinorrhea, diarrhea, goose bumps, lacrimation, and vomiting. Individuals also may experience irritability, restlessness, insomnia, anxiety, and depression during withdrawal.

Other manifestations. Excessive and chronic/prolonged opioid use can adversely impact socio-occupational functioning and cause academic decline in adolescents and youth. Personal relationships are significantly affected. Opioid users may have legal difficulties as a result of committing crimes such as theft, prostitution, or robbery in order to obtain opioids. 

Continue to: Screening for OUD

 

 

Screening for OUD

Several screening tools are available to assess adolescents for SUDs, including OUD.

CRAFFT is a 6-item, clinician-administered screening tool that has been approved by American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Substance Abuse for adolescents and young adults age <21.^21-23 This commonly used tool can assess for alcohol, cannabis, and other drug use. A score ≥2 is considered positive for drug use, indicating that the individual would require further evaluation and assessment^22,23 (Figure). There is also a self-administered CRAFFT questionnaire that can be completed by the patient.

NIDA-modified ASSIST. The American Psychiatric Association has adapted the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-modified ASSIST. One version is designated for parents/guardians to administer to their children (age 6 to 17), and one is designated for adolescents (age 11 to 17) to self-administer.^24,25 Each screening tool has 2 levels: Level 1 screens for substance use and other mental health symptoms, and Level 2 is more specific for substance use alone.

Drug Use Screening Inventory (DUSI) is a self-report questionnaire that has 149 items that assess the use of numerous drugs. It is designed to quantify the severity of consequences associated with drug and alcohol use.^26,27

Problem-Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT) is a multidimensional tool that consists of 139 yes/no questions designed to explore adolescents’ (age 12 to 19 years) problem substance use and current functioning in other areas.^28,29

Continue to: Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire (PESQ)...

Personal Experience Screening Question­naire (PESQ) is a brief, 40-item, cost-effective, self-report questionnaire that can help identify adolescents (age 12 to 18) who should be referred for further evaluation.³⁰

Addressing treatment expectations

For an adolescent with OUD, treatment should begin in the least restrictive environment that is perceived as safe for the patient. An adolescent’s readiness and motivation to achieve and maintain abstinence are crucial. Treatment planning should include the adolescent as well as his/her family to ensure they are able to verbalize their expectations. Start with a definitive treatment plan that addresses an individual’s needs. The plan should provide structure and an understanding of treatment expectations. The treatment team should clarify the realistic plan and goals based on empirical and clinical evidence. Treatment goals should include interventions to strengthen interpersonal relationships and assist with rehabilitation, such as establishing academic and/or vocational goals. Addressing readiness and working on a patient’s motivation is extremely important for most of these interventions. 

In order for any intervention to be successful, clinicians need to establish and foster rapport with the adolescent. By law, substance use or behaviors related to substance use are not allowed to be shared outside the patient-clinician relationship, unless the adolescent gives consent or there are concerns that such behaviors might put the patient or others at risk. It is important to prime the adolescent and help them understand that any information pertaining to their safety or the safety of others may need to be shared outside the patient-clinician relationship.

Choosing an intervention

Less than 50% of a nationally representative sample of 345 addiction treatment programs serving adolescents and adults offer medications for treating OUD.³¹ Even in programs that offer pharmacotherapy, medications are significantly underutilized. Fewer than 30% of patients in addiction treatment programs receive medication, compared with 74% of patients receiving treatment for other mental health disorders.³¹ A review of the literature on adolescent treatment outcomes concluded that any form of treatment (psychotherapy with or without medication) is better than no treatment.^32,33

Psychotherapy may be used to treat OUD in adolescents. Several family therapies have been studied and are considered as critical psychotherapeutic interventions for treating SUDs, including structural family treatment and functional family therapy approaches.³⁴ An integrated behavioral and family therapy model is also recommended for adolescent patients with SUDs. Cognitive distortions and use of self-deprecatory statements are common among adolescents.³⁵ Therefore, using approaches of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), or CBT plus motivational enhancement therapy, also might be effective for this population.³⁶ The adolescent community reinforcement approach (A-CRA) is a behavioral treatment designed to help adolescents and their families learn how to lead a healthy and happy life without the use of drugs or alcohol by increasing access to social, familial, and educational/vocational reinforcers. Support groups and peer and family support should be encouraged as adjuncts to other interventions. In some areas, sober housing options for adolescents are also available.

Continue to: Harm-reduction strategies

Harm-reduction strategies. Although the primary goal of treatment for adolescents with OUD is to achieve and maintain abstinence from opioid use, implicit and explicit goals can be set. Short-term implicit goals may include harm-reduction strategies that emphasize decreasing the duration, frequency, and amount of substance use and limiting the chances of adverse effects, while the long-term explicit goal should be abstinence from opioid use.

Naloxone nasal spray is used as a harm-reduction strategy. It is an FDA-approved formulation that can reverse the effects of unintentional opioid overdoses and potentially prevent death from respiratory depression.³⁷ Other harm-reduction strategies include needle exchange programs, which provide sterile needles to individuals who inject drugs in an effort to prevent or reduce the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and other bloodborne viruses that can be spread via shared injection equipment. Fentanyl testing strips allow opioid users to test for the presence fentanyl and fentanyl analogs in the unregulated “street” opioid supply.

Pharmacologic interventions. Because there is limited empirical evidence on the efficacy of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for adolescents with OUD, clinicians need to rely on evidence from research and experience with adults. Unfortunately, MAT is offered to adolescents considerably less often than it is to adults. Feder et al³⁸ reported that only 2.4% of adolescents received MAT for heroin use and only 0.4% of adolescents received MAT for prescription opioid use, compared with 26.3% and 12% of adults, respectively.

Detoxification. Medications available for detoxification from opioids include opiates (such as methadone or buprenorphine) and clonidine (a central sympathomimetic). If the patient has used heroin for a short period (<1 year) and has no history of detoxification, consider a detoxification strategy with a longer-term taper (90 to 180 days) to allow for stabilization.

Maintenance treatment. Consider maintenance treatment for adolescents with a history of long-term opioid use and at least 2 prior short-term detoxification attempts or nonpharmacotherapy-based treatment within 12 months. Be sure to receive consent from a legal guardian and the patient. Maintenance treatment is usually recommended to continue for 1 to 6 years. Maintenance programs with longer durations have shown higher rates of abstinence, improved engagement, and retention in treatment.³⁹

Continue to: According to guidelines from...

According to guidelines from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), adolescents age >16 should be offered MAT; the first-line treatment is buprenorphine.⁴⁰ To avoid risks of abuse and diversion, a combination of buprenorphine/naloxone may be administered.

Maintenance with buprenorphine

In order to prescribe and dispense buprenorphine, clinicians need to obtain a waiver from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Before initiating buprenorphine, consider the type of opioid the individual used (short- or long-acting), the severity of the OUD, and the last reported use. The 3 phases of buprenorphine treatment are⁴¹:

• Induction phase. Buprenorphine can be initiated at 2 to 4 mg/d. Some patients may require up to 8 mg/d on the first day, which can be administered in divided doses.⁴² Evaluate and monitor patients carefully during the first few hours after the first dose. Patients should be in early withdrawal; otherwise, the buprenorphine might precipitate withdrawal. The induction phase can be completed in 2 to 4 days by titrating the dose so that the signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal are minimal, and the patient is able to continue treatment. It may be helpful to have the patient’s legal guardian nearby in case the patient does not tolerate the medication or experiences withdrawal. The initial target dose for buprenorphine is approximately 12 to 16 mg/d.
• Stabilization phase. Patients no longer experience withdrawal symptoms and no longer have cravings. This phase can last 6 to 8 weeks. During this phase, patients should be seen weekly and doses should be adjusted if necessary. As a partial mu agonist, buprenorphine does not activate mu receptors fully and reaches a ceiling effect. Hence, doses >24 mg/d have limited added agonist properties.
• Maintenance phase. Because discontinuation of buprenorphine is associated with high relapse rates, patients may need to be maintained long-term on their stabilization dose, and for some patients, the length of time could be indefinite.³⁹ During this phase, patients continue to undergo follow-up, but do so less frequently.

Methadone maintenance is generally not recommended for individuals age <18.

Preventing opioid diversion

Prescription medications that are kept in the home are a substantial source of opioids for adolescents. In 2014, 56% of 12th graders who did not need medications for medical purposes were able to acquire them from their friends or relatives; 36% of 12th graders used their own prescriptions.²¹ Limiting adolescents’ access to prescription opioids is the first line of prevention. Box 2 describes interventions and strategies to limit adolescents’ access to opioids.

Box 2

CASE CONTINUED

Ms. L is initially prescribed, clonidine, 0.1 mg every 6 hours, to address opioid withdrawal. Clonidine is then tapered and maintained at 0.1 mg twice a day for irritability and impulse control. She is also prescribed sertraline, 100 mg/d, for depression and anxiety, and trazodone, 75 mg as needed at night, to assist with sleep.

Continue to: Following inpatient hospitalization...

Following inpatient hospitalization, during 12 weeks of partial hospital treatment, Ms. L participates in individual psychotherapy sessions 5 days/week; family therapy sessions once a week; and experiential therapy along with group sessions with other peers. She undergoes medication evaluations and adjustments on a weekly basis. Ms. L is now working at a store and is pursuing a high school equivalency certificate. She manages to avoid high-risk behaviors, although she reports having occasional cravings. Ms. L is actively involved in Narcotics Anonymous and has a sponsor. She has reconciled with her mother and moved back home, so she can stay away from her former acquaintances who are still using.

Bottom Line

Adolescents with opioid use disorder can benefit from an individualized treatment plan that includes psychosocial interventions, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of the two. Treatment planning should include the adolescent and his/her family to ensure they are able to verbalize their expectations. Treatment should focus on interventions that strengthen interpersonal relationships and assist with rehabilitation. Ongoing follow-up care is necessary for maintaining abstinence.

Related Resource

• Patkar AA, Weisler RH. Opioid abuse and overdose: Keep your patients safe. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(8):8-12,14-16.

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine • Subutex, Sublocade
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone
Clonidine • Clorpres
Methadone • Methadose
Naloxone • Narcan
Oxycodone • OxyContin
Sertraline • Zoloft
Tramadol • Ultram
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

Ms. L, age 17, seeks treatment because she has an ongoing struggle with multiple substances, including benzodiazepines, heroin, alcohol, cannabis, and prescription opioids.

She reports that she was 13 when she first used a prescription opioid that was not prescribed for her. She also reports engaging in unsafe sexual practices while using these substances, and has been diagnosed and treated for a sexually transmitted disease. She dropped out of school and is estranged from her family. She says that for a long time she has felt depressed and that she uses drugs to “self-medicate my emotions.” She endorses high anxiety and lack of motivation. Ms. L also reports having several criminal charges for theft, assault, and exchanging sex for drugs. She has undergone 3 admissions for detoxification, but promptly resumed using drugs, primarily heroin and oxycodone, immediately after discharge. Ms. L meets DSM-5 criteria for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Ms. L’s case illustrates a disturbing trend in the current opioid epidemic in the United States. Nearly 11.8 million individuals age ≥12 reported misuse of opioids in the last year.¹ Adolescents who misuse prescription or illicit opioids are more likely to be involved with the legal system due to truancy, running away from home, physical altercations, prostitution, exchanging sex for drugs, robbery, and gang involvement. Adolescents who use opioids may also struggle with academic decline, drop out of school early, be unable to maintain a job, and have relationship difficulties, especially with family members.

In this article, I describe the scope of OUD among adolescents, including epidemiology, clinical manifestations, screening tools, and treatment approaches.

Scope of the problem

According to the most recent Monitoring the Future survey of more than 42,500 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students, 2.7% of 12th graders reported prescription opioid misuse (reported in the survey as “narcotics other than heroin”) in the past year.² In addition, 0.4% of 12th graders reported heroin use over the same period.² Although the prevalence of opioid use among adolescents has been declining over the past 5 years,² it still represents a serious health crisis.

Part of the issue may relate to easier access to more potent opioids. For example, heroin available today can be >4 times purer than it was in the past. In 2002, the Drug Enforcement Administration reported that the average purity of retail heroin was 38%, with levels up to 71% in some areas of the northeastern United States.^3,4 This purer form can be inhaled, which reduces the need for injection and makes it more accessible to younger adolescents.

Between 1997 and 2012, the annual incidence of youth (age 15 to 19) hospitalizations for prescription opioid poisoning increased >170%.⁵ Approximately 6% to 9% of youth involved in risky opioid use develop OUD 6 to 12 months after starting to use opiods.^6-8

Continue to: In recent years...

In recent years, deaths from drug overdose have increased for all age groups; however, limited data is available regarding adolescent overdose deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 2015 to 2016, drug overdose death rates for persons age 15 to 24 increased to 28%.⁹

How opioids work

Opioids activate specific transmembrane neuro­transmitter receptors, including mu, kappa, and delta, in the CNS and peripheral nervous system (PNS). This leads to activation of G protein–mediated intracellular signal transduction. Mainly it is activation of endogenous mu opioid receptors that mediates the reward, withdrawal, and analgesic effects of opioids. These effects depend on the location of mu receptors. In the CNS, activation of mu opioid receptors may cause miosis, respiratory depression, euphoria, and analgesia.¹⁰ 

Different opioids vary in terms of their half-life; for most opioids, the half-life ranges from 2 to 4 hours.¹⁰ Heroin has a half-life of 30 minutes, but due to active metabolites its duration of action is 4 to 5 hours. Opioid metabolites can be detected in urine toxicology within approximately 1 to 2 days since last use.¹⁰

Chronic opioid use is associated with neurologic effects that change the function of areas of the brain that control pleasure/reward, stress, decision-making, and more. This leads to cravings, continued substance use, and dependence.¹¹ After continued long-term use, patients report decreased euphoria, but typically they continue to use opioids to avoid withdrawal symptoms or worsening mood.

Criteria for opioid use disorder

In DSM-5, substance use disorders (SUDs)are no longer categorized as abuse or dependence.¹² For opioids, the diagnosis is OUD. The Table¹² outlines the DSM-5 criteria for OUD. Craving opioids is included for the first time in the OUD diagnosis. Having problems with the legal system is no longer considered a diagnostic criterion for OUD. 

Continue to: A vulnerable population

 

 

A vulnerable population

As defined by Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development, adolescents struggle between establishing their own identity vs role confusion.¹³ In an attempt to relate to peers or give in to peer pressure, some adolescents start by experimenting with nicotine, alcohol, and/or marijuana; however, some may move on to using other illicit drugs.¹⁴ Risk factors for the development of SUDs include early onset of substance use and a rapid progression through stages of substance use from experimentation to regular use, risky use, and dependence.¹⁵ In our case study, Ms. L’s substance use followed a similar pattern. Further, the comorbidity of SUDs and other psychiatric disorders may add a layer of complexity when caring for adolescents. Box 1^16-20 describes the relationship between comorbid psychiatric disorders and SUDs in adolescents.

Box 1

Clinical manifestations

Common clinical manifestations of opioid use vary depending on when the patient is seen. An individual with OUD may appear acutely intoxicated, be in withdrawal, or show no effects. Chronic/prolonged use can lead to tolerance, such that a user needs to ingest larger amounts of the opioid to produce the same effects.

Acute intoxication can cause sedation, slurring of speech, and pinpoint pupils. Fresh injection sites may be visible on physical examination of IV users. The effects of acute intoxication usually depend on the half-life of the specific opioid and the individual’s tolerance.¹⁰ Tolerance to heroin can occur in 10 days and withdrawal can manifest in 3 to 7 hours after last use, depending on dose and purity.³ Tolerance can lead to unintentional overdose and death.

Withdrawal. Individuals experiencing withdrawal from opioids present with flu-like physical symptoms, including generalized body ache, rhinorrhea, diarrhea, goose bumps, lacrimation, and vomiting. Individuals also may experience irritability, restlessness, insomnia, anxiety, and depression during withdrawal.

Other manifestations. Excessive and chronic/prolonged opioid use can adversely impact socio-occupational functioning and cause academic decline in adolescents and youth. Personal relationships are significantly affected. Opioid users may have legal difficulties as a result of committing crimes such as theft, prostitution, or robbery in order to obtain opioids. 

Continue to: Screening for OUD

 

 

Screening for OUD

Several screening tools are available to assess adolescents for SUDs, including OUD.

CRAFFT is a 6-item, clinician-administered screening tool that has been approved by American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Substance Abuse for adolescents and young adults age <21.^21-23 This commonly used tool can assess for alcohol, cannabis, and other drug use. A score ≥2 is considered positive for drug use, indicating that the individual would require further evaluation and assessment^22,23 (Figure). There is also a self-administered CRAFFT questionnaire that can be completed by the patient.

NIDA-modified ASSIST. The American Psychiatric Association has adapted the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-modified ASSIST. One version is designated for parents/guardians to administer to their children (age 6 to 17), and one is designated for adolescents (age 11 to 17) to self-administer.^24,25 Each screening tool has 2 levels: Level 1 screens for substance use and other mental health symptoms, and Level 2 is more specific for substance use alone.

Drug Use Screening Inventory (DUSI) is a self-report questionnaire that has 149 items that assess the use of numerous drugs. It is designed to quantify the severity of consequences associated with drug and alcohol use.^26,27

Problem-Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT) is a multidimensional tool that consists of 139 yes/no questions designed to explore adolescents’ (age 12 to 19 years) problem substance use and current functioning in other areas.^28,29

Continue to: Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire (PESQ)...

Personal Experience Screening Question­naire (PESQ) is a brief, 40-item, cost-effective, self-report questionnaire that can help identify adolescents (age 12 to 18) who should be referred for further evaluation.³⁰

Addressing treatment expectations

For an adolescent with OUD, treatment should begin in the least restrictive environment that is perceived as safe for the patient. An adolescent’s readiness and motivation to achieve and maintain abstinence are crucial. Treatment planning should include the adolescent as well as his/her family to ensure they are able to verbalize their expectations. Start with a definitive treatment plan that addresses an individual’s needs. The plan should provide structure and an understanding of treatment expectations. The treatment team should clarify the realistic plan and goals based on empirical and clinical evidence. Treatment goals should include interventions to strengthen interpersonal relationships and assist with rehabilitation, such as establishing academic and/or vocational goals. Addressing readiness and working on a patient’s motivation is extremely important for most of these interventions. 

In order for any intervention to be successful, clinicians need to establish and foster rapport with the adolescent. By law, substance use or behaviors related to substance use are not allowed to be shared outside the patient-clinician relationship, unless the adolescent gives consent or there are concerns that such behaviors might put the patient or others at risk. It is important to prime the adolescent and help them understand that any information pertaining to their safety or the safety of others may need to be shared outside the patient-clinician relationship.

