ReportWire

Tag: National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

  • People with alcohol use disorder impaired after heavy drinking, despite claims of higher tolerance

    People with alcohol use disorder impaired after heavy drinking, despite claims of higher tolerance

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — While heavy drinkers can tolerate a certain amount of alcohol better than light or moderate drinkers, the concept of “holding your liquor” is more nuanced than commonly believed, according to new research from the University of Chicago.

    The researchers conducted the study with three groups of young adults in their 20s with different drinking patterns. They found that drinkers with alcohol use disorder (or AUD, traditionally known as alcoholism) displayed less impairment on fine motor and cognitive tasks than light or heavy social drinkers after consuming a standard intoxicating dose—equivalent to four to five drinks that produce breathalyzer readings of 0.08-0.09%, i.e., the threshold for drunk driving. Yet when those drinkers with AUD consumed a higher amount akin to their usual drinking habits—equivalent to seven to eight drinks and breathalyzer readings of 0.13%–they showed significant impairment on those same tasks, more than double their impairment at the standard intoxicating dose that did not return to baseline performance three hours after drinking.

    “There’s a lot of thinking that when experienced drinkers (those with AUD) consume alcohol, they are tolerant to its impairing effects,” said Andrea King, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience at UChicago and senior author of the study. “We supported that a bit, but with a lot of nuances. When they drank alcohol in our study at a dose similar to their usual drinking pattern, we saw significant impairments on both the fine motor and cognitive tests that was even more impairment than a light drinker gets at the intoxicating dose.”

    A study of different drinking patterns

    The new paper, published this week in Alcohol: Clinical and Experimental Research, is part of the Chicago Social Drinking Project, an ongoing research study started by King in 2004 that examines the effects of common substances like alcohol, caffeine, and antihistamines on mood, performance, and behavior in people with a wide range of alcohol drinking patterns. For the latest research, they worked with three groups of participants based on their binge drinking patterns, i.e., consuming five or more drinks for a man or four or more for a woman. The groups were light drinkers who do not binge drink, heavy social drinkers who binge drink several times a month, and drinkers who meet the criteria for AUD and binge drink frequently, at least one third or more days in a typical month.

    In a clinical setting, the research team told participants they would be receiving a drink containing either alcohol, a stimulant, a sedative, or a placebo. The alcoholic beverage was a flavored drink mix in water with 190-proof alcohol at 16% volume based on body weight, which was equivalent to four to five drinks, a high dose considered enough to intoxicate a typical drinker (female participants received a dose that was 85% of that for males to adjust for sex differences in metabolism). The participants consumed the drink over a 15-minute period.

    At 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes after drinking the beverage, the participants took a breathalyzer test and completed two performance tasks. The first was a fine motor task that asked them to retrieve, rotate, and insert a grooved metal peg into 25 randomly slotted holes on a 4×4” metal board; participants were scored on how long it took to fill all 25 holes. The second test was paper and pencil task to test cognitive skill, in which the participants had 90 seconds to input symbols from a key pair onto a numbered grid and were scored on how many correct symbols they provided.

    At the 30- and 180-minute intervals, participants were also asked to report how impaired they felt, from “not at all” to “extremely.” The AUD and heavy social drinkers both reported feeling less impaired than the light drinkers. While they did show less overall alcohol impairment on the motor and cognitive tests, at the 30-minute interval they had similar slowing on the fine motor test as the light drinkers. They also recovered quicker to their baseline levels, supporting the notion that they had more tolerance and can “hold their liquor” better than people who don’t drink as much.

    However, people with AUD do not often stop drinking at four or five drinks and engage in high intensity drinking.  Thus, a subset of the drinkers with AUD in the study participated in a separate session where they drank a beverage more consistent with their regular drinking habits, equivalent to about seven or eight drinks. At this higher dose of alcohol, they showed more than double the amount of mental and motor impairment than after they had the standard intoxicating dose. They also never got back to their baseline level of performance, even after three hours. Their level of impairment even exceeded that of the light drinkers who consumed the standard dose, suggesting that the physical effects of the alcohol add up the more someone drinks, experienced or not.

    “I was surprised at how much impairment that group had to that larger dose, because while it’s 50% more than the first dose, we’re seeing more than double the impairment,” King said. 