Choosing an intervention

Less than 50% of a nationally representative sample of 345 addiction treatment programs serving adolescents and adults offer medications for treating OUD.³¹ Even in programs that offer pharmacotherapy, medications are significantly underutilized. Fewer than 30% of patients in addiction treatment programs receive medication, compared with 74% of patients receiving treatment for other mental health disorders.³¹ A review of the literature on adolescent treatment outcomes concluded that any form of treatment (psychotherapy with or without medication) is better than no treatment.^32,33

Psychotherapy may be used to treat OUD in adolescents. Several family therapies have been studied and are considered as critical psychotherapeutic interventions for treating SUDs, including structural family treatment and functional family therapy approaches.³⁴ An integrated behavioral and family therapy model is also recommended for adolescent patients with SUDs. Cognitive distortions and use of self-deprecatory statements are common among adolescents.³⁵ Therefore, using approaches of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), or CBT plus motivational enhancement therapy, also might be effective for this population.³⁶ The adolescent community reinforcement approach (A-CRA) is a behavioral treatment designed to help adolescents and their families learn how to lead a healthy and happy life without the use of drugs or alcohol by increasing access to social, familial, and educational/vocational reinforcers. Support groups and peer and family support should be encouraged as adjuncts to other interventions. In some areas, sober housing options for adolescents are also available.

Continue to: Harm-reduction strategies

Harm-reduction strategies. Although the primary goal of treatment for adolescents with OUD is to achieve and maintain abstinence from opioid use, implicit and explicit goals can be set. Short-term implicit goals may include harm-reduction strategies that emphasize decreasing the duration, frequency, and amount of substance use and limiting the chances of adverse effects, while the long-term explicit goal should be abstinence from opioid use.

Naloxone nasal spray is used as a harm-reduction strategy. It is an FDA-approved formulation that can reverse the effects of unintentional opioid overdoses and potentially prevent death from respiratory depression.³⁷ Other harm-reduction strategies include needle exchange programs, which provide sterile needles to individuals who inject drugs in an effort to prevent or reduce the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and other bloodborne viruses that can be spread via shared injection equipment. Fentanyl testing strips allow opioid users to test for the presence fentanyl and fentanyl analogs in the unregulated “street” opioid supply.

Pharmacologic interventions. Because there is limited empirical evidence on the efficacy of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for adolescents with OUD, clinicians need to rely on evidence from research and experience with adults. Unfortunately, MAT is offered to adolescents considerably less often than it is to adults. Feder et al³⁸ reported that only 2.4% of adolescents received MAT for heroin use and only 0.4% of adolescents received MAT for prescription opioid use, compared with 26.3% and 12% of adults, respectively.

Detoxification. Medications available for detoxification from opioids include opiates (such as methadone or buprenorphine) and clonidine (a central sympathomimetic). If the patient has used heroin for a short period (<1 year) and has no history of detoxification, consider a detoxification strategy with a longer-term taper (90 to 180 days) to allow for stabilization.

Maintenance treatment. Consider maintenance treatment for adolescents with a history of long-term opioid use and at least 2 prior short-term detoxification attempts or nonpharmacotherapy-based treatment within 12 months. Be sure to receive consent from a legal guardian and the patient. Maintenance treatment is usually recommended to continue for 1 to 6 years. Maintenance programs with longer durations have shown higher rates of abstinence, improved engagement, and retention in treatment.³⁹

Continue to: According to guidelines from...

According to guidelines from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), adolescents age >16 should be offered MAT; the first-line treatment is buprenorphine.⁴⁰ To avoid risks of abuse and diversion, a combination of buprenorphine/naloxone may be administered.

Maintenance with buprenorphine

In order to prescribe and dispense buprenorphine, clinicians need to obtain a waiver from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Before initiating buprenorphine, consider the type of opioid the individual used (short- or long-acting), the severity of the OUD, and the last reported use. The 3 phases of buprenorphine treatment are⁴¹:

• Induction phase. Buprenorphine can be initiated at 2 to 4 mg/d. Some patients may require up to 8 mg/d on the first day, which can be administered in divided doses.⁴² Evaluate and monitor patients carefully during the first few hours after the first dose. Patients should be in early withdrawal; otherwise, the buprenorphine might precipitate withdrawal. The induction phase can be completed in 2 to 4 days by titrating the dose so that the signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal are minimal, and the patient is able to continue treatment. It may be helpful to have the patient’s legal guardian nearby in case the patient does not tolerate the medication or experiences withdrawal. The initial target dose for buprenorphine is approximately 12 to 16 mg/d.
• Stabilization phase. Patients no longer experience withdrawal symptoms and no longer have cravings. This phase can last 6 to 8 weeks. During this phase, patients should be seen weekly and doses should be adjusted if necessary. As a partial mu agonist, buprenorphine does not activate mu receptors fully and reaches a ceiling effect. Hence, doses >24 mg/d have limited added agonist properties.
• Maintenance phase. Because discontinuation of buprenorphine is associated with high relapse rates, patients may need to be maintained long-term on their stabilization dose, and for some patients, the length of time could be indefinite.³⁹ During this phase, patients continue to undergo follow-up, but do so less frequently.

Methadone maintenance is generally not recommended for individuals age <18.

Preventing opioid diversion

Prescription medications that are kept in the home are a substantial source of opioids for adolescents. In 2014, 56% of 12th graders who did not need medications for medical purposes were able to acquire them from their friends or relatives; 36% of 12th graders used their own prescriptions.²¹ Limiting adolescents’ access to prescription opioids is the first line of prevention. Box 2 describes interventions and strategies to limit adolescents’ access to opioids.

Box 2

CASE CONTINUED

Ms. L is initially prescribed, clonidine, 0.1 mg every 6 hours, to address opioid withdrawal. Clonidine is then tapered and maintained at 0.1 mg twice a day for irritability and impulse control. She is also prescribed sertraline, 100 mg/d, for depression and anxiety, and trazodone, 75 mg as needed at night, to assist with sleep.

Continue to: Following inpatient hospitalization...

Following inpatient hospitalization, during 12 weeks of partial hospital treatment, Ms. L participates in individual psychotherapy sessions 5 days/week; family therapy sessions once a week; and experiential therapy along with group sessions with other peers. She undergoes medication evaluations and adjustments on a weekly basis. Ms. L is now working at a store and is pursuing a high school equivalency certificate. She manages to avoid high-risk behaviors, although she reports having occasional cravings. Ms. L is actively involved in Narcotics Anonymous and has a sponsor. She has reconciled with her mother and moved back home, so she can stay away from her former acquaintances who are still using.

Bottom Line

Adolescents with opioid use disorder can benefit from an individualized treatment plan that includes psychosocial interventions, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of the two. Treatment planning should include the adolescent and his/her family to ensure they are able to verbalize their expectations. Treatment should focus on interventions that strengthen interpersonal relationships and assist with rehabilitation. Ongoing follow-up care is necessary for maintaining abstinence.

Related Resource

• Patkar AA, Weisler RH. Opioid abuse and overdose: Keep your patients safe. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(8):8-12,14-16.

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine • Subutex, Sublocade
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone
Clonidine • Clorpres
Methadone • Methadose
Naloxone • Narcan
Oxycodone • OxyContin
Sertraline • Zoloft
Tramadol • Ultram
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

Ms. L, age 17, seeks treatment because she has an ongoing struggle with multiple substances, including benzodiazepines, heroin, alcohol, cannabis, and prescription opioids.

She reports that she was 13 when she first used a prescription opioid that was not prescribed for her. She also reports engaging in unsafe sexual practices while using these substances, and has been diagnosed and treated for a sexually transmitted disease. She dropped out of school and is estranged from her family. She says that for a long time she has felt depressed and that she uses drugs to “self-medicate my emotions.” She endorses high anxiety and lack of motivation. Ms. L also reports having several criminal charges for theft, assault, and exchanging sex for drugs. She has undergone 3 admissions for detoxification, but promptly resumed using drugs, primarily heroin and oxycodone, immediately after discharge. Ms. L meets DSM-5 criteria for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Ms. L’s case illustrates a disturbing trend in the current opioid epidemic in the United States. Nearly 11.8 million individuals age ≥12 reported misuse of opioids in the last year.¹ Adolescents who misuse prescription or illicit opioids are more likely to be involved with the legal system due to truancy, running away from home, physical altercations, prostitution, exchanging sex for drugs, robbery, and gang involvement. Adolescents who use opioids may also struggle with academic decline, drop out of school early, be unable to maintain a job, and have relationship difficulties, especially with family members.

In this article, I describe the scope of OUD among adolescents, including epidemiology, clinical manifestations, screening tools, and treatment approaches.

Scope of the problem

According to the most recent Monitoring the Future survey of more than 42,500 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students, 2.7% of 12th graders reported prescription opioid misuse (reported in the survey as “narcotics other than heroin”) in the past year.² In addition, 0.4% of 12th graders reported heroin use over the same period.² Although the prevalence of opioid use among adolescents has been declining over the past 5 years,² it still represents a serious health crisis.

Part of the issue may relate to easier access to more potent opioids. For example, heroin available today can be >4 times purer than it was in the past. In 2002, the Drug Enforcement Administration reported that the average purity of retail heroin was 38%, with levels up to 71% in some areas of the northeastern United States.^3,4 This purer form can be inhaled, which reduces the need for injection and makes it more accessible to younger adolescents.

Between 1997 and 2012, the annual incidence of youth (age 15 to 19) hospitalizations for prescription opioid poisoning increased >170%.⁵ Approximately 6% to 9% of youth involved in risky opioid use develop OUD 6 to 12 months after starting to use opiods.^6-8

Continue to: In recent years...

In recent years, deaths from drug overdose have increased for all age groups; however, limited data is available regarding adolescent overdose deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 2015 to 2016, drug overdose death rates for persons age 15 to 24 increased to 28%.⁹

How opioids work

Opioids activate specific transmembrane neuro­transmitter receptors, including mu, kappa, and delta, in the CNS and peripheral nervous system (PNS). This leads to activation of G protein–mediated intracellular signal transduction. Mainly it is activation of endogenous mu opioid receptors that mediates the reward, withdrawal, and analgesic effects of opioids. These effects depend on the location of mu receptors. In the CNS, activation of mu opioid receptors may cause miosis, respiratory depression, euphoria, and analgesia.¹⁰ 

Different opioids vary in terms of their half-life; for most opioids, the half-life ranges from 2 to 4 hours.¹⁰ Heroin has a half-life of 30 minutes, but due to active metabolites its duration of action is 4 to 5 hours. Opioid metabolites can be detected in urine toxicology within approximately 1 to 2 days since last use.¹⁰

Chronic opioid use is associated with neurologic effects that change the function of areas of the brain that control pleasure/reward, stress, decision-making, and more. This leads to cravings, continued substance use, and dependence.¹¹ After continued long-term use, patients report decreased euphoria, but typically they continue to use opioids to avoid withdrawal symptoms or worsening mood.

Criteria for opioid use disorder

In DSM-5, substance use disorders (SUDs)are no longer categorized as abuse or dependence.¹² For opioids, the diagnosis is OUD. The Table¹² outlines the DSM-5 criteria for OUD. Craving opioids is included for the first time in the OUD diagnosis. Having problems with the legal system is no longer considered a diagnostic criterion for OUD. 

Continue to: A vulnerable population

 

 

A vulnerable population

As defined by Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development, adolescents struggle between establishing their own identity vs role confusion.¹³ In an attempt to relate to peers or give in to peer pressure, some adolescents start by experimenting with nicotine, alcohol, and/or marijuana; however, some may move on to using other illicit drugs.¹⁴ Risk factors for the development of SUDs include early onset of substance use and a rapid progression through stages of substance use from experimentation to regular use, risky use, and dependence.¹⁵ In our case study, Ms. L’s substance use followed a similar pattern. Further, the comorbidity of SUDs and other psychiatric disorders may add a layer of complexity when caring for adolescents. Box 1^16-20 describes the relationship between comorbid psychiatric disorders and SUDs in adolescents.

Box 1

Clinical manifestations

Common clinical manifestations of opioid use vary depending on when the patient is seen. An individual with OUD may appear acutely intoxicated, be in withdrawal, or show no effects. Chronic/prolonged use can lead to tolerance, such that a user needs to ingest larger amounts of the opioid to produce the same effects.

Acute intoxication can cause sedation, slurring of speech, and pinpoint pupils. Fresh injection sites may be visible on physical examination of IV users. The effects of acute intoxication usually depend on the half-life of the specific opioid and the individual’s tolerance.¹⁰ Tolerance to heroin can occur in 10 days and withdrawal can manifest in 3 to 7 hours after last use, depending on dose and purity.³ Tolerance can lead to unintentional overdose and death.

Withdrawal. Individuals experiencing withdrawal from opioids present with flu-like physical symptoms, including generalized body ache, rhinorrhea, diarrhea, goose bumps, lacrimation, and vomiting. Individuals also may experience irritability, restlessness, insomnia, anxiety, and depression during withdrawal.

Other manifestations. Excessive and chronic/prolonged opioid use can adversely impact socio-occupational functioning and cause academic decline in adolescents and youth. Personal relationships are significantly affected. Opioid users may have legal difficulties as a result of committing crimes such as theft, prostitution, or robbery in order to obtain opioids. 

Continue to: Screening for OUD

 

 

Screening for OUD

Several screening tools are available to assess adolescents for SUDs, including OUD.

CRAFFT is a 6-item, clinician-administered screening tool that has been approved by American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Substance Abuse for adolescents and young adults age <21.^21-23 This commonly used tool can assess for alcohol, cannabis, and other drug use. A score ≥2 is considered positive for drug use, indicating that the individual would require further evaluation and assessment^22,23 (Figure). There is also a self-administered CRAFFT questionnaire that can be completed by the patient.

NIDA-modified ASSIST. The American Psychiatric Association has adapted the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-modified ASSIST. One version is designated for parents/guardians to administer to their children (age 6 to 17), and one is designated for adolescents (age 11 to 17) to self-administer.^24,25 Each screening tool has 2 levels: Level 1 screens for substance use and other mental health symptoms, and Level 2 is more specific for substance use alone.

Drug Use Screening Inventory (DUSI) is a self-report questionnaire that has 149 items that assess the use of numerous drugs. It is designed to quantify the severity of consequences associated with drug and alcohol use.^26,27

Problem-Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT) is a multidimensional tool that consists of 139 yes/no questions designed to explore adolescents’ (age 12 to 19 years) problem substance use and current functioning in other areas.^28,29

Continue to: Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire (PESQ)...

Personal Experience Screening Question­naire (PESQ) is a brief, 40-item, cost-effective, self-report questionnaire that can help identify adolescents (age 12 to 18) who should be referred for further evaluation.³⁰

Addressing treatment expectations

For an adolescent with OUD, treatment should begin in the least restrictive environment that is perceived as safe for the patient. An adolescent’s readiness and motivation to achieve and maintain abstinence are crucial. Treatment planning should include the adolescent as well as his/her family to ensure they are able to verbalize their expectations. Start with a definitive treatment plan that addresses an individual’s needs. The plan should provide structure and an understanding of treatment expectations. The treatment team should clarify the realistic plan and goals based on empirical and clinical evidence. Treatment goals should include interventions to strengthen interpersonal relationships and assist with rehabilitation, such as establishing academic and/or vocational goals. Addressing readiness and working on a patient’s motivation is extremely important for most of these interventions. 

In order for any intervention to be successful, clinicians need to establish and foster rapport with the adolescent. By law, substance use or behaviors related to substance use are not allowed to be shared outside the patient-clinician relationship, unless the adolescent gives consent or there are concerns that such behaviors might put the patient or others at risk. It is important to prime the adolescent and help them understand that any information pertaining to their safety or the safety of others may need to be shared outside the patient-clinician relationship.

Choosing an intervention

Less than 50% of a nationally representative sample of 345 addiction treatment programs serving adolescents and adults offer medications for treating OUD.³¹ Even in programs that offer pharmacotherapy, medications are significantly underutilized. Fewer than 30% of patients in addiction treatment programs receive medication, compared with 74% of patients receiving treatment for other mental health disorders.³¹ A review of the literature on adolescent treatment outcomes concluded that any form of treatment (psychotherapy with or without medication) is better than no treatment.^32,33

Psychotherapy may be used to treat OUD in adolescents. Several family therapies have been studied and are considered as critical psychotherapeutic interventions for treating SUDs, including structural family treatment and functional family therapy approaches.³⁴ An integrated behavioral and family therapy model is also recommended for adolescent patients with SUDs. Cognitive distortions and use of self-deprecatory statements are common among adolescents.³⁵ Therefore, using approaches of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), or CBT plus motivational enhancement therapy, also might be effective for this population.³⁶ The adolescent community reinforcement approach (A-CRA) is a behavioral treatment designed to help adolescents and their families learn how to lead a healthy and happy life without the use of drugs or alcohol by increasing access to social, familial, and educational/vocational reinforcers. Support groups and peer and family support should be encouraged as adjuncts to other interventions. In some areas, sober housing options for adolescents are also available.

Continue to: Harm-reduction strategies

Harm-reduction strategies. Although the primary goal of treatment for adolescents with OUD is to achieve and maintain abstinence from opioid use, implicit and explicit goals can be set. Short-term implicit goals may include harm-reduction strategies that emphasize decreasing the duration, frequency, and amount of substance use and limiting the chances of adverse effects, while the long-term explicit goal should be abstinence from opioid use.

Naloxone nasal spray is used as a harm-reduction strategy. It is an FDA-approved formulation that can reverse the effects of unintentional opioid overdoses and potentially prevent death from respiratory depression.³⁷ Other harm-reduction strategies include needle exchange programs, which provide sterile needles to individuals who inject drugs in an effort to prevent or reduce the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and other bloodborne viruses that can be spread via shared injection equipment. Fentanyl testing strips allow opioid users to test for the presence fentanyl and fentanyl analogs in the unregulated “street” opioid supply.

Pharmacologic interventions. Because there is limited empirical evidence on the efficacy of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for adolescents with OUD, clinicians need to rely on evidence from research and experience with adults. Unfortunately, MAT is offered to adolescents considerably less often than it is to adults. Feder et al³⁸ reported that only 2.4% of adolescents received MAT for heroin use and only 0.4% of adolescents received MAT for prescription opioid use, compared with 26.3% and 12% of adults, respectively.

Detoxification. Medications available for detoxification from opioids include opiates (such as methadone or buprenorphine) and clonidine (a central sympathomimetic). If the patient has used heroin for a short period (<1 year) and has no history of detoxification, consider a detoxification strategy with a longer-term taper (90 to 180 days) to allow for stabilization.

Maintenance treatment. Consider maintenance treatment for adolescents with a history of long-term opioid use and at least 2 prior short-term detoxification attempts or nonpharmacotherapy-based treatment within 12 months. Be sure to receive consent from a legal guardian and the patient. Maintenance treatment is usually recommended to continue for 1 to 6 years. Maintenance programs with longer durations have shown higher rates of abstinence, improved engagement, and retention in treatment.³⁹

Continue to: According to guidelines from...

According to guidelines from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), adolescents age >16 should be offered MAT; the first-line treatment is buprenorphine.⁴⁰ To avoid risks of abuse and diversion, a combination of buprenorphine/naloxone may be administered.

Maintenance with buprenorphine

In order to prescribe and dispense buprenorphine, clinicians need to obtain a waiver from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Before initiating buprenorphine, consider the type of opioid the individual used (short- or long-acting), the severity of the OUD, and the last reported use. The 3 phases of buprenorphine treatment are⁴¹:

• Induction phase. Buprenorphine can be initiated at 2 to 4 mg/d. Some patients may require up to 8 mg/d on the first day, which can be administered in divided doses.⁴² Evaluate and monitor patients carefully during the first few hours after the first dose. Patients should be in early withdrawal; otherwise, the buprenorphine might precipitate withdrawal. The induction phase can be completed in 2 to 4 days by titrating the dose so that the signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal are minimal, and the patient is able to continue treatment. It may be helpful to have the patient’s legal guardian nearby in case the patient does not tolerate the medication or experiences withdrawal. The initial target dose for buprenorphine is approximately 12 to 16 mg/d.
• Stabilization phase. Patients no longer experience withdrawal symptoms and no longer have cravings. This phase can last 6 to 8 weeks. During this phase, patients should be seen weekly and doses should be adjusted if necessary. As a partial mu agonist, buprenorphine does not activate mu receptors fully and reaches a ceiling effect. Hence, doses >24 mg/d have limited added agonist properties.
• Maintenance phase. Because discontinuation of buprenorphine is associated with high relapse rates, patients may need to be maintained long-term on their stabilization dose, and for some patients, the length of time could be indefinite.³⁹ During this phase, patients continue to undergo follow-up, but do so less frequently.

Methadone maintenance is generally not recommended for individuals age <18.

Preventing opioid diversion

Prescription medications that are kept in the home are a substantial source of opioids for adolescents. In 2014, 56% of 12th graders who did not need medications for medical purposes were able to acquire them from their friends or relatives; 36% of 12th graders used their own prescriptions.²¹ Limiting adolescents’ access to prescription opioids is the first line of prevention. Box 2 describes interventions and strategies to limit adolescents’ access to opioids.

Box 2

CASE CONTINUED

Ms. L is initially prescribed, clonidine, 0.1 mg every 6 hours, to address opioid withdrawal. Clonidine is then tapered and maintained at 0.1 mg twice a day for irritability and impulse control. She is also prescribed sertraline, 100 mg/d, for depression and anxiety, and trazodone, 75 mg as needed at night, to assist with sleep.

Continue to: Following inpatient hospitalization...

Following inpatient hospitalization, during 12 weeks of partial hospital treatment, Ms. L participates in individual psychotherapy sessions 5 days/week; family therapy sessions once a week; and experiential therapy along with group sessions with other peers. She undergoes medication evaluations and adjustments on a weekly basis. Ms. L is now working at a store and is pursuing a high school equivalency certificate. She manages to avoid high-risk behaviors, although she reports having occasional cravings. Ms. L is actively involved in Narcotics Anonymous and has a sponsor. She has reconciled with her mother and moved back home, so she can stay away from her former acquaintances who are still using.

Bottom Line

Adolescents with opioid use disorder can benefit from an individualized treatment plan that includes psychosocial interventions, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of the two. Treatment planning should include the adolescent and his/her family to ensure they are able to verbalize their expectations. Treatment should focus on interventions that strengthen interpersonal relationships and assist with rehabilitation. Ongoing follow-up care is necessary for maintaining abstinence.

Related Resource

• Patkar AA, Weisler RH. Opioid abuse and overdose: Keep your patients safe. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(8):8-12,14-16.

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine • Subutex, Sublocade
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone
Clonidine • Clorpres
Methadone • Methadose
Naloxone • Narcan
Oxycodone • OxyContin
Sertraline • Zoloft
Tramadol • Ultram
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

The legal status of marijuana has changed a great deal during the last 4 decades. In the United States, several states have legalized the use of marijuana to treat several medical conditions. Some states have decriminalized marijuana possession, and several have legalized marijuana for recreational use by adults. These changes have contributed to a growing misperception among young people that marijuana is harmless or not as risky as other illicit substances.

In this article, I explore the effect the legalization of marijuana has had on young peoples’ attitudes toward its use.

Marijuana use among adolescents

Among adolescents, marijuana is the most commonly used illicit substance, after alcohol.¹ According to data from the 2019 Monitoring the Future Survey, while past month, past year, and lifetime marijuana use among 8th and 10th graders remained steady from 2018 to 2019, daily marijuana use among these adolescents increased.² This survey also reported increases in adolescent marijuana vaping from 2018 to 2019.² Further, the percentage of adolescents who think that the regular use of marijuana is risky has been trending down since the mid-2000s.²

Youth substance use rates depend on numerous factors, including legal status, availability, ease of access to the substance, and perception of harm.³ Although the legalization of marijuana for recreational use has been for adults only, based on rates of tobacco and alcohol use in adolescents (both of which are legal for adults), the legalization of marijuana is likely to have implications for adolescents.⁴

Adverse effects among adolescents

During adolescence, the brain is still developing, and marijuana use during this time could cause decreased cognitive functioning, especially executive functions.⁴ Marijuana use by adolescents also has been associated with^4,5:

• an increased risk of mental health disorders, including depression, anxiety, and psychosis, particularly among adolescents at higher risk, such as those with a family history of psychiatric illness
• a decline in school performance
• an increased school dropout rate
• an increased risk of marijuana de­pen­dence
• an elevated rate of engaging in risky behaviors.

Factors by which the legalization of marijuana might increase its use among adolescents include⁴:

• perceived decreased risk of marijuana use
• increased availability
• lower cost
• decreased fear of legal consequences of marijuana use.

Increased parental use is an indirect way in which legalization of marijuana for adult recreational use might increase use in youth.

Continue to: What the evidence says

 

 

What the evidence says

Colorado legalized marijuana for medical use in 2000, and for adult recreational use in 2014. A 2012 study of adolescents receiving substance abuse treatment in Colorado found diversion of medical marijuana to these adolescents was common.⁶ This study also reported that compared with those who did not use medical marijuana, adolescents who used medical marijuana had an earlier age of regular marijuana use, more marijuana use disorder symptoms, and more symptoms of conduct disorder.⁶ However, data from the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration⁷ and from the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment⁸ suggest that marijuana use among adolescents has not increased since legalization in Colorado.

In 2012, voters in Washington state legalized marijuana for recreational use. In 2013, Moreno et al⁹ interviewed college students in Washington, where marijuana had just been legalized, and Wisconsin, where it had not. In both states, most participants indicated that legalization would not change their attitude towards use. A small proportion of students felt that legalization would signify an endorsement of marijuana, and they were likely to perceive it as safe to use.

In an analysis of data on more than 250,000 students in 8th, 10th, and 12th grade, Cerdá et al¹⁰ found that after legalization in Washington, the perceived harmfulness of marijuana decreased and marijuana use increased among 8th and 10th graders in Washington; however, there were no significant differences noted among adolescents in Colorado.

In 2010, voters in California passed legislation to decriminalize marijuana. In an analysis of data from 8th, 10th, and 12th graders in California, Miech et al¹¹ found a positive correlation between decriminalization and increases in youth future marijuana use. They also found that compared with their peers in other states, 12thgraders in California were more likely to have used marijuana in the last 30 days, less likely to perceive marijuana use as a health risk, and less likely to disapprove of its use.¹¹

Although some studies have suggested that legalization of marijuana might increase use among adolescents, limitations of these studies include that they relied on self-reported use by adolescents, and they did not evaluate adolescent populations outside of school settings.

Continue to: Addressing adolescents' marijuana use

 

 

Addressing adolescents’ marijuana use

Strategies for preventing or reducing marijuana use among adolescents might include imposing restrictions and passing stricter laws on the sale of marijuana to individuals age <21, regulating marijuana advertising, increasing adolescent substance use prevention program initiatives, and educating youth about the negative effects of marijuana. Further research is needed to clearly establish if the legalization of marijuana for adult recreational use will increase its use among adolescents.

The legal status of marijuana has changed a great deal during the last 4 decades. In the United States, several states have legalized the use of marijuana to treat several medical conditions. Some states have decriminalized marijuana possession, and several have legalized marijuana for recreational use by adults. These changes have contributed to a growing misperception among young people that marijuana is harmless or not as risky as other illicit substances.

In this article, I explore the effect the legalization of marijuana has had on young peoples’ attitudes toward its use.

Marijuana use among adolescents

Among adolescents, marijuana is the most commonly used illicit substance, after alcohol.¹ According to data from the 2019 Monitoring the Future Survey, while past month, past year, and lifetime marijuana use among 8th and 10th graders remained steady from 2018 to 2019, daily marijuana use among these adolescents increased.² This survey also reported increases in adolescent marijuana vaping from 2018 to 2019.² Further, the percentage of adolescents who think that the regular use of marijuana is risky has been trending down since the mid-2000s.²

Youth substance use rates depend on numerous factors, including legal status, availability, ease of access to the substance, and perception of harm.³ Although the legalization of marijuana for recreational use has been for adults only, based on rates of tobacco and alcohol use in adolescents (both of which are legal for adults), the legalization of marijuana is likely to have implications for adolescents.⁴

Adverse effects among adolescents

During adolescence, the brain is still developing, and marijuana use during this time could cause decreased cognitive functioning, especially executive functions.⁴ Marijuana use by adolescents also has been associated with^4,5:

• an increased risk of mental health disorders, including depression, anxiety, and psychosis, particularly among adolescents at higher risk, such as those with a family history of psychiatric illness
• a decline in school performance
• an increased school dropout rate
• an increased risk of marijuana de­pen­dence
• an elevated rate of engaging in risky behaviors.

Factors by which the legalization of marijuana might increase its use among adolescents include⁴:

• perceived decreased risk of marijuana use
• increased availability
• lower cost
• decreased fear of legal consequences of marijuana use.

Increased parental use is an indirect way in which legalization of marijuana for adult recreational use might increase use in youth.

Continue to: What the evidence says

 

 

What the evidence says

Colorado legalized marijuana for medical use in 2000, and for adult recreational use in 2014. A 2012 study of adolescents receiving substance abuse treatment in Colorado found diversion of medical marijuana to these adolescents was common.⁶ This study also reported that compared with those who did not use medical marijuana, adolescents who used medical marijuana had an earlier age of regular marijuana use, more marijuana use disorder symptoms, and more symptoms of conduct disorder.⁶ However, data from the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration⁷ and from the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment⁸ suggest that marijuana use among adolescents has not increased since legalization in Colorado.

In 2012, voters in Washington state legalized marijuana for recreational use. In 2013, Moreno et al⁹ interviewed college students in Washington, where marijuana had just been legalized, and Wisconsin, where it had not. In both states, most participants indicated that legalization would not change their attitude towards use. A small proportion of students felt that legalization would signify an endorsement of marijuana, and they were likely to perceive it as safe to use.

In an analysis of data on more than 250,000 students in 8th, 10th, and 12th grade, Cerdá et al¹⁰ found that after legalization in Washington, the perceived harmfulness of marijuana decreased and marijuana use increased among 8th and 10th graders in Washington; however, there were no significant differences noted among adolescents in Colorado.

In 2010, voters in California passed legislation to decriminalize marijuana. In an analysis of data from 8th, 10th, and 12th graders in California, Miech et al¹¹ found a positive correlation between decriminalization and increases in youth future marijuana use. They also found that compared with their peers in other states, 12thgraders in California were more likely to have used marijuana in the last 30 days, less likely to perceive marijuana use as a health risk, and less likely to disapprove of its use.¹¹

Although some studies have suggested that legalization of marijuana might increase use among adolescents, limitations of these studies include that they relied on self-reported use by adolescents, and they did not evaluate adolescent populations outside of school settings.

Continue to: Addressing adolescents' marijuana use

 

 

Addressing adolescents’ marijuana use

Strategies for preventing or reducing marijuana use among adolescents might include imposing restrictions and passing stricter laws on the sale of marijuana to individuals age <21, regulating marijuana advertising, increasing adolescent substance use prevention program initiatives, and educating youth about the negative effects of marijuana. Further research is needed to clearly establish if the legalization of marijuana for adult recreational use will increase its use among adolescents.

The legal status of marijuana has changed a great deal during the last 4 decades. In the United States, several states have legalized the use of marijuana to treat several medical conditions. Some states have decriminalized marijuana possession, and several have legalized marijuana for recreational use by adults. These changes have contributed to a growing misperception among young people that marijuana is harmless or not as risky as other illicit substances.

In this article, I explore the effect the legalization of marijuana has had on young peoples’ attitudes toward its use.

Marijuana use among adolescents

Among adolescents, marijuana is the most commonly used illicit substance, after alcohol.¹ According to data from the 2019 Monitoring the Future Survey, while past month, past year, and lifetime marijuana use among 8th and 10th graders remained steady from 2018 to 2019, daily marijuana use among these adolescents increased.² This survey also reported increases in adolescent marijuana vaping from 2018 to 2019.² Further, the percentage of adolescents who think that the regular use of marijuana is risky has been trending down since the mid-2000s.²

Youth substance use rates depend on numerous factors, including legal status, availability, ease of access to the substance, and perception of harm.³ Although the legalization of marijuana for recreational use has been for adults only, based on rates of tobacco and alcohol use in adolescents (both of which are legal for adults), the legalization of marijuana is likely to have implications for adolescents.⁴

Adverse effects among adolescents

During adolescence, the brain is still developing, and marijuana use during this time could cause decreased cognitive functioning, especially executive functions.⁴ Marijuana use by adolescents also has been associated with^4,5:

• an increased risk of mental health disorders, including depression, anxiety, and psychosis, particularly among adolescents at higher risk, such as those with a family history of psychiatric illness
• a decline in school performance
• an increased school dropout rate
• an increased risk of marijuana de­pen­dence
• an elevated rate of engaging in risky behaviors.

Factors by which the legalization of marijuana might increase its use among adolescents include⁴:

• perceived decreased risk of marijuana use
• increased availability
• lower cost
• decreased fear of legal consequences of marijuana use.

Increased parental use is an indirect way in which legalization of marijuana for adult recreational use might increase use in youth.

Continue to: What the evidence says

 

 

What the evidence says

Colorado legalized marijuana for medical use in 2000, and for adult recreational use in 2014. A 2012 study of adolescents receiving substance abuse treatment in Colorado found diversion of medical marijuana to these adolescents was common.⁶ This study also reported that compared with those who did not use medical marijuana, adolescents who used medical marijuana had an earlier age of regular marijuana use, more marijuana use disorder symptoms, and more symptoms of conduct disorder.⁶ However, data from the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration⁷ and from the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment⁸ suggest that marijuana use among adolescents has not increased since legalization in Colorado.

In 2012, voters in Washington state legalized marijuana for recreational use. In 2013, Moreno et al⁹ interviewed college students in Washington, where marijuana had just been legalized, and Wisconsin, where it had not. In both states, most participants indicated that legalization would not change their attitude towards use. A small proportion of students felt that legalization would signify an endorsement of marijuana, and they were likely to perceive it as safe to use.

In an analysis of data on more than 250,000 students in 8th, 10th, and 12th grade, Cerdá et al¹⁰ found that after legalization in Washington, the perceived harmfulness of marijuana decreased and marijuana use increased among 8th and 10th graders in Washington; however, there were no significant differences noted among adolescents in Colorado.

In 2010, voters in California passed legislation to decriminalize marijuana. In an analysis of data from 8th, 10th, and 12th graders in California, Miech et al¹¹ found a positive correlation between decriminalization and increases in youth future marijuana use. They also found that compared with their peers in other states, 12thgraders in California were more likely to have used marijuana in the last 30 days, less likely to perceive marijuana use as a health risk, and less likely to disapprove of its use.¹¹

Although some studies have suggested that legalization of marijuana might increase use among adolescents, limitations of these studies include that they relied on self-reported use by adolescents, and they did not evaluate adolescent populations outside of school settings.

Continue to: Addressing adolescents' marijuana use

 

 

Addressing adolescents’ marijuana use

Strategies for preventing or reducing marijuana use among adolescents might include imposing restrictions and passing stricter laws on the sale of marijuana to individuals age <21, regulating marijuana advertising, increasing adolescent substance use prevention program initiatives, and educating youth about the negative effects of marijuana. Further research is needed to clearly establish if the legalization of marijuana for adult recreational use will increase its use among adolescents.

Trends in opioid prescribing and use from 2010 to 2016 offer some encouragement, but opioid-attributable deaths continued to increase over that period, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Prescribing rates dropped during that period, as did daily opioid dosage rates and the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosages, Gail K. Strickler, PhD, of the Institute for Behavioral Health at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

Their analysis involved 11 of the 12 states (Washington was unable to provide data for the analysis) participating in the CDC’s Prescription Behavior Surveillance System, which uses data from the states’ prescription drug monitoring programs. The 11 states represented about 38% of the U.S. population in 2016.

The opioid prescribing rate fell in 10 of those 11 states, with declines varying from 3.4% in Idaho to 33.0% in Ohio. Prescribing went up in Texas by 11.3%, but the state only had data available for 2015 and 2016. Three other states – Delaware, Florida, and Idaho – were limited to data from 2012 to 2016, the investigators noted.

As for the other measures, all states showed declines for the mean daily opioid dosage. Texas had the smallest drop at 2.9% and Florida saw the largest, at 27.4%. All states also had reductions in the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosage, with decreases varying from 5.7% in Idaho to 43.9% in Louisiana, Dr. Strickler and associates reported. A high daily dosage was defined as at least 90 morphine milligram equivalents for all class II-V opioid drugs.

“Despite these favorable trends ... opioid overdose deaths attributable to the most commonly prescribed opioids, the natural and semisynthetics (e.g., morphine and oxycodone), increased during 2010-2016,” they said.

It is possible that a change in mortality is lagging “behind changes in prescribing behaviors” or that “the trend in deaths related to these types of opioids has been driven by factors other than prescription opioid misuse rates, such as increasing mortality from heroin, which is frequently classified as morphine or found concomitantly with morphine postmortem, and a spike in deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl combined with heroin and prescribed opioids since 2013,” the investigators suggested.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Strickler GK et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Jan 31;69(1):1-14.