    The double-edged sword of intoxication

    King’s group has conducted other research showing that heavy social drinkers and those with AUD are more sensitive to the pleasurable effects of alcohol, and want to drink more alcohol than their lighter drinking counterparts, compounding the issue. “They’re having the desire or craving to drink more and more, even though it’s impairing them. It’s really a double-edged sword,” she said.

    Annual deaths caused by drunk driving have fallen significantly after the national minimum drinking age was set at 21 in 1984 and the public awareness campaigns that followed. Despite these successes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than 140,000 people die from excessive alcohol use in the U.S. each year, and 30% of traffic fatalities still involve alcohol intoxication. King says that a more nuanced understanding of the effects of intoxication could begin to prevent more harm.

    “It’s costly to our society for so many reasons, that’s why this study is just so important to understand more,” she said. “I’m hoping we can educate people who are experienced high-intensity drinkers who think that they’re holding their liquor or that they’re tolerant and won’t experience accidents or injury from drinking.  Their experience with alcohol only goes so far, and excessive drinkers account for most of the burden of alcohol-related accidents and injury in society. This is preventable with education and treatment.”

    The study, “Holding your liquor: Comparison of alcohol-induced psychomotor impairment in drinkers with and without alcohol use disorder,” was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Additional authors include Nathan Didier, Ashley Vena, Abigayle Feather, and Jon Grant from the University of Chicago.

    [ad_2]

    University of Chicago Medical Center

    Source link

  • Overdose deaths involving buprenorphine did not proportionally increase with new flexibilities in prescribing

    Overdose deaths involving buprenorphine did not proportionally increase with new flexibilities in prescribing

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — The proportion of opioid overdose deaths involving buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder, did not increase in the months after prescribing flexibilities were put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new study. These data provide evidence that may help to inform buprenorphine prescribing policies. Published today in JAMA Network Openthis study was a collaborative effort between researchers at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    These data are consistent with a recent study reporting that COVID-era expansion of methadone access for the treatment of opioid use disorder was not associated with an increase in methadone-involved overdose deaths.

    In 2021, nearly 107,000 people died of a drug overdose, with 75% of those deaths involving an opioid. The overall rise in overdose deaths is largely attributable to the proliferation in the drug supply of illicit fentanyl, a highly potent synthetic opioid. Though the benefits of providing medication for opioid use disorder are well-known, only 22% of people with opioid use disorder receive medications. Buprenorphine, one of these medications, helps reduce opioid misuse, decrease risk for injection-related infectious diseases, and decrease risk for fatal and non-fatal overdoses.

    “Research has shown beyond a doubt that medications for opioid use disorder are overwhelmingly beneficial and can be lifesaving, yet they continue to be vastly underused,” said NIDA Director and senior author, Nora Volkow, M.D. “Expanding more equitable access to these medications for people with substance use disorders is a critical part of our nation’s response to the overdose crisis. The findings from this study strengthen existing evidence suggesting that greater flexibility in prescribing may be one safe method for working toward this goal.”

    While the recently signed Fiscal Year 2023 omnibus appropriations bill amended the Controlled Substances Act to eliminate the requirement that clinicians obtain a specific waiver to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, buprenorphine remains a Schedule III controlled substance with restrictions on prescribing. During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States government implemented prescribing flexibilities to facilitate buprenorphine access for patients with opioid use disorder. These updated policies allowed clinicians to remotely prescribe buprenorphine to new patients without conducting in-person examinations, expanded payment for telehealth services, and provided flexibility on accepted communication technologies to deliver clinical care for people with substance use disorders via telehealth. 

    To investigate the impact of these policy changes, researchers used data from the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System (SUDORS) to assess overdose deaths from July 2019 to June 2021 in 46 states and the District of Columbia. SUDORS combines data from death certificates, medical examiner and coroner reports, and postmortem toxicology testing.

    Researchers found that buprenorphine was involved in a very small proportion of drug overdose deaths between July 2019 and June 2021. During this study period, there were 1,955 buprenorphine-involved overdose deaths, which represented 2.2% of the 89,111 total overdose deaths and 2.6% of the 74,474 opioid-involved overdose deaths recorded in the SUDORS dataset. Between April 2020 and June 2021, when buprenorphine prescribing regulations were relaxed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers found that while monthly opioid-involved overdose deaths increased overall, the proportion of those deaths involving buprenorphine did not increase.

    Additionally, the study found that 92.7% of buprenorphine-involved overdose deaths also involved at least one other drug, compared to 67.2% of deaths involving an opioid other than buprenorphine. Specifically, compared with other opioid-involved overdose deaths, buprenorphine-involved overdose deaths were more likely to also involve prescription medications such as benzodiazepines (36.9% vs. 14.5%), antidepressants (13.9% vs. 5.0%), and anticonvulsants (18.6% vs. 5.4%). Buprenorphine-involved overdose deaths were less likely to also involve illicitly manufactured fentanyls (50.2%) compared to other opioid-involved overdose deaths (85.3%).

    “These findings help us better understand the circumstances of overdose deaths involving buprenorphine, which is crucial in our ability to inform policy, ensure safety, and improve clinical outcomes for people with substance use disorders,” said Lauren Tanz, Sc.D., an epidemiologist at CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and lead author on the study. “It is important to note the presence of other drugs in overdose deaths involving buprenorphine. The complex nature of substance use disorders and polysubstance use requires specific strategies to address it.”

    Data also showed that non-Hispanic white people represented a higher proportion of the deaths involving buprenorphine (86.1%), compared to deaths related to other opioids (69.4%). In contrast, buprenorphine-involved overdose deaths included fewer Black, non-Hispanic people (5.7%), and Hispanic people (5.5%) compared with other opioid-involved overdose deaths (18.8% and 9.4%, respectively), which the authors note might be related to inequitable access to treatment.

    Regardless of the drugs involved, the investigators found that most people who died of an overdose involving any opioid, including buprenorphine, had no evidence of current treatment for substance use disorders. In addition, most deaths occurred without another person being present, a known risk factor for fatal overdose.

    For more information on substance and mental health treatment programs in your area, call the free and confidential National Helpline 1-800-662-HELP (4357) or visit www.FindTreatment.gov. 

    Reference: LJ Tanz, et al. Trends and Characteristics of Buprenorphine-Involved Overdose Deaths Prior to and During the COVID-19 PandemicJAMA Network Open. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.51856 (2023).

    ###

    About the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): NIDA is a component of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIDA supports most of the world’s research on the health aspects of drug use and addiction. The Institute carries out a large variety of programs to inform policy, improve practice, and advance addiction science. For more information about NIDA and its programs, visit www.nida.nih.gov.

    About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

    About substance use disorders: Substance use disorders are chronic, treatable conditions from which people can recover. In 2020, over 40 million people in the United States had at least one substance use disorder. Substance use disorders are defined in part by continued use of substances despite negative consequences. They are also relapsing conditions, in which periods of abstinence (not using substances) can be followed by a return to use. Stigma can make individuals with substance use disorders less likely to seek treatment. Using preferred language can help accurately report on substance use and addiction. View NIDA’s online guide.

    NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®

    [ad_2]

    NIH National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

    Source link

  • Cannabis-Related Emergency Department Visits among Older Adults on the Rise

    Cannabis-Related Emergency Department Visits among Older Adults on the Rise

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — As a growing number of older adults are experimenting with cannabis to help alleviate chronic symptoms, a new University of California San Diego School of Medicine study has identified a sharp increase in cannabis-related emergency department visits among the elderly.

    The study, published Jan. 9, 2023 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, identified a 1,808% relative increase in the rate of cannabis-related trips to the emergency department among California adults ages 65 and older from 2005 to 2019. Researchers used a trend analysis of data from the Department of Healthcare Access and Information and found that cannabis-related emergency department visits went from a total of 366 in 2005 to 12,167 in 2019.

    The significant increase is particularly troublesome to geriatricians, given that older adults are at a higher risk for adverse health effects associated with psychoactive substances, including cannabis.

    “Many patients assume they aren’t going to have adverse side effects from cannabis because they often don’t view it as seriously as they would a prescription drug,” said Benjamin Han, MD, MPH, the study’s first author and a geriatrician in the Division of Geriatrics, Gerontology, and Palliative Care in the Department of Medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine.

    “I do see a lot of older adults who are overly confident, saying they know how to handle it — yet as they have gotten older, their bodies are more sensitive, and the concentrations are very different from what they may have tried when they were younger.”