Trends in opioid prescribing and use from 2010 to 2016 offer some encouragement, but opioid-attributable deaths continued to increase over that period, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Prescribing rates dropped during that period, as did daily opioid dosage rates and the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosages, Gail K. Strickler, PhD, of the Institute for Behavioral Health at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

Their analysis involved 11 of the 12 states (Washington was unable to provide data for the analysis) participating in the CDC’s Prescription Behavior Surveillance System, which uses data from the states’ prescription drug monitoring programs. The 11 states represented about 38% of the U.S. population in 2016.

The opioid prescribing rate fell in 10 of those 11 states, with declines varying from 3.4% in Idaho to 33.0% in Ohio. Prescribing went up in Texas by 11.3%, but the state only had data available for 2015 and 2016. Three other states – Delaware, Florida, and Idaho – were limited to data from 2012 to 2016, the investigators noted.

As for the other measures, all states showed declines for the mean daily opioid dosage. Texas had the smallest drop at 2.9% and Florida saw the largest, at 27.4%. All states also had reductions in the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosage, with decreases varying from 5.7% in Idaho to 43.9% in Louisiana, Dr. Strickler and associates reported. A high daily dosage was defined as at least 90 morphine milligram equivalents for all class II-V opioid drugs.

“Despite these favorable trends ... opioid overdose deaths attributable to the most commonly prescribed opioids, the natural and semisynthetics (e.g., morphine and oxycodone), increased during 2010-2016,” they said.

It is possible that a change in mortality is lagging “behind changes in prescribing behaviors” or that “the trend in deaths related to these types of opioids has been driven by factors other than prescription opioid misuse rates, such as increasing mortality from heroin, which is frequently classified as morphine or found concomitantly with morphine postmortem, and a spike in deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl combined with heroin and prescribed opioids since 2013,” the investigators suggested.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Strickler GK et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Jan 31;69(1):1-14.

Trends in opioid prescribing and use from 2010 to 2016 offer some encouragement, but opioid-attributable deaths continued to increase over that period, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Prescribing rates dropped during that period, as did daily opioid dosage rates and the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosages, Gail K. Strickler, PhD, of the Institute for Behavioral Health at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

Their analysis involved 11 of the 12 states (Washington was unable to provide data for the analysis) participating in the CDC’s Prescription Behavior Surveillance System, which uses data from the states’ prescription drug monitoring programs. The 11 states represented about 38% of the U.S. population in 2016.

The opioid prescribing rate fell in 10 of those 11 states, with declines varying from 3.4% in Idaho to 33.0% in Ohio. Prescribing went up in Texas by 11.3%, but the state only had data available for 2015 and 2016. Three other states – Delaware, Florida, and Idaho – were limited to data from 2012 to 2016, the investigators noted.

As for the other measures, all states showed declines for the mean daily opioid dosage. Texas had the smallest drop at 2.9% and Florida saw the largest, at 27.4%. All states also had reductions in the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosage, with decreases varying from 5.7% in Idaho to 43.9% in Louisiana, Dr. Strickler and associates reported. A high daily dosage was defined as at least 90 morphine milligram equivalents for all class II-V opioid drugs.

“Despite these favorable trends ... opioid overdose deaths attributable to the most commonly prescribed opioids, the natural and semisynthetics (e.g., morphine and oxycodone), increased during 2010-2016,” they said.

It is possible that a change in mortality is lagging “behind changes in prescribing behaviors” or that “the trend in deaths related to these types of opioids has been driven by factors other than prescription opioid misuse rates, such as increasing mortality from heroin, which is frequently classified as morphine or found concomitantly with morphine postmortem, and a spike in deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl combined with heroin and prescribed opioids since 2013,” the investigators suggested.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Strickler GK et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Jan 31;69(1):1-14.

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants, rather than physicians, are the clinicians who have boosted capacity for buprenorphine prescribing in rural America, according to a study in a rural health–focused issue of the journal Health Affairs.

In the face of an ongoing crisis of opioid use disorder, and associated overdoses and deaths that have spared no sector of the U.S. population, the federal government expanded its waiver program for buprenorphine prescribing in 2017. The waiver expansion allows nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) – along with clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives – to use the drug for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder after completing 24 hours of mandated training; physicians are required to complete 8 hours of training to receive their waiver.

From 2016 to 2019, capacity for MAT in rural areas increased, with the number of clinicians with buprenorphine waivers more than doubling. Of the newly waivered prescribers accounting for this 111% increase, more than half were NPs and PAs.

In many areas, NPs and PAs led the way forward, wrote the study’s lead author Michael L. Barnett, MD, and coauthors, noting in the abstract accompanying the paper that “NPs and PAs accounted for more than half of this increase and were the first waivered clinicians in 285 rural counties with 5.7 million residents.” Overall, the proportion of people living in a county without a waivered clinician has decreased by 36% since NPs and PAs were permitted to obtain waivers.
 

SAMHSA data identifies trends

In an in-depth interview, Dr. Barnett, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said the issue today is “not so much continuing to dissect the risks and benefits of opioids as a treatment for pain, but more trying to address the current overdose crisis, and the fact that our patient treatment infrastructure is woefully inadequate for the magnitude of the problem that we face.”

Dr. Barnett’s chief intention for this study, he said, was to generate information that will drive policy to implement effective opioid treatment. He’d always been interested in models of care delivery that move beyond seeing just the physician-patient dyad.

“There are a whole range of nonphysician providers that are probably better at providing many different types of care – things that physicians aren’t necessarily that well trained to do,” he said.

Expansion of buprenorphine waivers to NPs and PAs, said Dr. Barnett, presented “a very interesting opportunity to see: How does a nonphysician workforce respond to a new practice opportunity, to really be engaged in areas that many physicians really were neglecting?”

The researchers used information drawn from what Dr. Barnett characterized as a “gold-standard” dataset maintained by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. They found that, by March 2019, 52% of U.S. rural residents lived in counties with at least one NP or PA holding a buprenorphine waiver, though there was wide geographic variation: Every county in Maine and New Hampshire had waivered NPs or PAs, but in Tennessee, just 3 of 95 counties had an NP or PA with a waiver.
 

Scope-of-practice regulations matter

The scope of practice permitted NPs and PAs varies by state, and Dr. Barnett and coauthors also looked to see whether broader scope of practice meant that more advanced practice clinicians were getting buprenorphine waivers. This did appear to be the case: In an analysis that dichotomized scope of practice into “broad” and “restricted,” states with broader practice scope saw twice as many waivered NPs per 100,000 rural residents as those with restrictive practice scope. This association was not seen for PAs, but Dr. Barnett pointed out that PAs are less likely overall to work in primary care.

This, he added, is where scope of practice starts to matter. “A lot of states are still bickering about scope of practice. We show in our paper the clear relationship between scope of practice and the degree to which providers are able to take up these waivers. We can’t prove causality, but I think it’s not a big stretch to think that these policies are playing a big role. I hope we’re working to try to advance that conversation.”

Helping address the unmet need for evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder, he said, “is one of the more important examples, because doctors have been leaving rural areas in droves. We are lucky that there is a workforce of NPs that still seem to recognize the market opportunity; rural areas still need providers, and they have been willing to fill the gap.”

Waivered NPs or PAs can apply for an expanded waiver, permitting expansion of the buprenorphine panel from 30 to 100 patients after 1 year of holding their initial waiver. Physicians may apply for a waiver to treat up to 275 patients.
 

Effect on quality of care

The evidence doesn’t support big worries about quality of care, he said. “We don’t have any data on this in the clinical context of addiction, but all of the data that are out there in terms of evaluating the quality of care and level of care being offered by NPs and PAs versus primary care doctors – the types of things that we think of as within the scope of NP and PA practice typically – have shown that they are the same.” Dr. Barnett acknowledged that “there are a little bit of mixed results here and there in one direction or another, but largely, the care being delivered is much more the same than different.”

In addressing the opioid crisis as in the rest of medicine, it’s a mistake not to include this sector of the health care workforce when policies are being crafted, said Dr. Barnett. “People who are making policy and aren’t familiar with the workforce in rural areas could miss the boat. ... Everyone is often 10-20 years out of date in terms of how they think about the centrality of, specifically, the NP workforce, especially in rural areas. NPs aren’t just an asterisk to the workforce – they are an essential part of delivering medicine, just as much as physicians are.”

Dr. Barnett said that, in his estimation, “a lot of protectionist myths get physicians worked up around increased scope of practice for NPs.” However, “The truth is that there’s enough health care spending to go around for everybody and there’s plenty of work to go around.”

Dr. Barnett acknowledged that the current study captured only prescribing capacity, and not actual prescription volume. But, based on some preliminary data, “my sense is that NPs and PAs who acquire waivers are more likely to be prescribing to a larger number of patients proportionately than MDs.” He wasn’t surprised to see this, since the many more hours of training required for NPs and PAs to acquire a waiver means they’re likely to be committed to using the waiver in practice.

Stepping back to look at the bigger picture, Dr. Barnett remarked that, “taking a look at the waiver requirement, a part of me feels that it’s a bit of an anachronistic regulation, anyway – it’s really hard to justify clinically or ethically versus other things that we do.” The waiver program he said, is “a regulation barrier whose time should be limited. ... I’m hoping that the waiver disappears soon.”

Prescribing issues will linger beyond any future abolition of the waiver program, since many clinicians will still not be comfortable prescribing medication for MAT of opioid use disorder, said Dr. Barnett. “It’ll be a lot of the same stigma and structural barriers that were in place prior to the waiver.”

Dr. Barnett reported that he has been retained as an expert witness for plaintiffs in lawsuits against opioid manufacturers. The study was partly funded by the National Institutes of Health.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barnett ML et al. Health Aff. 2019 Jan;38(12):2048-56.

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants, rather than physicians, are the clinicians who have boosted capacity for buprenorphine prescribing in rural America, according to a study in a rural health–focused issue of the journal Health Affairs.

In the face of an ongoing crisis of opioid use disorder, and associated overdoses and deaths that have spared no sector of the U.S. population, the federal government expanded its waiver program for buprenorphine prescribing in 2017. The waiver expansion allows nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) – along with clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives – to use the drug for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder after completing 24 hours of mandated training; physicians are required to complete 8 hours of training to receive their waiver.

From 2016 to 2019, capacity for MAT in rural areas increased, with the number of clinicians with buprenorphine waivers more than doubling. Of the newly waivered prescribers accounting for this 111% increase, more than half were NPs and PAs.

In many areas, NPs and PAs led the way forward, wrote the study’s lead author Michael L. Barnett, MD, and coauthors, noting in the abstract accompanying the paper that “NPs and PAs accounted for more than half of this increase and were the first waivered clinicians in 285 rural counties with 5.7 million residents.” Overall, the proportion of people living in a county without a waivered clinician has decreased by 36% since NPs and PAs were permitted to obtain waivers.
 

SAMHSA data identifies trends

In an in-depth interview, Dr. Barnett, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said the issue today is “not so much continuing to dissect the risks and benefits of opioids as a treatment for pain, but more trying to address the current overdose crisis, and the fact that our patient treatment infrastructure is woefully inadequate for the magnitude of the problem that we face.”

Dr. Barnett’s chief intention for this study, he said, was to generate information that will drive policy to implement effective opioid treatment. He’d always been interested in models of care delivery that move beyond seeing just the physician-patient dyad.

“There are a whole range of nonphysician providers that are probably better at providing many different types of care – things that physicians aren’t necessarily that well trained to do,” he said.

Expansion of buprenorphine waivers to NPs and PAs, said Dr. Barnett, presented “a very interesting opportunity to see: How does a nonphysician workforce respond to a new practice opportunity, to really be engaged in areas that many physicians really were neglecting?”

The researchers used information drawn from what Dr. Barnett characterized as a “gold-standard” dataset maintained by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. They found that, by March 2019, 52% of U.S. rural residents lived in counties with at least one NP or PA holding a buprenorphine waiver, though there was wide geographic variation: Every county in Maine and New Hampshire had waivered NPs or PAs, but in Tennessee, just 3 of 95 counties had an NP or PA with a waiver.
 

Scope-of-practice regulations matter

The scope of practice permitted NPs and PAs varies by state, and Dr. Barnett and coauthors also looked to see whether broader scope of practice meant that more advanced practice clinicians were getting buprenorphine waivers. This did appear to be the case: In an analysis that dichotomized scope of practice into “broad” and “restricted,” states with broader practice scope saw twice as many waivered NPs per 100,000 rural residents as those with restrictive practice scope. This association was not seen for PAs, but Dr. Barnett pointed out that PAs are less likely overall to work in primary care.

This, he added, is where scope of practice starts to matter. “A lot of states are still bickering about scope of practice. We show in our paper the clear relationship between scope of practice and the degree to which providers are able to take up these waivers. We can’t prove causality, but I think it’s not a big stretch to think that these policies are playing a big role. I hope we’re working to try to advance that conversation.”

Helping address the unmet need for evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder, he said, “is one of the more important examples, because doctors have been leaving rural areas in droves. We are lucky that there is a workforce of NPs that still seem to recognize the market opportunity; rural areas still need providers, and they have been willing to fill the gap.”

Waivered NPs or PAs can apply for an expanded waiver, permitting expansion of the buprenorphine panel from 30 to 100 patients after 1 year of holding their initial waiver. Physicians may apply for a waiver to treat up to 275 patients.
 

Effect on quality of care

The evidence doesn’t support big worries about quality of care, he said. “We don’t have any data on this in the clinical context of addiction, but all of the data that are out there in terms of evaluating the quality of care and level of care being offered by NPs and PAs versus primary care doctors – the types of things that we think of as within the scope of NP and PA practice typically – have shown that they are the same.” Dr. Barnett acknowledged that “there are a little bit of mixed results here and there in one direction or another, but largely, the care being delivered is much more the same than different.”

In addressing the opioid crisis as in the rest of medicine, it’s a mistake not to include this sector of the health care workforce when policies are being crafted, said Dr. Barnett. “People who are making policy and aren’t familiar with the workforce in rural areas could miss the boat. ... Everyone is often 10-20 years out of date in terms of how they think about the centrality of, specifically, the NP workforce, especially in rural areas. NPs aren’t just an asterisk to the workforce – they are an essential part of delivering medicine, just as much as physicians are.”

Dr. Barnett said that, in his estimation, “a lot of protectionist myths get physicians worked up around increased scope of practice for NPs.” However, “The truth is that there’s enough health care spending to go around for everybody and there’s plenty of work to go around.”

Dr. Barnett acknowledged that the current study captured only prescribing capacity, and not actual prescription volume. But, based on some preliminary data, “my sense is that NPs and PAs who acquire waivers are more likely to be prescribing to a larger number of patients proportionately than MDs.” He wasn’t surprised to see this, since the many more hours of training required for NPs and PAs to acquire a waiver means they’re likely to be committed to using the waiver in practice.

Stepping back to look at the bigger picture, Dr. Barnett remarked that, “taking a look at the waiver requirement, a part of me feels that it’s a bit of an anachronistic regulation, anyway – it’s really hard to justify clinically or ethically versus other things that we do.” The waiver program he said, is “a regulation barrier whose time should be limited. ... I’m hoping that the waiver disappears soon.”

Prescribing issues will linger beyond any future abolition of the waiver program, since many clinicians will still not be comfortable prescribing medication for MAT of opioid use disorder, said Dr. Barnett. “It’ll be a lot of the same stigma and structural barriers that were in place prior to the waiver.”

Dr. Barnett reported that he has been retained as an expert witness for plaintiffs in lawsuits against opioid manufacturers. The study was partly funded by the National Institutes of Health.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barnett ML et al. Health Aff. 2019 Jan;38(12):2048-56.

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants, rather than physicians, are the clinicians who have boosted capacity for buprenorphine prescribing in rural America, according to a study in a rural health–focused issue of the journal Health Affairs.

In the face of an ongoing crisis of opioid use disorder, and associated overdoses and deaths that have spared no sector of the U.S. population, the federal government expanded its waiver program for buprenorphine prescribing in 2017. The waiver expansion allows nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) – along with clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives – to use the drug for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder after completing 24 hours of mandated training; physicians are required to complete 8 hours of training to receive their waiver.

From 2016 to 2019, capacity for MAT in rural areas increased, with the number of clinicians with buprenorphine waivers more than doubling. Of the newly waivered prescribers accounting for this 111% increase, more than half were NPs and PAs.

In many areas, NPs and PAs led the way forward, wrote the study’s lead author Michael L. Barnett, MD, and coauthors, noting in the abstract accompanying the paper that “NPs and PAs accounted for more than half of this increase and were the first waivered clinicians in 285 rural counties with 5.7 million residents.” Overall, the proportion of people living in a county without a waivered clinician has decreased by 36% since NPs and PAs were permitted to obtain waivers.
 

SAMHSA data identifies trends

In an in-depth interview, Dr. Barnett, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said the issue today is “not so much continuing to dissect the risks and benefits of opioids as a treatment for pain, but more trying to address the current overdose crisis, and the fact that our patient treatment infrastructure is woefully inadequate for the magnitude of the problem that we face.”

Dr. Barnett’s chief intention for this study, he said, was to generate information that will drive policy to implement effective opioid treatment. He’d always been interested in models of care delivery that move beyond seeing just the physician-patient dyad.

“There are a whole range of nonphysician providers that are probably better at providing many different types of care – things that physicians aren’t necessarily that well trained to do,” he said.

Expansion of buprenorphine waivers to NPs and PAs, said Dr. Barnett, presented “a very interesting opportunity to see: How does a nonphysician workforce respond to a new practice opportunity, to really be engaged in areas that many physicians really were neglecting?”

The researchers used information drawn from what Dr. Barnett characterized as a “gold-standard” dataset maintained by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. They found that, by March 2019, 52% of U.S. rural residents lived in counties with at least one NP or PA holding a buprenorphine waiver, though there was wide geographic variation: Every county in Maine and New Hampshire had waivered NPs or PAs, but in Tennessee, just 3 of 95 counties had an NP or PA with a waiver.
 

Scope-of-practice regulations matter

The scope of practice permitted NPs and PAs varies by state, and Dr. Barnett and coauthors also looked to see whether broader scope of practice meant that more advanced practice clinicians were getting buprenorphine waivers. This did appear to be the case: In an analysis that dichotomized scope of practice into “broad” and “restricted,” states with broader practice scope saw twice as many waivered NPs per 100,000 rural residents as those with restrictive practice scope. This association was not seen for PAs, but Dr. Barnett pointed out that PAs are less likely overall to work in primary care.

This, he added, is where scope of practice starts to matter. “A lot of states are still bickering about scope of practice. We show in our paper the clear relationship between scope of practice and the degree to which providers are able to take up these waivers. We can’t prove causality, but I think it’s not a big stretch to think that these policies are playing a big role. I hope we’re working to try to advance that conversation.”

Helping address the unmet need for evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder, he said, “is one of the more important examples, because doctors have been leaving rural areas in droves. We are lucky that there is a workforce of NPs that still seem to recognize the market opportunity; rural areas still need providers, and they have been willing to fill the gap.”

Waivered NPs or PAs can apply for an expanded waiver, permitting expansion of the buprenorphine panel from 30 to 100 patients after 1 year of holding their initial waiver. Physicians may apply for a waiver to treat up to 275 patients.
 

Effect on quality of care

The evidence doesn’t support big worries about quality of care, he said. “We don’t have any data on this in the clinical context of addiction, but all of the data that are out there in terms of evaluating the quality of care and level of care being offered by NPs and PAs versus primary care doctors – the types of things that we think of as within the scope of NP and PA practice typically – have shown that they are the same.” Dr. Barnett acknowledged that “there are a little bit of mixed results here and there in one direction or another, but largely, the care being delivered is much more the same than different.”

In addressing the opioid crisis as in the rest of medicine, it’s a mistake not to include this sector of the health care workforce when policies are being crafted, said Dr. Barnett. “People who are making policy and aren’t familiar with the workforce in rural areas could miss the boat. ... Everyone is often 10-20 years out of date in terms of how they think about the centrality of, specifically, the NP workforce, especially in rural areas. NPs aren’t just an asterisk to the workforce – they are an essential part of delivering medicine, just as much as physicians are.”

Dr. Barnett said that, in his estimation, “a lot of protectionist myths get physicians worked up around increased scope of practice for NPs.” However, “The truth is that there’s enough health care spending to go around for everybody and there’s plenty of work to go around.”

Dr. Barnett acknowledged that the current study captured only prescribing capacity, and not actual prescription volume. But, based on some preliminary data, “my sense is that NPs and PAs who acquire waivers are more likely to be prescribing to a larger number of patients proportionately than MDs.” He wasn’t surprised to see this, since the many more hours of training required for NPs and PAs to acquire a waiver means they’re likely to be committed to using the waiver in practice.

Stepping back to look at the bigger picture, Dr. Barnett remarked that, “taking a look at the waiver requirement, a part of me feels that it’s a bit of an anachronistic regulation, anyway – it’s really hard to justify clinically or ethically versus other things that we do.” The waiver program he said, is “a regulation barrier whose time should be limited. ... I’m hoping that the waiver disappears soon.”

Prescribing issues will linger beyond any future abolition of the waiver program, since many clinicians will still not be comfortable prescribing medication for MAT of opioid use disorder, said Dr. Barnett. “It’ll be a lot of the same stigma and structural barriers that were in place prior to the waiver.”

Dr. Barnett reported that he has been retained as an expert witness for plaintiffs in lawsuits against opioid manufacturers. The study was partly funded by the National Institutes of Health.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barnett ML et al. Health Aff. 2019 Jan;38(12):2048-56.

SNOWMASS, COLO. – The tragic opioid epidemic has “one small bright spot”: an expanding pool of eligible donor hearts for transplantation, Akshay S. Desai, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

For decades, the annual volume of heart transplantations performed in the U.S. was static because of the huge mismatch between donor organ supply and demand. But heart transplant volume has increased steadily in the last few years – a result of the opioid epidemic.

Data from the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network show that the proportion of donor hearts obtained from individuals who died from drug intoxication climbed from a mere 1.5% in 1999 to 17.6% in 2017, the most recent year for which data are available. Meanwhile, the size of the heart transplant waiting list, which rose year after year in 2009-2015, has since declined (N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380[6]:597-9).

“What’s amazing is that, even though these patients might have historically been considered high risk in general, the organs recovered from these patients – and particularly the hearts – don’t seem to be any worse in terms of allograft survival than the organs recovered from patients who died from other causes, which are the traditional sources, like blunt head trauma, gunshot wounds, or stroke, that lead to brain death. In general, these organs are useful and do quite well,” according to Dr. Desai, medical director of the cardiomyopathy and heart failure program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

He highlighted several other recent developments in the field of cardiac transplantation that promise to further expand the donor heart pool, including acceptance of hepatitis C–infected donors and organ donation after circulatory rather than brain death. Dr. Desai also drew attention to the unintended perverse consequences of a recent redesign of the U.S. donor heart allocation system and discussed the impressive improvement in clinical outcomes with mechanical circulatory support. He noted that, while relatively few cardiologists practice in the highly specialized centers where heart transplants take place, virtually all cardiologists are affected by advances in heart transplantation since hundreds of thousands of the estimated 7 million Americans with heart failure have advanced disease.

Heart transplantation, he emphasized, is becoming increasingly complex. Recipients are on average older, sicker, and have more comorbidities than in times past. As a result, there is greater need for dual organ transplants: heart/lung, heart/liver, or heart/kidney. Plus, more patients come to transplantation after prior cardiac surgery for implantation of a ventricular assist device, so sensitization to blood products is a growing issue. And, of course, the pool of transplant candidates has expanded.

“We’re now forced to take patients previously considered to have contraindications to transplant; for example, diabetes was a contraindication to transplant in the early years, but now it’s the rule in 35%-40% of our patients who present with advanced heart failure,” the cardiologist noted.
 

Transplants from HCV-infected donors to uninfected recipients

Hearts and lungs from donors with hepatitis C viremia were traditionally deemed unsuitable for transplant. That’s all changed in the current era of highly effective direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of HCV infection.

In the DONATE HCV trial, Dr. Desai’s colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital showed that giving HCV-uninfected recipients of hearts or lungs from HCV-viremic donors a shortened 4-week course of treatment with sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (Epclusa) beginning within a few hours after transplantation uniformly blocked viral replication. Six months after transplantation, none of the study participants had a detectable HCV viral load, and all had excellent graft function (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 25;380[17]:1606-17).

“This is effective prevention of HCV infection by aggressive upfront therapy,” Dr. Desai explained. “We can now take organs from HCV-viremic patients and use them in solid organ transplantation. This has led to a skyrocketing increase in donors with HCV infection, and those donations have helped us clear the waiting list.”
 

Donation after circulatory death

Australian transplant physicians have pioneered the use of donor hearts obtained after circulatory death in individuals with devastating neurologic injury who didn’t quite meet the criteria for brain death, which is the traditional prerequisite. In the new scenario, withdrawal of life-supporting therapy is followed by circulatory death, then the donor heart is procured and preserved via extracorporeal perfusion until transplantation.

The Australians report excellent outcomes, with rates of overall survival and rejection episodes similar to outcomes from brain-dead donors (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr 2;73[12]:1447-59). The first U.S. heart transplant involving donation after circulatory death took place at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. A multicenter U.S. clinical trial of this practice is underway.

If the results are positive and the practice of donation after circulatory death becomes widely implemented, the U.S. heart donor pool could increase by 30%.
 

Recent overhaul of donor heart allocation system may have backfired

The U.S. donor heart allocation system was redesigned in the fall of 2018 in an effort to reduce waiting times. One of the biggest changes involved breaking down the category with the highest urgency status into three new subcategories based upon sickness. Now, the highest-urgency category is for patients in cardiogenic shock who are supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or other temporary mechanical circulatory support devices.

But an analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data suggests this change has unintended adverse consequences for clinical outcomes.

Indeed, the investigators reported that the use of ECMO support is fourfold greater in the new system, the use of durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to transplant is down, and outcomes are worse. The 180-day rate of freedom from death or retransplantation was 77.9%, down significantly from 93.4% in the former system. In a multivariate analysis, patients transplanted in the new system had an adjusted 2.1-fold increased risk of death or retransplantation (J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020 Jan;39[1]:1-4).

“When you create a new listing system, you create new incentives, and people start to manage patients differently,” Dr. Desai observed. “Increasingly now, the path direct to transplant is through temporary mechanical circulatory support rather than durable mechanical circulatory support. Is that a good idea? We don’t know, but if you look at the best data, those on ECMO or percutaneous VADs have the worst outcomes. So the question of whether we should take the sickest of sick patients directly to transplant as a standard strategy has come under scrutiny.”
 

Improved durable LVAD technology brings impressive clinical outcomes

Results of the landmark MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial showed that 2-year clinical outcomes with the magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 LVAD now rival those of percutaneous mitral valve repair using the MitraClip device. Two-year all-cause mortality in the LVAD recipients was 22% versus 29.1% with the MitraClip in the COAPT trial and 34.9% in the MITRA-FR trial. The HeartMate 3 reduces the hemocompatibility issues that plagued earlier-generation durable LVADs, with resultant lower rates of pump thrombosis, stroke, and GI bleeding. Indeed, the outcomes in MOMENTUM 3 were so good – and so similar – with the HeartMate 3, regardless of whether the intended treatment goal was as a bridge to transplant or as lifelong destination therapy, that the investigators have recently proposed doing away with those distinctions.

“It is possible that use of arbitrary categorizations based on current or future transplant eligibility should be clinically abandoned in favor of a single preimplant strategy: to extend the survival and improve the quality of life of patients with medically refractory heart failure,” according to the investigators (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jan 15. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.5323).

The next step forward in LVAD technology is already on the horizon: a fully implantable device that eliminates the transcutaneous drive-line for the power supply, which is prone to infection and diminishes overall quality of life. This investigational device utilizes wireless coplanar energy transfer, with a coil ring placed around the lung and fixed to the chest wall. The implanted battery provides more than 6 hours of power without a recharge (J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019 Apr;38[4]:339-43).

“The first LVAD patient has gone swimming in Kazakhstan,” according to Dr. Desai.

Myocardial recovery in LVAD recipients remains elusive

The initial hope for LVADs was that they would not only be able to serve as a bridge to transplantation or as lifetime therapy, but that the prolonged unloading of the ventricle would enable potent medical therapy to rescue myocardial function so that the device could eventually be explanted. That does happen, but only rarely. In a large registry study, myocardial recovery occurred in only about 1% of patients on mechanical circulatory support. Attempts to enhance the process by add-on stem cell therapy have thus far been ineffective.

“For the moment, recovery is still a hope, not a reality,” the cardiologist said.

He reported serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical or medical device companies and receiving research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, MyoKardia, and Novartis.

bjancin@mdedge.com
 

SNOWMASS, COLO. – The tragic opioid epidemic has “one small bright spot”: an expanding pool of eligible donor hearts for transplantation, Akshay S. Desai, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

For decades, the annual volume of heart transplantations performed in the U.S. was static because of the huge mismatch between donor organ supply and demand. But heart transplant volume has increased steadily in the last few years – a result of the opioid epidemic.

Data from the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network show that the proportion of donor hearts obtained from individuals who died from drug intoxication climbed from a mere 1.5% in 1999 to 17.6% in 2017, the most recent year for which data are available. Meanwhile, the size of the heart transplant waiting list, which rose year after year in 2009-2015, has since declined (N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380[6]:597-9).

“What’s amazing is that, even though these patients might have historically been considered high risk in general, the organs recovered from these patients – and particularly the hearts – don’t seem to be any worse in terms of allograft survival than the organs recovered from patients who died from other causes, which are the traditional sources, like blunt head trauma, gunshot wounds, or stroke, that lead to brain death. In general, these organs are useful and do quite well,” according to Dr. Desai, medical director of the cardiomyopathy and heart failure program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

He highlighted several other recent developments in the field of cardiac transplantation that promise to further expand the donor heart pool, including acceptance of hepatitis C–infected donors and organ donation after circulatory rather than brain death. Dr. Desai also drew attention to the unintended perverse consequences of a recent redesign of the U.S. donor heart allocation system and discussed the impressive improvement in clinical outcomes with mechanical circulatory support. He noted that, while relatively few cardiologists practice in the highly specialized centers where heart transplants take place, virtually all cardiologists are affected by advances in heart transplantation since hundreds of thousands of the estimated 7 million Americans with heart failure have advanced disease.

Heart transplantation, he emphasized, is becoming increasingly complex. Recipients are on average older, sicker, and have more comorbidities than in times past. As a result, there is greater need for dual organ transplants: heart/lung, heart/liver, or heart/kidney. Plus, more patients come to transplantation after prior cardiac surgery for implantation of a ventricular assist device, so sensitization to blood products is a growing issue. And, of course, the pool of transplant candidates has expanded.

“We’re now forced to take patients previously considered to have contraindications to transplant; for example, diabetes was a contraindication to transplant in the early years, but now it’s the rule in 35%-40% of our patients who present with advanced heart failure,” the cardiologist noted.
 

Transplants from HCV-infected donors to uninfected recipients

Hearts and lungs from donors with hepatitis C viremia were traditionally deemed unsuitable for transplant. That’s all changed in the current era of highly effective direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of HCV infection.

In the DONATE HCV trial, Dr. Desai’s colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital showed that giving HCV-uninfected recipients of hearts or lungs from HCV-viremic donors a shortened 4-week course of treatment with sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (Epclusa) beginning within a few hours after transplantation uniformly blocked viral replication. Six months after transplantation, none of the study participants had a detectable HCV viral load, and all had excellent graft function (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 25;380[17]:1606-17).

“This is effective prevention of HCV infection by aggressive upfront therapy,” Dr. Desai explained. “We can now take organs from HCV-viremic patients and use them in solid organ transplantation. This has led to a skyrocketing increase in donors with HCV infection, and those donations have helped us clear the waiting list.”
 

Donation after circulatory death

Australian transplant physicians have pioneered the use of donor hearts obtained after circulatory death in individuals with devastating neurologic injury who didn’t quite meet the criteria for brain death, which is the traditional prerequisite. In the new scenario, withdrawal of life-supporting therapy is followed by circulatory death, then the donor heart is procured and preserved via extracorporeal perfusion until transplantation.

The Australians report excellent outcomes, with rates of overall survival and rejection episodes similar to outcomes from brain-dead donors (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr 2;73[12]:1447-59). The first U.S. heart transplant involving donation after circulatory death took place at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. A multicenter U.S. clinical trial of this practice is underway.

If the results are positive and the practice of donation after circulatory death becomes widely implemented, the U.S. heart donor pool could increase by 30%.
 

Recent overhaul of donor heart allocation system may have backfired

The U.S. donor heart allocation system was redesigned in the fall of 2018 in an effort to reduce waiting times. One of the biggest changes involved breaking down the category with the highest urgency status into three new subcategories based upon sickness. Now, the highest-urgency category is for patients in cardiogenic shock who are supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or other temporary mechanical circulatory support devices.

But an analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data suggests this change has unintended adverse consequences for clinical outcomes.

Indeed, the investigators reported that the use of ECMO support is fourfold greater in the new system, the use of durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to transplant is down, and outcomes are worse. The 180-day rate of freedom from death or retransplantation was 77.9%, down significantly from 93.4% in the former system. In a multivariate analysis, patients transplanted in the new system had an adjusted 2.1-fold increased risk of death or retransplantation (J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020 Jan;39[1]:1-4).

“When you create a new listing system, you create new incentives, and people start to manage patients differently,” Dr. Desai observed. “Increasingly now, the path direct to transplant is through temporary mechanical circulatory support rather than durable mechanical circulatory support. Is that a good idea? We don’t know, but if you look at the best data, those on ECMO or percutaneous VADs have the worst outcomes. So the question of whether we should take the sickest of sick patients directly to transplant as a standard strategy has come under scrutiny.”
 

Improved durable LVAD technology brings impressive clinical outcomes

Results of the landmark MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial showed that 2-year clinical outcomes with the magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 LVAD now rival those of percutaneous mitral valve repair using the MitraClip device. Two-year all-cause mortality in the LVAD recipients was 22% versus 29.1% with the MitraClip in the COAPT trial and 34.9% in the MITRA-FR trial. The HeartMate 3 reduces the hemocompatibility issues that plagued earlier-generation durable LVADs, with resultant lower rates of pump thrombosis, stroke, and GI bleeding. Indeed, the outcomes in MOMENTUM 3 were so good – and so similar – with the HeartMate 3, regardless of whether the intended treatment goal was as a bridge to transplant or as lifelong destination therapy, that the investigators have recently proposed doing away with those distinctions.

“It is possible that use of arbitrary categorizations based on current or future transplant eligibility should be clinically abandoned in favor of a single preimplant strategy: to extend the survival and improve the quality of life of patients with medically refractory heart failure,” according to the investigators (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jan 15. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.5323).

The next step forward in LVAD technology is already on the horizon: a fully implantable device that eliminates the transcutaneous drive-line for the power supply, which is prone to infection and diminishes overall quality of life. This investigational device utilizes wireless coplanar energy transfer, with a coil ring placed around the lung and fixed to the chest wall. The implanted battery provides more than 6 hours of power without a recharge (J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019 Apr;38[4]:339-43).

“The first LVAD patient has gone swimming in Kazakhstan,” according to Dr. Desai.

Myocardial recovery in LVAD recipients remains elusive

The initial hope for LVADs was that they would not only be able to serve as a bridge to transplantation or as lifetime therapy, but that the prolonged unloading of the ventricle would enable potent medical therapy to rescue myocardial function so that the device could eventually be explanted. That does happen, but only rarely. In a large registry study, myocardial recovery occurred in only about 1% of patients on mechanical circulatory support. Attempts to enhance the process by add-on stem cell therapy have thus far been ineffective.

“For the moment, recovery is still a hope, not a reality,” the cardiologist said.

He reported serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical or medical device companies and receiving research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, MyoKardia, and Novartis.

bjancin@mdedge.com
 

SNOWMASS, COLO. – The tragic opioid epidemic has “one small bright spot”: an expanding pool of eligible donor hearts for transplantation, Akshay S. Desai, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

For decades, the annual volume of heart transplantations performed in the U.S. was static because of the huge mismatch between donor organ supply and demand. But heart transplant volume has increased steadily in the last few years – a result of the opioid epidemic.

Data from the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network show that the proportion of donor hearts obtained from individuals who died from drug intoxication climbed from a mere 1.5% in 1999 to 17.6% in 2017, the most recent year for which data are available. Meanwhile, the size of the heart transplant waiting list, which rose year after year in 2009-2015, has since declined (N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380[6]:597-9).