    The use of cannabis by older adults has increased sharply over the past two decades in the United States with the legalization for medical and recreational purposes in many states. California legalized medical marijuana in 1996 and recreational cannabis in 2016. While there is limited evidence that cannabis may be helpful for specific conditions, older adults are increasingly using the plant-based drug to treat a wide range of symptoms and using it socially — while their perceived risk of regular use is decreasing.

    The study highlights that cannabis use among older adults can lead to unintended consequences that require emergency care for a variety of reasons. Cannabis can slow reaction time and impair attention, which may lead to injuries and falls; increase the risk for psychosis, delirium and paranoia; exacerbate cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases and interact with other prescription medications.

    “We know from work in alcohol that older adults are more likely to make a change in substance use if they see that it is linked to an undesirable medical symptom or outcome — so linking cannabis use similarly could help with behavioral change,” said Alison Moore, MD, MPH, co-author of the study and chief of the Division of Geriatrics, Gerontology, and Palliative Care in the Department of Medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine.

    “We truly have much to learn about cannabis, given all the new forms of it and combinations of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol), and this will inform our understanding of risks and possible benefits, too.”

    The study highlights that education and discussions with older adults about cannabis use should be included in routine medical care. Yet, according to Moore, current substance uses screening questionnaires typically lump cannabis/marijuana with non-legal drugs, such as cocaine and methamphetamine, which can lead to patients being hesitant to answer.

    “Instead, asking a question like, ‘Have you used cannabis — also known as marijuana — for any reason in the last 12 months?’ would encourage older adults to answer more frankly,” Moore said.

    “Providers can then ask how frequently cannabis is used, for what purpose — such as medically for pain, sleep, or anxiety or recreationally to relax — in what form (smoked, eaten, applied topically) and if they know how much THC and CBD it contains. Once the provider has this type of information, they can then educate the patient about potential risks of use.”

    “Although cannabis may be helpful for some chronic symptoms, it is important to weigh that potential benefit with the risk, including ending up in an emergency department,” Han said.

    Interestingly, the study found while emergency department visits increased sharply between 2013 and 2017, they leveled off in 2017 after the implementation of Proposition 64. The availability of recreational cannabis does not appear to correlate with a higher rate of cannabis-related emergency department visits among older adults.

    Co-authors of the study include Jesse Brennan, Mirella Orozco and Edward Castillo, all with UC San Diego.

    This research was funded, in part, by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23DA043651).

    # # #

    [ad_2]

    UC San Diego Health

    Source link

  • In some US zip codes, young men face more risk of firearm death than those deployed in recent wars

    In some US zip codes, young men face more risk of firearm death than those deployed in recent wars

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — The risk of firearm death in the U.S. is on the rise: in 2020, firearms became the leading cause of death for children, adolescents and young adults. Yet the risk is far from even — young men in some U.S. zip codes face disproportionately higher risks of firearm-related injuries and deaths.

    To better understand the magnitude of the gun violence crisis and put it in perspective, researchers at Brown University and the University of Pennsylvania compared the risk of firearm-related death for young adult men living in the most violent areas in four major U.S. cities with the risks of combat death and injury faced by U.S. military personnel who served in Afghanistan and Iraq during active periods of war.

    The results were mixed: The study, published in JAMA Network Open, found that young men from zip codes with the most firearm violence in Chicago and Philadelphia faced a notably higher risk of firearm-related death than U.S. military personnel deployed to wartime service in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the opposite was true in two other cities: The most violent areas in New York and Los Angeles were associated with much less risk for young men than those in the two wars.

    In all zip codes studied, risks were overwhelmingly borne by young men from minority racial and ethnic groups, the study found.

    “These results are an urgent wake-up call for understanding, appreciating and responding to the risks and attendant traumas faced by this demographic of young men,” said Brandon del Pozo, an assistant professor of medicine (research) at Brown’s Warren Alpert Medical School and an assistant professor of health services, policy and practice (research) at the University’s School of Public Health.

    Del Pozo conducts research at the intersection of public health, public safety and justice, focusing on substance use, the overdose crisis, and violence. His recently released book, “The Police and the State: Security, Social Cooperation, and the Public Good,” is based on his academic research as well as his 23 years of experience as a police officer in New York City and as chief of police of Burlington, Vermont.