“What’s amazing is that, even though these patients might have historically been considered high risk in general, the organs recovered from these patients – and particularly the hearts – don’t seem to be any worse in terms of allograft survival than the organs recovered from patients who died from other causes, which are the traditional sources, like blunt head trauma, gunshot wounds, or stroke, that lead to brain death. In general, these organs are useful and do quite well,” according to Dr. Desai, medical director of the cardiomyopathy and heart failure program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

He highlighted several other recent developments in the field of cardiac transplantation that promise to further expand the donor heart pool, including acceptance of hepatitis C–infected donors and organ donation after circulatory rather than brain death. Dr. Desai also drew attention to the unintended perverse consequences of a recent redesign of the U.S. donor heart allocation system and discussed the impressive improvement in clinical outcomes with mechanical circulatory support. He noted that, while relatively few cardiologists practice in the highly specialized centers where heart transplants take place, virtually all cardiologists are affected by advances in heart transplantation since hundreds of thousands of the estimated 7 million Americans with heart failure have advanced disease.

Heart transplantation, he emphasized, is becoming increasingly complex. Recipients are on average older, sicker, and have more comorbidities than in times past. As a result, there is greater need for dual organ transplants: heart/lung, heart/liver, or heart/kidney. Plus, more patients come to transplantation after prior cardiac surgery for implantation of a ventricular assist device, so sensitization to blood products is a growing issue. And, of course, the pool of transplant candidates has expanded.

“We’re now forced to take patients previously considered to have contraindications to transplant; for example, diabetes was a contraindication to transplant in the early years, but now it’s the rule in 35%-40% of our patients who present with advanced heart failure,” the cardiologist noted.
 

Transplants from HCV-infected donors to uninfected recipients

Hearts and lungs from donors with hepatitis C viremia were traditionally deemed unsuitable for transplant. That’s all changed in the current era of highly effective direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of HCV infection.

In the DONATE HCV trial, Dr. Desai’s colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital showed that giving HCV-uninfected recipients of hearts or lungs from HCV-viremic donors a shortened 4-week course of treatment with sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (Epclusa) beginning within a few hours after transplantation uniformly blocked viral replication. Six months after transplantation, none of the study participants had a detectable HCV viral load, and all had excellent graft function (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 25;380[17]:1606-17).

“This is effective prevention of HCV infection by aggressive upfront therapy,” Dr. Desai explained. “We can now take organs from HCV-viremic patients and use them in solid organ transplantation. This has led to a skyrocketing increase in donors with HCV infection, and those donations have helped us clear the waiting list.”
 

Donation after circulatory death

Australian transplant physicians have pioneered the use of donor hearts obtained after circulatory death in individuals with devastating neurologic injury who didn’t quite meet the criteria for brain death, which is the traditional prerequisite. In the new scenario, withdrawal of life-supporting therapy is followed by circulatory death, then the donor heart is procured and preserved via extracorporeal perfusion until transplantation.

The Australians report excellent outcomes, with rates of overall survival and rejection episodes similar to outcomes from brain-dead donors (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr 2;73[12]:1447-59). The first U.S. heart transplant involving donation after circulatory death took place at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. A multicenter U.S. clinical trial of this practice is underway.

If the results are positive and the practice of donation after circulatory death becomes widely implemented, the U.S. heart donor pool could increase by 30%.
 

Recent overhaul of donor heart allocation system may have backfired

The U.S. donor heart allocation system was redesigned in the fall of 2018 in an effort to reduce waiting times. One of the biggest changes involved breaking down the category with the highest urgency status into three new subcategories based upon sickness. Now, the highest-urgency category is for patients in cardiogenic shock who are supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or other temporary mechanical circulatory support devices.

But an analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data suggests this change has unintended adverse consequences for clinical outcomes.

Indeed, the investigators reported that the use of ECMO support is fourfold greater in the new system, the use of durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to transplant is down, and outcomes are worse. The 180-day rate of freedom from death or retransplantation was 77.9%, down significantly from 93.4% in the former system. In a multivariate analysis, patients transplanted in the new system had an adjusted 2.1-fold increased risk of death or retransplantation (J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020 Jan;39[1]:1-4).

“When you create a new listing system, you create new incentives, and people start to manage patients differently,” Dr. Desai observed. “Increasingly now, the path direct to transplant is through temporary mechanical circulatory support rather than durable mechanical circulatory support. Is that a good idea? We don’t know, but if you look at the best data, those on ECMO or percutaneous VADs have the worst outcomes. So the question of whether we should take the sickest of sick patients directly to transplant as a standard strategy has come under scrutiny.”
 

Improved durable LVAD technology brings impressive clinical outcomes

Results of the landmark MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial showed that 2-year clinical outcomes with the magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 LVAD now rival those of percutaneous mitral valve repair using the MitraClip device. Two-year all-cause mortality in the LVAD recipients was 22% versus 29.1% with the MitraClip in the COAPT trial and 34.9% in the MITRA-FR trial. The HeartMate 3 reduces the hemocompatibility issues that plagued earlier-generation durable LVADs, with resultant lower rates of pump thrombosis, stroke, and GI bleeding. Indeed, the outcomes in MOMENTUM 3 were so good – and so similar – with the HeartMate 3, regardless of whether the intended treatment goal was as a bridge to transplant or as lifelong destination therapy, that the investigators have recently proposed doing away with those distinctions.

“It is possible that use of arbitrary categorizations based on current or future transplant eligibility should be clinically abandoned in favor of a single preimplant strategy: to extend the survival and improve the quality of life of patients with medically refractory heart failure,” according to the investigators (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jan 15. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.5323).

The next step forward in LVAD technology is already on the horizon: a fully implantable device that eliminates the transcutaneous drive-line for the power supply, which is prone to infection and diminishes overall quality of life. This investigational device utilizes wireless coplanar energy transfer, with a coil ring placed around the lung and fixed to the chest wall. The implanted battery provides more than 6 hours of power without a recharge (J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019 Apr;38[4]:339-43).

“The first LVAD patient has gone swimming in Kazakhstan,” according to Dr. Desai.

Myocardial recovery in LVAD recipients remains elusive

The initial hope for LVADs was that they would not only be able to serve as a bridge to transplantation or as lifetime therapy, but that the prolonged unloading of the ventricle would enable potent medical therapy to rescue myocardial function so that the device could eventually be explanted. That does happen, but only rarely. In a large registry study, myocardial recovery occurred in only about 1% of patients on mechanical circulatory support. Attempts to enhance the process by add-on stem cell therapy have thus far been ineffective.

“For the moment, recovery is still a hope, not a reality,” the cardiologist said.

He reported serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical or medical device companies and receiving research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, MyoKardia, and Novartis.

bjancin@mdedge.com
 

With recent developments in many U.S. states regarding legalization of cannabis for medicinal or recreational use, there is an emerging need to better understand the risks or safety of its use during pregnancy and lactation. National survey data from 2007-2012 of more than 93,000 pregnant women suggest that around 7% of pregnant respondents reported any cannabis use in the last 2-12 months; of those, 16% reported daily or almost daily use. Among pregnant past-year users in the same survey, 70% perceived slight or no risk of harm from cannabis use 1-2 times a week in pregnancy.¹

Data from the Kaiser Northern California health plan involving more than 279,000 pregnancies followed during 2009-2016 suggest that there has been a significant upward trend in use of cannabis during pregnancy, from 4% to 7%, as reported by the mother and/or identified by routine urine screening. The highest prevalence in that study was seen among 18- to 24-year-old pregnant women, increasing from 13% to 22% over the 7-year study period. Importantly, more than 50% of cannabis users in the sample were identified by toxicology screening alone.^2,3 Common reasons given for use of cannabis in pregnancy include anxiety, pain, and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.⁴

With respect to adverse perinatal outcomes, several case-control studies have examined risks for major birth defects with maternal self-report of cannabis use. Some have noted very modest increased risks for selected major birth defects (odds ratios less than 2); however, data still are very limited.^5,6

A number of prospective studies have addressed risks of preterm birth and growth restriction, accounting for mother’s concomitant tobacco use.^7-11 Some of these studies have suggested about a twofold to threefold increased risk for preterm delivery and an increased risk for reduced birth weight – particularly with heavier or regular cannabis use – but study findings have not been entirely consistent.

Given its psychoactive properties, there has been high interest in understanding whether there are any short- or long-term neurodevelopmental effects on children prenatally exposed to cannabis. These outcomes have been studied in two small older cohorts in the United States and Canada and one more recent cohort in the Netherlands.^12-15 Deficits in several measures of cognition and behavior were noted in follow-up of those children from birth to adulthood. However, it is unclear to what extent these findings may have been influenced by heredity, environment, or other factors.

There have been limitations in almost all studies published to date, including small sample sizes, no biomarker validation of maternal report of dose and gestational timing of cannabis use, and lack of detailed data on common coexposures, such as alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In addition, newer studies of pregnancy outcomes in women who use currently available cannabis products are needed, given the substantial increase in the potency of cannabis used today, compared with that of 20 years ago. For example, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration in commonly cultivated marijuana plants has increased threefold from 4% to 12% between 1995 and 2014.¹⁶

There are very limited data on the presence of cannabis in breast milk and the potential effects of exposure to THC and other metabolites for breastfed infants. However, two recent studies have demonstrated there are low but measurable levels of some cannabis metabolites in breast milk.^17-18 Further work is needed to determine if these metabolites accumulate in milk and if at a given dose and age of the breastfed infant, there are any growth, neurodevelopmental, or other clinically important adverse effects.

Related questions, such as potential differences in the effects of exposure during pregnancy or lactation based on the route of administration (edible vs. inhaled) and the use of cannabidiol (CBD) products, have not been studied.

At the present time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use. With respect to lactation and breastfeeding, ACOG concludes there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects on infants, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women of childbearing age abstain from marijuana use while pregnant or breastfeeding because of potential adverse consequences to the fetus, infant, or child.

In August 2019, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory regarding potential harm to developing brains from the use of marijuana during pregnancy and lactation. The Food and Drug Administration issued a similar statement in October 2019 strongly advising against the use of CBD, THC, and marijuana in any form during pregnancy or while breastfeeding.
 

Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society.

References

1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):201.e1-10.

2. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2490-1.

3. JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):207-9.

4. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;15(4)242-6.

5. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Sep; 28(5): 424-33.

6. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 Jan;70(1):7-18.

7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):992-4.

8. Clin Perinatol. 1991 Mar;18(1):77-91.

9. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Dec;124(6):986-93.

10. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):215-9.

11. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;62:77-86.

12. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1987 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7.

13. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):169-75.

14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):971-9.

15. Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;182:133-51.

16. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;79(7):613-9.

17. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):783-8.

18. Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):e20181076.

With recent developments in many U.S. states regarding legalization of cannabis for medicinal or recreational use, there is an emerging need to better understand the risks or safety of its use during pregnancy and lactation. National survey data from 2007-2012 of more than 93,000 pregnant women suggest that around 7% of pregnant respondents reported any cannabis use in the last 2-12 months; of those, 16% reported daily or almost daily use. Among pregnant past-year users in the same survey, 70% perceived slight or no risk of harm from cannabis use 1-2 times a week in pregnancy.¹

Data from the Kaiser Northern California health plan involving more than 279,000 pregnancies followed during 2009-2016 suggest that there has been a significant upward trend in use of cannabis during pregnancy, from 4% to 7%, as reported by the mother and/or identified by routine urine screening. The highest prevalence in that study was seen among 18- to 24-year-old pregnant women, increasing from 13% to 22% over the 7-year study period. Importantly, more than 50% of cannabis users in the sample were identified by toxicology screening alone.^2,3 Common reasons given for use of cannabis in pregnancy include anxiety, pain, and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.⁴

With respect to adverse perinatal outcomes, several case-control studies have examined risks for major birth defects with maternal self-report of cannabis use. Some have noted very modest increased risks for selected major birth defects (odds ratios less than 2); however, data still are very limited.^5,6

A number of prospective studies have addressed risks of preterm birth and growth restriction, accounting for mother’s concomitant tobacco use.^7-11 Some of these studies have suggested about a twofold to threefold increased risk for preterm delivery and an increased risk for reduced birth weight – particularly with heavier or regular cannabis use – but study findings have not been entirely consistent.

Given its psychoactive properties, there has been high interest in understanding whether there are any short- or long-term neurodevelopmental effects on children prenatally exposed to cannabis. These outcomes have been studied in two small older cohorts in the United States and Canada and one more recent cohort in the Netherlands.^12-15 Deficits in several measures of cognition and behavior were noted in follow-up of those children from birth to adulthood. However, it is unclear to what extent these findings may have been influenced by heredity, environment, or other factors.

There have been limitations in almost all studies published to date, including small sample sizes, no biomarker validation of maternal report of dose and gestational timing of cannabis use, and lack of detailed data on common coexposures, such as alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In addition, newer studies of pregnancy outcomes in women who use currently available cannabis products are needed, given the substantial increase in the potency of cannabis used today, compared with that of 20 years ago. For example, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration in commonly cultivated marijuana plants has increased threefold from 4% to 12% between 1995 and 2014.¹⁶

There are very limited data on the presence of cannabis in breast milk and the potential effects of exposure to THC and other metabolites for breastfed infants. However, two recent studies have demonstrated there are low but measurable levels of some cannabis metabolites in breast milk.^17-18 Further work is needed to determine if these metabolites accumulate in milk and if at a given dose and age of the breastfed infant, there are any growth, neurodevelopmental, or other clinically important adverse effects.

Related questions, such as potential differences in the effects of exposure during pregnancy or lactation based on the route of administration (edible vs. inhaled) and the use of cannabidiol (CBD) products, have not been studied.

At the present time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use. With respect to lactation and breastfeeding, ACOG concludes there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects on infants, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women of childbearing age abstain from marijuana use while pregnant or breastfeeding because of potential adverse consequences to the fetus, infant, or child.

In August 2019, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory regarding potential harm to developing brains from the use of marijuana during pregnancy and lactation. The Food and Drug Administration issued a similar statement in October 2019 strongly advising against the use of CBD, THC, and marijuana in any form during pregnancy or while breastfeeding.
 

Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society.

References

1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):201.e1-10.

2. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2490-1.

3. JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):207-9.

4. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;15(4)242-6.

5. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Sep; 28(5): 424-33.

6. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 Jan;70(1):7-18.

7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):992-4.

8. Clin Perinatol. 1991 Mar;18(1):77-91.

9. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Dec;124(6):986-93.

10. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):215-9.

11. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;62:77-86.

12. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1987 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7.

13. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):169-75.

14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):971-9.

15. Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;182:133-51.

16. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;79(7):613-9.

17. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):783-8.

18. Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):e20181076.

With recent developments in many U.S. states regarding legalization of cannabis for medicinal or recreational use, there is an emerging need to better understand the risks or safety of its use during pregnancy and lactation. National survey data from 2007-2012 of more than 93,000 pregnant women suggest that around 7% of pregnant respondents reported any cannabis use in the last 2-12 months; of those, 16% reported daily or almost daily use. Among pregnant past-year users in the same survey, 70% perceived slight or no risk of harm from cannabis use 1-2 times a week in pregnancy.¹

Data from the Kaiser Northern California health plan involving more than 279,000 pregnancies followed during 2009-2016 suggest that there has been a significant upward trend in use of cannabis during pregnancy, from 4% to 7%, as reported by the mother and/or identified by routine urine screening. The highest prevalence in that study was seen among 18- to 24-year-old pregnant women, increasing from 13% to 22% over the 7-year study period. Importantly, more than 50% of cannabis users in the sample were identified by toxicology screening alone.^2,3 Common reasons given for use of cannabis in pregnancy include anxiety, pain, and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.⁴

With respect to adverse perinatal outcomes, several case-control studies have examined risks for major birth defects with maternal self-report of cannabis use. Some have noted very modest increased risks for selected major birth defects (odds ratios less than 2); however, data still are very limited.^5,6

A number of prospective studies have addressed risks of preterm birth and growth restriction, accounting for mother’s concomitant tobacco use.^7-11 Some of these studies have suggested about a twofold to threefold increased risk for preterm delivery and an increased risk for reduced birth weight – particularly with heavier or regular cannabis use – but study findings have not been entirely consistent.

Given its psychoactive properties, there has been high interest in understanding whether there are any short- or long-term neurodevelopmental effects on children prenatally exposed to cannabis. These outcomes have been studied in two small older cohorts in the United States and Canada and one more recent cohort in the Netherlands.^12-15 Deficits in several measures of cognition and behavior were noted in follow-up of those children from birth to adulthood. However, it is unclear to what extent these findings may have been influenced by heredity, environment, or other factors.

There have been limitations in almost all studies published to date, including small sample sizes, no biomarker validation of maternal report of dose and gestational timing of cannabis use, and lack of detailed data on common coexposures, such as alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In addition, newer studies of pregnancy outcomes in women who use currently available cannabis products are needed, given the substantial increase in the potency of cannabis used today, compared with that of 20 years ago. For example, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration in commonly cultivated marijuana plants has increased threefold from 4% to 12% between 1995 and 2014.¹⁶

There are very limited data on the presence of cannabis in breast milk and the potential effects of exposure to THC and other metabolites for breastfed infants. However, two recent studies have demonstrated there are low but measurable levels of some cannabis metabolites in breast milk.^17-18 Further work is needed to determine if these metabolites accumulate in milk and if at a given dose and age of the breastfed infant, there are any growth, neurodevelopmental, or other clinically important adverse effects.

Related questions, such as potential differences in the effects of exposure during pregnancy or lactation based on the route of administration (edible vs. inhaled) and the use of cannabidiol (CBD) products, have not been studied.

At the present time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use. With respect to lactation and breastfeeding, ACOG concludes there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects on infants, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women of childbearing age abstain from marijuana use while pregnant or breastfeeding because of potential adverse consequences to the fetus, infant, or child.

In August 2019, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory regarding potential harm to developing brains from the use of marijuana during pregnancy and lactation. The Food and Drug Administration issued a similar statement in October 2019 strongly advising against the use of CBD, THC, and marijuana in any form during pregnancy or while breastfeeding.
 

Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society.

References

1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):201.e1-10.

2. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2490-1.

3. JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):207-9.

4. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;15(4)242-6.

5. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Sep; 28(5): 424-33.

6. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 Jan;70(1):7-18.

7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):992-4.

8. Clin Perinatol. 1991 Mar;18(1):77-91.

9. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Dec;124(6):986-93.

10. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):215-9.

11. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;62:77-86.

12. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1987 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7.

13. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):169-75.

14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):971-9.

15. Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;182:133-51.

16. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;79(7):613-9.

17. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):783-8.

18. Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):e20181076.

A report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirms that 82% of patients presenting with e-cigarette– or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) used products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

Another report published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report assessed cases in which the patients reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products.

“As of Jan. 14, 2020, a total of 2,668 hospitalized EVALI cases had been reported to CDC,” based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP), wrote Vikram P. Krishnasamy, MD, of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta, and colleagues. Cases have occurred in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The age of the patients ranged from 13 to 85 years, with an average age of 24 years; 66% were male, and 73% were non-Hispanic white.

Of the 82% of patients who reported using a THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping product, 33% reported only THC-containing product use. In addition, 57% of the patients reported using any nicotine-containing product, and 14% of these reported use of nicotine products exclusively.

Previous studies have shown that vitamin E acetate is associated with the EVALI outbreak, which peaked during the week of Sept. 15, 2019, with 215 reported hospital admissions, Dr. Krishnasamy and associates noted. “However, evidence is not sufficient to rule out the contribution of other chemicals of concern, including chemicals in either THC- or non-THC–containing products, in some reported EVALI cases,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including incomplete data on product use, increased reporting of vaping product use at emergency department visits after increased public awareness of risk, and inconsistency in the health care facilities contributing data via the NSSP, the researchers wrote.

The decline in EVALI cases since September 2019 may be related to factors including the rapid public health response to increase awareness of the risks of vaping, and the possible removal of vitamin E acetate as a diluent in THC-containing products, but clinicians and public health professionals should remain on alert for new EVALI cases and continue to discourage the use of THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping products, Dr. Krishnasamy and associates concluded.

Nicotine-only vaping products

In a second report published in MMWR, Isaac Ghinai, MBBS, of the Illinois Department of Public Health and CDC researchers examined characteristics of EVALI patients in Illinois who reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products.

A total of 9 of 121 (7%) EVALI patients surveyed in Illinois reported no indication of THC use. These patients were more likely than those who reported any use of THC-containing products to be female (78% vs. 25%) and aged 45 years and older (33% vs. 2%); P less than .01 in both cases.

In addition, EVALI patients with no indication of THC-containing product use were less likely than THC product users to present with constitutional symptoms (56% vs. 96%) or initial leukocytosis (38% vs. 91%), or to have previously visited an outpatient provider or ED before being hospitalized (25% vs. 80%).

Other presenting characteristics including initial vital signs and lab results, as well as the frequency of severe outcomes such as death or respiratory failure, were not significantly different between users and nonusers of THC-containing vaping products.

The study findings were limited by factors including the use of self-reports, the small sample size, and lack of initial and follow-up interviews for all EVALI patients, the researchers noted. However, the results support the CDC’s recommendation that “persons should not use THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly those obtained from informal sources such as friends, family members, or from in-person or online dealers,” and should not add vitamin E acetate or other substances to these products, they said.

In addition, users of nicotine-containing e-cigarette or vaping products as an alternative to cigarettes should not return to cigarettes, but should explore other options to help them quit, Dr. Ghinai, and associates said.

The studies were supported by the CDC. The researchers in both studies had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Krishnasamy VP et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 17 Jan 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6903e2; Ghinai I et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 17 Jan 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6903e1.

A report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirms that 82% of patients presenting with e-cigarette– or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) used products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

Another report published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report assessed cases in which the patients reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products.

“As of Jan. 14, 2020, a total of 2,668 hospitalized EVALI cases had been reported to CDC,” based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP), wrote Vikram P. Krishnasamy, MD, of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta, and colleagues. Cases have occurred in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The age of the patients ranged from 13 to 85 years, with an average age of 24 years; 66% were male, and 73% were non-Hispanic white.

Of the 82% of patients who reported using a THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping product, 33% reported only THC-containing product use. In addition, 57% of the patients reported using any nicotine-containing product, and 14% of these reported use of nicotine products exclusively.

Previous studies have shown that vitamin E acetate is associated with the EVALI outbreak, which peaked during the week of Sept. 15, 2019, with 215 reported hospital admissions, Dr. Krishnasamy and associates noted. “However, evidence is not sufficient to rule out the contribution of other chemicals of concern, including chemicals in either THC- or non-THC–containing products, in some reported EVALI cases,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including incomplete data on product use, increased reporting of vaping product use at emergency department visits after increased public awareness of risk, and inconsistency in the health care facilities contributing data via the NSSP, the researchers wrote.

The decline in EVALI cases since September 2019 may be related to factors including the rapid public health response to increase awareness of the risks of vaping, and the possible removal of vitamin E acetate as a diluent in THC-containing products, but clinicians and public health professionals should remain on alert for new EVALI cases and continue to discourage the use of THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping products, Dr. Krishnasamy and associates concluded.

Nicotine-only vaping products

In a second report published in MMWR, Isaac Ghinai, MBBS, of the Illinois Department of Public Health and CDC researchers examined characteristics of EVALI patients in Illinois who reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products.

A total of 9 of 121 (7%) EVALI patients surveyed in Illinois reported no indication of THC use. These patients were more likely than those who reported any use of THC-containing products to be female (78% vs. 25%) and aged 45 years and older (33% vs. 2%); P less than .01 in both cases.

In addition, EVALI patients with no indication of THC-containing product use were less likely than THC product users to present with constitutional symptoms (56% vs. 96%) or initial leukocytosis (38% vs. 91%), or to have previously visited an outpatient provider or ED before being hospitalized (25% vs. 80%).

Other presenting characteristics including initial vital signs and lab results, as well as the frequency of severe outcomes such as death or respiratory failure, were not significantly different between users and nonusers of THC-containing vaping products.

The study findings were limited by factors including the use of self-reports, the small sample size, and lack of initial and follow-up interviews for all EVALI patients, the researchers noted. However, the results support the CDC’s recommendation that “persons should not use THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly those obtained from informal sources such as friends, family members, or from in-person or online dealers,” and should not add vitamin E acetate or other substances to these products, they said.

In addition, users of nicotine-containing e-cigarette or vaping products as an alternative to cigarettes should not return to cigarettes, but should explore other options to help them quit, Dr. Ghinai, and associates said.

The studies were supported by the CDC. The researchers in both studies had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Krishnasamy VP et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 17 Jan 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6903e2; Ghinai I et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 17 Jan 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6903e1.

A report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirms that 82% of patients presenting with e-cigarette– or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) used products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

Another report published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report assessed cases in which the patients reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products.

“As of Jan. 14, 2020, a total of 2,668 hospitalized EVALI cases had been reported to CDC,” based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP), wrote Vikram P. Krishnasamy, MD, of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta, and colleagues. Cases have occurred in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The age of the patients ranged from 13 to 85 years, with an average age of 24 years; 66% were male, and 73% were non-Hispanic white.

Of the 82% of patients who reported using a THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping product, 33% reported only THC-containing product use. In addition, 57% of the patients reported using any nicotine-containing product, and 14% of these reported use of nicotine products exclusively.

Previous studies have shown that vitamin E acetate is associated with the EVALI outbreak, which peaked during the week of Sept. 15, 2019, with 215 reported hospital admissions, Dr. Krishnasamy and associates noted. “However, evidence is not sufficient to rule out the contribution of other chemicals of concern, including chemicals in either THC- or non-THC–containing products, in some reported EVALI cases,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including incomplete data on product use, increased reporting of vaping product use at emergency department visits after increased public awareness of risk, and inconsistency in the health care facilities contributing data via the NSSP, the researchers wrote.

The decline in EVALI cases since September 2019 may be related to factors including the rapid public health response to increase awareness of the risks of vaping, and the possible removal of vitamin E acetate as a diluent in THC-containing products, but clinicians and public health professionals should remain on alert for new EVALI cases and continue to discourage the use of THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping products, Dr. Krishnasamy and associates concluded.

Nicotine-only vaping products

In a second report published in MMWR, Isaac Ghinai, MBBS, of the Illinois Department of Public Health and CDC researchers examined characteristics of EVALI patients in Illinois who reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products.

A total of 9 of 121 (7%) EVALI patients surveyed in Illinois reported no indication of THC use. These patients were more likely than those who reported any use of THC-containing products to be female (78% vs. 25%) and aged 45 years and older (33% vs. 2%); P less than .01 in both cases.

In addition, EVALI patients with no indication of THC-containing product use were less likely than THC product users to present with constitutional symptoms (56% vs. 96%) or initial leukocytosis (38% vs. 91%), or to have previously visited an outpatient provider or ED before being hospitalized (25% vs. 80%).

Other presenting characteristics including initial vital signs and lab results, as well as the frequency of severe outcomes such as death or respiratory failure, were not significantly different between users and nonusers of THC-containing vaping products.

The study findings were limited by factors including the use of self-reports, the small sample size, and lack of initial and follow-up interviews for all EVALI patients, the researchers noted. However, the results support the CDC’s recommendation that “persons should not use THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly those obtained from informal sources such as friends, family members, or from in-person or online dealers,” and should not add vitamin E acetate or other substances to these products, they said.

In addition, users of nicotine-containing e-cigarette or vaping products as an alternative to cigarettes should not return to cigarettes, but should explore other options to help them quit, Dr. Ghinai, and associates said.

The studies were supported by the CDC. The researchers in both studies had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Krishnasamy VP et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 17 Jan 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6903e2; Ghinai I et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 17 Jan 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6903e1.

The U.S. Surgeon General is calling on all physicians to help patients stop smoking, noting that two-thirds of adult smokers say they want to quit, but only 40% report that their doctor has advised them to stop.

“I’ve got to own this as the nation’s doctor, and our health providers in this room and in this country need to own this stat,” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, at a press briefing releasing a new report on smoking cessation.

“Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disease, and disability in the United States,” he said. “So why are 40% of our health providers out there not advising smokers to quit when they come in?”

In the first U.S. Surgeon General report on smoking cessation in 30 years, the 700-page report suggests smoking cessation-related quality measures that include physician reimbursement would increase treatment.

The evidence also suggests that using electronic health records to prompt clinicians to inquire about smoking would increase cessation treatment.

EHRs could be used to “empower and enable” physicians to advise people to quit, said Dr. Adams. Physicians also need “the education and the confidence to be able to have that conversation, because too many of them look at someone and say: ‘Nope, too hard, too much effort, no, that’s not what they’re here for today,’ ” he said.

However, “simply asking, advising, and referring can be enough to get someone on the pathway to quitting,” Dr. Adams said.
 

34 million still smoke

The new report is the first on the topic released since 1990, and the 34th on tobacco control since the first one was issued in 1964, said Dr. Adams. Since that first report, adult smoking has declined 70%, but some 34 million Americans (14%) still smoke, he said.

In addition, Dr. Adams said that many subpopulations have been left behind, noting: “Cigarette smoking remains highest among LGBTQ adults, people with disabilities or limitations, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and people with mental health conditions or substance use disorders.”

He also noted that 40% of cigarettes are consumed by those with a mental illness or a substance use disorder.

Quitting is beneficial at any age and can add as much as a decade to life expectancy, the report notes. Quitting also reduces the risk of 12 cancers, cuts the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and reduces cardiovascular and stroke morbidity and mortality.

Pregnant women who quit also reduce their own morbidity and mortality risk and that of unborn children and infants, the report says.

“We know more about the science of quitting than ever before. We can, and must, do more to ensure that evidence-based cessation treatments are reaching the people that need them,” said Dr. Adams.

Less than one-third of those who have quit have used Food and Drug Administration–approved cessation medications or behavioral counseling, Dr. Adams said.
 

Barriers to care

Despite the existence of five nicotine replacement therapies and two nonnicotine oral medications, and more widespread availability of proven counseling methods – including web- or text-based programs – barriers to access remain.

These include a lack of insurance coverage for comprehensive, evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, which, when offered, increases availability and use.

“These are cost-effective interventions,” said Dr. Adams. “It’s penny wise and pound foolish to not give someone access to what we know works,” he said.

Because of the diversity of e-cigarette products and the variety of ways they are used, coupled with little research, it’s not currently possible to determine whether they are, or are not, useful smoking cessation tools, the report notes.

However, experts who compiled the report found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes containing nicotine may be “associated with increased smoking cessation compared with the use of e-cigarettes not containing nicotine.”

Asked whether the report’s conclusions might be interpreted as supportive of e-cigarettes, Dr. Adams said the report focused on smoking cessation, not initiation.

“I’m terribly concerned about the clear data that shows youth are initiating tobacco product use with e-cigarettes,” he said.

The Trump administration’s current proposal to partially restrict sales of some flavored e-cigarettes “reflects the science,” and “a balance between a desire to really make sure that people aren’t initiating with these products, but also a desire to again try to maintain a pathway for adults who want to use these products to quit to use them,” Dr. Adams said.

The focus, said Dr. Adams, should not be on e-cigarettes and whether they do, or do not, work.

“People want to quit,” he said. “We know what works. Not enough of them are getting it, and there are terrible disparities in who is and who is not getting access to effective and evidence-based treatment – that’s the story here.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Surgeon General is calling on all physicians to help patients stop smoking, noting that two-thirds of adult smokers say they want to quit, but only 40% report that their doctor has advised them to stop.

“I’ve got to own this as the nation’s doctor, and our health providers in this room and in this country need to own this stat,” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, at a press briefing releasing a new report on smoking cessation.

“Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disease, and disability in the United States,” he said. “So why are 40% of our health providers out there not advising smokers to quit when they come in?”

In the first U.S. Surgeon General report on smoking cessation in 30 years, the 700-page report suggests smoking cessation-related quality measures that include physician reimbursement would increase treatment.

The evidence also suggests that using electronic health records to prompt clinicians to inquire about smoking would increase cessation treatment.

EHRs could be used to “empower and enable” physicians to advise people to quit, said Dr. Adams. Physicians also need “the education and the confidence to be able to have that conversation, because too many of them look at someone and say: ‘Nope, too hard, too much effort, no, that’s not what they’re here for today,’ ” he said.

However, “simply asking, advising, and referring can be enough to get someone on the pathway to quitting,” Dr. Adams said.
 

34 million still smoke

The new report is the first on the topic released since 1990, and the 34th on tobacco control since the first one was issued in 1964, said Dr. Adams. Since that first report, adult smoking has declined 70%, but some 34 million Americans (14%) still smoke, he said.

In addition, Dr. Adams said that many subpopulations have been left behind, noting: “Cigarette smoking remains highest among LGBTQ adults, people with disabilities or limitations, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and people with mental health conditions or substance use disorders.”

He also noted that 40% of cigarettes are consumed by those with a mental illness or a substance use disorder.

Quitting is beneficial at any age and can add as much as a decade to life expectancy, the report notes. Quitting also reduces the risk of 12 cancers, cuts the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and reduces cardiovascular and stroke morbidity and mortality.

Pregnant women who quit also reduce their own morbidity and mortality risk and that of unborn children and infants, the report says.

“We know more about the science of quitting than ever before. We can, and must, do more to ensure that evidence-based cessation treatments are reaching the people that need them,” said Dr. Adams.

Less than one-third of those who have quit have used Food and Drug Administration–approved cessation medications or behavioral counseling, Dr. Adams said.
 

Barriers to care

Despite the existence of five nicotine replacement therapies and two nonnicotine oral medications, and more widespread availability of proven counseling methods – including web- or text-based programs – barriers to access remain.

These include a lack of insurance coverage for comprehensive, evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, which, when offered, increases availability and use.

“These are cost-effective interventions,” said Dr. Adams. “It’s penny wise and pound foolish to not give someone access to what we know works,” he said.

Because of the diversity of e-cigarette products and the variety of ways they are used, coupled with little research, it’s not currently possible to determine whether they are, or are not, useful smoking cessation tools, the report notes.

However, experts who compiled the report found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes containing nicotine may be “associated with increased smoking cessation compared with the use of e-cigarettes not containing nicotine.”

Asked whether the report’s conclusions might be interpreted as supportive of e-cigarettes, Dr. Adams said the report focused on smoking cessation, not initiation.

“I’m terribly concerned about the clear data that shows youth are initiating tobacco product use with e-cigarettes,” he said.

The Trump administration’s current proposal to partially restrict sales of some flavored e-cigarettes “reflects the science,” and “a balance between a desire to really make sure that people aren’t initiating with these products, but also a desire to again try to maintain a pathway for adults who want to use these products to quit to use them,” Dr. Adams said.

The focus, said Dr. Adams, should not be on e-cigarettes and whether they do, or do not, work.

“People want to quit,” he said. “We know what works. Not enough of them are getting it, and there are terrible disparities in who is and who is not getting access to effective and evidence-based treatment – that’s the story here.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Surgeon General is calling on all physicians to help patients stop smoking, noting that two-thirds of adult smokers say they want to quit, but only 40% report that their doctor has advised them to stop.

“I’ve got to own this as the nation’s doctor, and our health providers in this room and in this country need to own this stat,” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, at a press briefing releasing a new report on smoking cessation.

“Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disease, and disability in the United States,” he said. “So why are 40% of our health providers out there not advising smokers to quit when they come in?”

In the first U.S. Surgeon General report on smoking cessation in 30 years, the 700-page report suggests smoking cessation-related quality measures that include physician reimbursement would increase treatment.

The evidence also suggests that using electronic health records to prompt clinicians to inquire about smoking would increase cessation treatment.

EHRs could be used to “empower and enable” physicians to advise people to quit, said Dr. Adams. Physicians also need “the education and the confidence to be able to have that conversation, because too many of them look at someone and say: ‘Nope, too hard, too much effort, no, that’s not what they’re here for today,’ ” he said.

However, “simply asking, advising, and referring can be enough to get someone on the pathway to quitting,” Dr. Adams said.
 

34 million still smoke

The new report is the first on the topic released since 1990, and the 34th on tobacco control since the first one was issued in 1964, said Dr. Adams. Since that first report, adult smoking has declined 70%, but some 34 million Americans (14%) still smoke, he said.

In addition, Dr. Adams said that many subpopulations have been left behind, noting: “Cigarette smoking remains highest among LGBTQ adults, people with disabilities or limitations, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and people with mental health conditions or substance use disorders.”

He also noted that 40% of cigarettes are consumed by those with a mental illness or a substance use disorder.

Quitting is beneficial at any age and can add as much as a decade to life expectancy, the report notes. Quitting also reduces the risk of 12 cancers, cuts the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and reduces cardiovascular and stroke morbidity and mortality.

Pregnant women who quit also reduce their own morbidity and mortality risk and that of unborn children and infants, the report says.

“We know more about the science of quitting than ever before. We can, and must, do more to ensure that evidence-based cessation treatments are reaching the people that need them,” said Dr. Adams.

Less than one-third of those who have quit have used Food and Drug Administration–approved cessation medications or behavioral counseling, Dr. Adams said.
 

Barriers to care

Despite the existence of five nicotine replacement therapies and two nonnicotine oral medications, and more widespread availability of proven counseling methods – including web- or text-based programs – barriers to access remain.

These include a lack of insurance coverage for comprehensive, evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, which, when offered, increases availability and use.

“These are cost-effective interventions,” said Dr. Adams. “It’s penny wise and pound foolish to not give someone access to what we know works,” he said.

Because of the diversity of e-cigarette products and the variety of ways they are used, coupled with little research, it’s not currently possible to determine whether they are, or are not, useful smoking cessation tools, the report notes.