    “Working as a police officer, I witnessed the toll of gun violence, and how disruptive it was for families and communities,” del Pozo said. “It stood out to me that the burden was not distributed evenly by geography or demographic. Some communities felt the brunt of gun violence much more acutely than others. By analyzing publicly available data on firearm fatalities in cities and in war, we sought to place that burden in sharp relief.”

    At the same time, del Pozo said, he and the other study authors were responding to oft-repeated inflammatory claims about gun violence in American cities.  

    “We often hear opposing claims about gun violence that fall along partisan lines: One is that big cities are war zones that require a severe crackdown on crime, and the other is that our fears about homicides are greatly exaggerated and don’t require drastic action,” del Pozo said. “We wanted to use data to explore these claims — and it turns out both are wrong. While most city residents are relatively safe from gun violence, the risks are more severe than war for some demographics.”

    Illustrating the magnitude of the firearm crisis

    To conduct their analysis, the researchers obtained information on all fatal and nonfatal shootings of 18- to 29-year-old men recorded as crimes in 2020 and 2021 in Chicago; Los Angeles; New York; and Philadelphia — the four largest U.S. cities for which public data on those who were shot were available. For New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, they used shooting death and injury data sets made public by each city; for Los Angeles, they extracted firearm death and injury data from a larger public data set of recorded crimes. Data were aggregated to the zip code level and linked to corresponding demographic characteristics from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2019 American Community Survey.

    The researchers acquired wartime combat-related mortality and injury counts for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan from peer-reviewed analyses of U.S. military data covering the years 2001 to 2014 for the war in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2009 for the war in Iraq, both of which were periods of active combat. Because there is limited data about the risks of serving in different military units at different times during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the researchers considered the mortality and injury data of a single, de-identified Army brigade combat team engaged in combat during a 15-month period of the Iraq War that involved notably above-average combat death and injury rates at a time considered to be the height of the conflict.

    The analysis included 129,826 young men residing in the four cities considered in the study.

    The researchers found that compared to the risk of combat death faced by U.S. soldiers who were deployed to Afghanistan, the more dangerous of the two wars, young men living in the most violent zip code of Chicago (2,585 individuals) had a 3.23 times higher average risk of firearm-related homicide, and those in Philadelphia (2,448 people) faced a 1.9 times higher average risk of firearm-related homicide. Singling out the elevated dangers faced by the U.S. Army combat brigade in Iraq, the young men studied in Chicago still faced notably greater risks, and the ones faced in Philadelphia were comparable.

    However, these findings were not observed in the most violent zip codes of Los Angeles and New York, where young men faced a 70% to 91% lower risk than soldiers in the Afghanistan war across fatal and nonfatal categories.

    When the researchers looked at the demographics of the young men in the zip codes studied, they determined that the risk of violent death and injury observed in the zip codes studied was almost entirely borne by individuals from minority racial and ethnic groups: Black and Hispanic males represented 96.2% of those who were fatally shot and 97.3% of those who experienced nonfatal injury across all four cities.

    In the study, the researchers make the point that the risk of firearm death is not the only thing that young men living in violent U.S. zip codes have in common with young men at war.

    “Exposure to combat has been associated with stress-inducing hypervigilance and elevated rates of homelessness, alcohol use, mental illness and substance use, which, in turn, are associated with a steep discounting of future rewards,” they write. “Our findings — which show that young men in some of the communities we studied were subject to annual firearm homicide and violent injury rates in excess of 3.0% and as high as 5.8% — lend support to the hypothesis that beyond the deaths and injuries of firearm violence, ongoing exposure to these violent events and their risks are a significant contributor to other health problems and risk behaviors in many U.S. communities.”

    Del Pozo added that the health risks are likely even higher for people in cities, because they need to face their “battles” every day over a lifetime, as opposed to military personnel in a tour of duty in Afghanistan, which typically lasted 12 months. The study results, del Pozo said, help illustrate the magnitude of the firearms crisis, a necessary understanding to municipalities seeking to formulate an effective public health response.

    “The findings suggest that urban health strategies should prioritize violence reduction and take a trauma-informed approach to addressing the health needs of these communities,” del Pozo said.

    Other Brown contributors included Dr. Michael J. Mello, a physician and researcher at the Warren Alpert Medical School and the Injury Prevention Center at Rhode Island Hospital.

    The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K01DA056654) and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM139664).

    [ad_2]

    Brown University

    Source link