However, experts who compiled the report found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes containing nicotine may be “associated with increased smoking cessation compared with the use of e-cigarettes not containing nicotine.”

Asked whether the report’s conclusions might be interpreted as supportive of e-cigarettes, Dr. Adams said the report focused on smoking cessation, not initiation.

“I’m terribly concerned about the clear data that shows youth are initiating tobacco product use with e-cigarettes,” he said.

The Trump administration’s current proposal to partially restrict sales of some flavored e-cigarettes “reflects the science,” and “a balance between a desire to really make sure that people aren’t initiating with these products, but also a desire to again try to maintain a pathway for adults who want to use these products to quit to use them,” Dr. Adams said.

The focus, said Dr. Adams, should not be on e-cigarettes and whether they do, or do not, work.

“People want to quit,” he said. “We know what works. Not enough of them are getting it, and there are terrible disparities in who is and who is not getting access to effective and evidence-based treatment – that’s the story here.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

At every swipe through my social media feeds, I’m greeted with another topic that has advocates clustered at the extremes. People align, and they align quickly in our strangely polarized world in which anyone who might sit in the middle lies low.

It seems we’re divided: On the left you are a CNN fan or you’re one of those soulless monsters who tunes in to Fox News. You’re pro-life or you’re a baby killer, advocating for late-term abortions or even the execution of live infants. When it comes to firearm regulation, one side says you’re a threat to the Constitution, while the other says that those opposed are responsible for the death of every person who was ever the victim of a discharged firearm. And those who feel strongly about a given topic often justify their attacks on those who disagree. Psychiatry is no stranger to this thinking, and we are the only medical specialty with organized “antipsychiatry” groups who oppose our work. I have been a bit surprised, however, that the topic of suicide prevention is one that has us divided within our own specialty.

Amy Barnhorst, MD, is a psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The empty promise of suicide prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little serotonin,” an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 26, 2019. Dr. Barnhorst began her essay with the story of a patient who was hospitalized after a relative realized she was planning her suicide. That story had an ending that psychiatrists relish: A person with previously unrecognized and untreated bipolar disorder received care, including medication, and got better. This suicide was preventable, a life was saved, and this story followed a model we all hope is being replicated over and over.

Dr. Barnhorst went on to say that this was an outlier in her career, that most of the suicidal patients she sees are impoverished, homeless, addicted, and she wrote about how little the treatment setting has to offer: The idea that a pill would fix these problems is almost laughable. She suggests that there is more to suicide prevention than identifying prospective patients and getting them acute psychiatric care.

The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.

We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem – poverty, homelessness, and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime, and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training, and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.

Psychological autopsies done after suicides have indicated that more than 90% of people who die from suicide suffered from a mental illness, yet 54% of those who ended their own lives had never received a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a hopefulness that, if only we had more – more services, more therapy, more medication – then we could prevent suicide. Unfortunately, this line of thinking, with a “Zero Suicide” initiative, points a finger at those who survive: Suicide is preventable, so someone is to blame, if not a family member for missing the warning signs then the clinician who offered treatment that wasn’t good enough.

Along this line, the New York Times printed another opinion piece on Jan. 6 by Richard A. Friedman, MD, titled, “Why are young Americans killing themselves?” Dr. Friedman’s conclusion was more along the psychiatrist party line: “The good news is that we don’t have to wait for all the answers to know what to do. We know that various psychotherapies and medication are highly effective in treating depression. We just need to do a better job of identifying, reaching out to and providing resources for at-risk youths.”

Dr. Friedman goes on to propose universal screening at school, among other measures to identify those at risk. It is no surprise that Dr. Friedman’s article had more than 1,700 comments before commenting was closed by the Times. I have written about the pros and cons of screening adolescents for depression in a primary care setting, so putting the responsibility of identifying suicidal teenagers on school teachers seems like an ominous responsibility to add to a teacher’s obligations.

I did not read Dr. Barnhorst’s earlier op-ed piece as a condemnation of psychiatric care, but rather as a call to action and a reality check on the idea that psychiatry is the only answer to our suicide epidemic. More people than ever get treatment – from psychiatrists, from primary care doctors, from nonphysician prescribing clinicians, and from so many varieties of psychotherapists, and yet our suicide rates continue to rise.

In a post on the Psychology Today website, Sara Gorman, PhD, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, discussed Dr. Barnhorst’s article. “In the process of making her point, Barnhorst also manages to seriously trivialize the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression and to imply that, given societal woes, there isn’t much we can do to try to prevent suicides – aside from limiting access to lethal means,” they wrote.

The Gormans were not alone in their objections; the day after the op-ed appeared in the New York Times, a well-respected psychiatry department chairman took on not just the content of the op-ed, but also the author, in his Twitter feed. He wrote, “@amybarnhorst doesn’t read scientific literature or skipped training. this article is wrong. #suicide is largely preventable, if proper measures taken n Rx provided. @nytimes please vet authors better @APAPsychiatric.” Dr. Barnhorst, also a voice on Twitter, added the wry response, “I skipped training.” When Twitter users responded that initial Twitter comment conveyed a lack of civility toward a colleague, the original Tweeter – I’m withholding his name with the hope that even writing about these interactions won’t put me on anyone’s enemy list – like many others sitting on the poles of these contentious topics, responded with the following, “All for civility except in the case of misinformation that puts lives at risk, especially when purveyed by a professional who wears the patina of credibility.”

If it’s not yet obvious, I don’t believe there is a simple answer to our suicide problem, nor do I think it puts lives at risk to point out that, so far, our treatments have not lowered suicide rates. The issue is complex and we have no perfect explanation as to why countries differ so greatly with regard to suicide. There are impoverished, war-torn countries with remarkably lower suicide rates, and nations with much stricter gun laws that have higher statistics. Honduras, deemed “the murder capital of the world,” has an enviable suicide rate of only 2.9 per 100,000.

If the solution were as simple as making medications more accessible, the answer might be an easy one (or at least worth trying) – make antidepressants available over-the-counter, a move that would both increase access and decrease stigma.

Some people are determined to end their own lives. They aren’t looking to see psychiatrists or to call hotlines, and they may well resort to an alternate method if any given one is not readily available. For these individuals, suicide may not be preventable, and we may be left to say that this tragic phenomena with its diverse causes should also lead us to explore the root causes of human misery and our cultural features that lead some people to end their own lives while others endure.

Clearly, there are those who have untreated psychiatric illnesses and who make impulsive and lethal decisions – access to care and means restrictions certainly save some lives. And while it is obvious to us as psychiatrists that anyone who is depressed or is having suicidal thoughts is deserving of a psychiatric evaluation and intervention, the truth remains that access to treatment in this country is limited by finances, by the availability of mental health professionals, and by stigma and shame. In the end, I don’t believe we have a single easy answer as to why suicide rates are rising or a singular response that will stop this tragic phenomena. The one thing I am certain of is that our efforts to prevent suicide should unite, and not fracture, our profession.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

At every swipe through my social media feeds, I’m greeted with another topic that has advocates clustered at the extremes. People align, and they align quickly in our strangely polarized world in which anyone who might sit in the middle lies low.

It seems we’re divided: On the left you are a CNN fan or you’re one of those soulless monsters who tunes in to Fox News. You’re pro-life or you’re a baby killer, advocating for late-term abortions or even the execution of live infants. When it comes to firearm regulation, one side says you’re a threat to the Constitution, while the other says that those opposed are responsible for the death of every person who was ever the victim of a discharged firearm. And those who feel strongly about a given topic often justify their attacks on those who disagree. Psychiatry is no stranger to this thinking, and we are the only medical specialty with organized “antipsychiatry” groups who oppose our work. I have been a bit surprised, however, that the topic of suicide prevention is one that has us divided within our own specialty.

Amy Barnhorst, MD, is a psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The empty promise of suicide prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little serotonin,” an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 26, 2019. Dr. Barnhorst began her essay with the story of a patient who was hospitalized after a relative realized she was planning her suicide. That story had an ending that psychiatrists relish: A person with previously unrecognized and untreated bipolar disorder received care, including medication, and got better. This suicide was preventable, a life was saved, and this story followed a model we all hope is being replicated over and over.

Dr. Barnhorst went on to say that this was an outlier in her career, that most of the suicidal patients she sees are impoverished, homeless, addicted, and she wrote about how little the treatment setting has to offer: The idea that a pill would fix these problems is almost laughable. She suggests that there is more to suicide prevention than identifying prospective patients and getting them acute psychiatric care.

The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.

We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem – poverty, homelessness, and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime, and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training, and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.

Psychological autopsies done after suicides have indicated that more than 90% of people who die from suicide suffered from a mental illness, yet 54% of those who ended their own lives had never received a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a hopefulness that, if only we had more – more services, more therapy, more medication – then we could prevent suicide. Unfortunately, this line of thinking, with a “Zero Suicide” initiative, points a finger at those who survive: Suicide is preventable, so someone is to blame, if not a family member for missing the warning signs then the clinician who offered treatment that wasn’t good enough.

Along this line, the New York Times printed another opinion piece on Jan. 6 by Richard A. Friedman, MD, titled, “Why are young Americans killing themselves?” Dr. Friedman’s conclusion was more along the psychiatrist party line: “The good news is that we don’t have to wait for all the answers to know what to do. We know that various psychotherapies and medication are highly effective in treating depression. We just need to do a better job of identifying, reaching out to and providing resources for at-risk youths.”

Dr. Friedman goes on to propose universal screening at school, among other measures to identify those at risk. It is no surprise that Dr. Friedman’s article had more than 1,700 comments before commenting was closed by the Times. I have written about the pros and cons of screening adolescents for depression in a primary care setting, so putting the responsibility of identifying suicidal teenagers on school teachers seems like an ominous responsibility to add to a teacher’s obligations.

I did not read Dr. Barnhorst’s earlier op-ed piece as a condemnation of psychiatric care, but rather as a call to action and a reality check on the idea that psychiatry is the only answer to our suicide epidemic. More people than ever get treatment – from psychiatrists, from primary care doctors, from nonphysician prescribing clinicians, and from so many varieties of psychotherapists, and yet our suicide rates continue to rise.

In a post on the Psychology Today website, Sara Gorman, PhD, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, discussed Dr. Barnhorst’s article. “In the process of making her point, Barnhorst also manages to seriously trivialize the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression and to imply that, given societal woes, there isn’t much we can do to try to prevent suicides – aside from limiting access to lethal means,” they wrote.

The Gormans were not alone in their objections; the day after the op-ed appeared in the New York Times, a well-respected psychiatry department chairman took on not just the content of the op-ed, but also the author, in his Twitter feed. He wrote, “@amybarnhorst doesn’t read scientific literature or skipped training. this article is wrong. #suicide is largely preventable, if proper measures taken n Rx provided. @nytimes please vet authors better @APAPsychiatric.” Dr. Barnhorst, also a voice on Twitter, added the wry response, “I skipped training.” When Twitter users responded that initial Twitter comment conveyed a lack of civility toward a colleague, the original Tweeter – I’m withholding his name with the hope that even writing about these interactions won’t put me on anyone’s enemy list – like many others sitting on the poles of these contentious topics, responded with the following, “All for civility except in the case of misinformation that puts lives at risk, especially when purveyed by a professional who wears the patina of credibility.”

If it’s not yet obvious, I don’t believe there is a simple answer to our suicide problem, nor do I think it puts lives at risk to point out that, so far, our treatments have not lowered suicide rates. The issue is complex and we have no perfect explanation as to why countries differ so greatly with regard to suicide. There are impoverished, war-torn countries with remarkably lower suicide rates, and nations with much stricter gun laws that have higher statistics. Honduras, deemed “the murder capital of the world,” has an enviable suicide rate of only 2.9 per 100,000.

If the solution were as simple as making medications more accessible, the answer might be an easy one (or at least worth trying) – make antidepressants available over-the-counter, a move that would both increase access and decrease stigma.

Some people are determined to end their own lives. They aren’t looking to see psychiatrists or to call hotlines, and they may well resort to an alternate method if any given one is not readily available. For these individuals, suicide may not be preventable, and we may be left to say that this tragic phenomena with its diverse causes should also lead us to explore the root causes of human misery and our cultural features that lead some people to end their own lives while others endure.

Clearly, there are those who have untreated psychiatric illnesses and who make impulsive and lethal decisions – access to care and means restrictions certainly save some lives. And while it is obvious to us as psychiatrists that anyone who is depressed or is having suicidal thoughts is deserving of a psychiatric evaluation and intervention, the truth remains that access to treatment in this country is limited by finances, by the availability of mental health professionals, and by stigma and shame. In the end, I don’t believe we have a single easy answer as to why suicide rates are rising or a singular response that will stop this tragic phenomena. The one thing I am certain of is that our efforts to prevent suicide should unite, and not fracture, our profession.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

At every swipe through my social media feeds, I’m greeted with another topic that has advocates clustered at the extremes. People align, and they align quickly in our strangely polarized world in which anyone who might sit in the middle lies low.

It seems we’re divided: On the left you are a CNN fan or you’re one of those soulless monsters who tunes in to Fox News. You’re pro-life or you’re a baby killer, advocating for late-term abortions or even the execution of live infants. When it comes to firearm regulation, one side says you’re a threat to the Constitution, while the other says that those opposed are responsible for the death of every person who was ever the victim of a discharged firearm. And those who feel strongly about a given topic often justify their attacks on those who disagree. Psychiatry is no stranger to this thinking, and we are the only medical specialty with organized “antipsychiatry” groups who oppose our work. I have been a bit surprised, however, that the topic of suicide prevention is one that has us divided within our own specialty.

Amy Barnhorst, MD, is a psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The empty promise of suicide prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little serotonin,” an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 26, 2019. Dr. Barnhorst began her essay with the story of a patient who was hospitalized after a relative realized she was planning her suicide. That story had an ending that psychiatrists relish: A person with previously unrecognized and untreated bipolar disorder received care, including medication, and got better. This suicide was preventable, a life was saved, and this story followed a model we all hope is being replicated over and over.

Dr. Barnhorst went on to say that this was an outlier in her career, that most of the suicidal patients she sees are impoverished, homeless, addicted, and she wrote about how little the treatment setting has to offer: The idea that a pill would fix these problems is almost laughable. She suggests that there is more to suicide prevention than identifying prospective patients and getting them acute psychiatric care.

The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.

We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem – poverty, homelessness, and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime, and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training, and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.

Psychological autopsies done after suicides have indicated that more than 90% of people who die from suicide suffered from a mental illness, yet 54% of those who ended their own lives had never received a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a hopefulness that, if only we had more – more services, more therapy, more medication – then we could prevent suicide. Unfortunately, this line of thinking, with a “Zero Suicide” initiative, points a finger at those who survive: Suicide is preventable, so someone is to blame, if not a family member for missing the warning signs then the clinician who offered treatment that wasn’t good enough.

Along this line, the New York Times printed another opinion piece on Jan. 6 by Richard A. Friedman, MD, titled, “Why are young Americans killing themselves?” Dr. Friedman’s conclusion was more along the psychiatrist party line: “The good news is that we don’t have to wait for all the answers to know what to do. We know that various psychotherapies and medication are highly effective in treating depression. We just need to do a better job of identifying, reaching out to and providing resources for at-risk youths.”

Dr. Friedman goes on to propose universal screening at school, among other measures to identify those at risk. It is no surprise that Dr. Friedman’s article had more than 1,700 comments before commenting was closed by the Times. I have written about the pros and cons of screening adolescents for depression in a primary care setting, so putting the responsibility of identifying suicidal teenagers on school teachers seems like an ominous responsibility to add to a teacher’s obligations.

I did not read Dr. Barnhorst’s earlier op-ed piece as a condemnation of psychiatric care, but rather as a call to action and a reality check on the idea that psychiatry is the only answer to our suicide epidemic. More people than ever get treatment – from psychiatrists, from primary care doctors, from nonphysician prescribing clinicians, and from so many varieties of psychotherapists, and yet our suicide rates continue to rise.

In a post on the Psychology Today website, Sara Gorman, PhD, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, discussed Dr. Barnhorst’s article. “In the process of making her point, Barnhorst also manages to seriously trivialize the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression and to imply that, given societal woes, there isn’t much we can do to try to prevent suicides – aside from limiting access to lethal means,” they wrote.

The Gormans were not alone in their objections; the day after the op-ed appeared in the New York Times, a well-respected psychiatry department chairman took on not just the content of the op-ed, but also the author, in his Twitter feed. He wrote, “@amybarnhorst doesn’t read scientific literature or skipped training. this article is wrong. #suicide is largely preventable, if proper measures taken n Rx provided. @nytimes please vet authors better @APAPsychiatric.” Dr. Barnhorst, also a voice on Twitter, added the wry response, “I skipped training.” When Twitter users responded that initial Twitter comment conveyed a lack of civility toward a colleague, the original Tweeter – I’m withholding his name with the hope that even writing about these interactions won’t put me on anyone’s enemy list – like many others sitting on the poles of these contentious topics, responded with the following, “All for civility except in the case of misinformation that puts lives at risk, especially when purveyed by a professional who wears the patina of credibility.”

If it’s not yet obvious, I don’t believe there is a simple answer to our suicide problem, nor do I think it puts lives at risk to point out that, so far, our treatments have not lowered suicide rates. The issue is complex and we have no perfect explanation as to why countries differ so greatly with regard to suicide. There are impoverished, war-torn countries with remarkably lower suicide rates, and nations with much stricter gun laws that have higher statistics. Honduras, deemed “the murder capital of the world,” has an enviable suicide rate of only 2.9 per 100,000.

If the solution were as simple as making medications more accessible, the answer might be an easy one (or at least worth trying) – make antidepressants available over-the-counter, a move that would both increase access and decrease stigma.

Some people are determined to end their own lives. They aren’t looking to see psychiatrists or to call hotlines, and they may well resort to an alternate method if any given one is not readily available. For these individuals, suicide may not be preventable, and we may be left to say that this tragic phenomena with its diverse causes should also lead us to explore the root causes of human misery and our cultural features that lead some people to end their own lives while others endure.

Clearly, there are those who have untreated psychiatric illnesses and who make impulsive and lethal decisions – access to care and means restrictions certainly save some lives. And while it is obvious to us as psychiatrists that anyone who is depressed or is having suicidal thoughts is deserving of a psychiatric evaluation and intervention, the truth remains that access to treatment in this country is limited by finances, by the availability of mental health professionals, and by stigma and shame. In the end, I don’t believe we have a single easy answer as to why suicide rates are rising or a singular response that will stop this tragic phenomena. The one thing I am certain of is that our efforts to prevent suicide should unite, and not fracture, our profession.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.