Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Beliefs about marijuana use and prevalence of use may be associated with the legalization status of the state of residence. We examined differences in views and rates of use of marijuana among residents in recreationally legal, medically legal, and nonlegal states. METHODS:We surveyed a nationally representative online panel of US adults (N = 16,280) and stratified results by marijuana legalization status of states. We compared views of residents of recreational states on benefits and risks of marijuana use to residents in other states. RESULTS:The response rate was 56.3% (n = 9003). Residents in recreationally legal states were more likely to believe marijuana could be beneficial for pain management (73% in recreationally legal states, 67% in medically legal states, 63% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.0001), provide relief from stress, anxiety or depression (52% in recreationally legal states, 47% in medically legal states, 46% in nonlegal states; P value: 0.01), and improve appetite (39% in recreationally legal states, 36% in medically legal states, 33% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.009). In addition, residents in recreational states were significantly more likely to believe that smoking 1 marijuana joint a day is somewhat or much safer than smoking 1 cigarette a day (40.8% in recreationally legal states, 39.1% in medically legal states, and 36.1% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.0001). Residents of recreationally and medically legal states were more likely to believe second-hand marijuana smoke was somewhat or much safer than second-hand tobacco smoke (38.3% in recreationally legal states, 38.3% in medically legal states, and 35.7% in nonlegal states; P value: 0.003). Past-year marijuana use in any form (20% in recreational, 14.1% in medical, 12% in nonlegal) and past-year marijuana use of multiple forms (11.1% in recreational, 6.1% in medical, 4.9% in nonlegal) were highest among residents of recreationally legal states. Overall, prevalence of past-year use of any form of marijuana use was more common among residents of recreationally legal states compared with other states (20.3%, confidence interval [CI] 19.5, 21.1 in recreationally legal states; 15.4%, CI 14.7, 16.2 in medically legal states; 11.9%, CI 11.2, 12.6 in nonlegal states). CONCLUSIONS:Residents in recreationally legal states were most likely to believe marijuana has benefits, marijuana smoke is safer than tobacco smoke, and have the highest rate of marijuana use. This is cause for concern, given the tide of commercialization, growing number of high-potency cannabis products, and favorable media coverage promoting use for health problems.

BACKGROUND:In 2013, Uruguay became the first country in the world to legalize recreational cannabis, instituting a non-commercial state regulatory model of production and supply. This study provides the first empirical evidence on its impacts on adolescent use of cannabis and related risks. METHODS:We use a generalization of the synthetic control method (SCM) to estimate the impact of legalization in Uruguay on adolescent past year and month cannabis use, perceived availability of cannabis and perceived risk of cannabis use. We compare biennial high school student self-reported survey data from Montevideo and regions in the interior of Uruguay post-legalization (2014-2018) and post initial implementation (2015-2018) to a synthetic counterfactual constructed using a weighted combination of 15 control regions in Chile. RESULTS:We find no evidence of an impact on cannabis use or the perceived risk of use. We find an increase in student perception of cannabis availability (58% observed vs. 51% synthetic control) following legalization. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our findings provide some support for the thesis that Uruguay's state regulatory approach to cannabis supply may minimize the impact of legalization on adolescent cannabis use. At the same time, our study period represents a period of transition: pharmacy access, by far the most popular means of access, was not available until the summer of 2017. Additional study will be important to assess the longer-term impacts of the fully implemented legalization regime on substance use outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Unintentional injury, a leading cause of morbidity among adolescents, may also be a risk factor for deliberate self-harm. To inform clinical and public health prevention efforts in adolescent populations, we examined whether distinct subtypes of unintentional injury were differentially associated with deliberate self-harm. METHODS:Statewide, all-payer, individually linkable administrative data on adolescent patients presenting to any California emergency department (ED) in 2010 (n = 490,071) were used to investigate longitudinal associations between subtypes of unintentional injury and deliberate self-harm. Adolescents aged 10-19 years presenting with unintentional drug poisoning, other poisoning, fall, suffocation, or cutting/piercing injuries formed the exposure groups; adolescents presenting with unintentional strike injuries formed the primary referent group. Study patients were followed back in time (2006-2009) to compare the groups' odds of a prior ED visit for deliberate self-harm, as well as forwards in time (2010-2015) to compare their risks of subsequent self-harm. RESULTS:Unintentional drug-poisoning injury was strongly associated with increased likelihood of ED visits for deliberate self-harm, assessed both retrospectively (adjusted OR = 4.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.08, 6.64) and prospectively (adjusted RR = 3.74; 95% CI = 3.03, 4.60). Positive associations with odds of prior self-harm and/or risk of subsequent self-harm were also observed for patients with unintentional non-drug poisoning, suffocation, and cutting/piercing injuries. CONCLUSIONS:Certain subtypes of unintentional injury, particularly drug poisoning, are strongly associated with risk for deliberate self-harm among adolescents, a finding with implications for targeting clinical assessment and intervention in emergency department settings. More research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these associations.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Treatment with methadone or buprenorphine is the current standard of care for opioid use disorder. Given the paucity of research identifying which patients will respond best to which medication, both medications should be accessible to all patients so that patients can determine which works best for them. However, given differences in the historical contexts of their initial implementation, access to each of these medications may vary along racial/ethnic lines. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To examine the extent to which capacity to provide methadone and buprenorphine vary with measures of racial/ethnic segregation. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This cross-sectional study included all counties and county-equivalent divisions in the US in 2016. Data on racial/ethnic population distribution were derived from the American Community Survey, and data on locations of facilities providing methadone and buprenorphine were obtained from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration databases. Data were analyzed from August 22, 2018, to September 11, 2019. Exposures/UNASSIGNED:Two county-level measures of racial/ethnic segregation, including dissimilarity (representing the proportion of African American or Hispanic/Latino residents who would need to move census tracts to achieve a uniform spatial distribution of the population by race/ethnicity) and interaction (representing the probability that an African American or Hispanic/Latino resident will interact with a white resident and vice versa, assuming random mixing across census tracts). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:County-level capacity to provide methadone or buprenorphine, defined as the number of facilities providing a medication per 100 000 population. Results/UNASSIGNED:Among 3142 US counties, there were 1698 facilities providing methadone (0.6 facilities per 100 000 population) and 18 868 facilities providing buprenorphine (5.9 facilities per 100 000 population). Each 1% decrease in probability of interaction of an African American resident with a white resident was associated with 0.6 more facilities providing methadone per 100 000 population. Similarly, each 1% decrease in probability of interaction of a Hispanic/Latino resident with a white resident was associated with 0.3 more facilities providing methadone per 100 000 population. Each 1% decrease in the probability of interaction of a white resident with an African American resident was associated with 8.17 more facilities providing buprenorphine per 100 000 population. Similarly, each 1% decrease in the probability of interaction of a white resident with a Hispanic/Latino resident was associated with 1.61 more facilities providing buprenorphine per 100 000 population. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:These findings suggest that the racial/ethnic composition of a community was associated with which medications residents would likely be able to access when seeking treatment for opioid use disorder. Reforms to existing regulations governing the provisions of these medications are needed to ensure that both medications are equally accessible to all.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Little is known about changes in marijuana use and cannabis use disorder (CUD) after recreational marijuana legalization (RML). Objectives/UNASSIGNED:To examine the associations between RML enactment and changes in marijuana use, frequent use, and CUD in the United States from 2008 to 2016. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This survey study used repeated cross-sectional survey data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2008-2016) conducted in the United States among participants in the age groups of 12 to 17, 18 to 25, and 26 years or older. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Multilevel logistic regression models were fit to obtain estimates of before-vs-after changes in marijuana use among respondents in states enacting RML compared to changes in other states. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Self-reported past-month marijuana use, past-month frequent marijuana use, past-month frequent use among past-month users, past-year CUD, and past-year CUD among past-year users. Results/UNASSIGNED:The study included 505 796 respondents consisting of 51.51% females and 77.24% participants 26 years or older. Among the total, 65.43% were white, 11.90% black, 15.36% Hispanic, and 7.31% of other race/ethnicity. Among respondents aged 12 to 17 years, past-year CUD increased from 2.18% to 2.72% after RML enactment, a 25% higher increase than that for the same age group in states that did not enact RML (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55). Among past-year marijuana users in this age group, CUD increased from 22.80% to 27.20% (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.59). Unmeasured confounders would need to be more prevalent in RML states and increase the risk of cannabis use by 1.08 to 1.11 times to explain observed results, indicating results that are sensitive to omitted variables. No associations were found among the respondents aged 18 to 25 years. Among respondents 26 years or older, past-month marijuana use after RML enactment increased from 5.65% to 7.10% (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.16-1.40), past-month frequent use from 2.13% to 2.62% (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.41), and past-year CUD from 0.90% to 1.23% (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.08-1.71); these results were more robust to unmeasured confounding. Among marijuana users in this age group, past-month frequent marijuana use and past-year CUD did not increase after RML enactment. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:This study's findings suggest that although marijuana legalization advanced social justice goals, the small post-RML increase in risk for CUD among respondents aged 12 to 17 years and increased frequent use and CUD among adults 26 years or older in this study are a potential public health concern. To undertake prevention efforts, further studies are warranted to assess how these increases occur and to identify subpopulations that may be especially vulnerable.

Purpose: Adolescents with opioid use disorder (OUD) or who experience opioid overdose are significantly less likely than adults to receive medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). The extent to which addiction treatment facility characteristics contribute to this differential access is unknown. This study's objectives were to describe the quantity and characteristics of adolescent-serving addiction treatment facilities in the U.S., and examine associations between facility characteristics and offering maintenance MOUD.
Method(s): We performed a cross-sectional study using the 2017 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS), a survey of all U.S. addiction treatment facilities. We compared characteristics of facilities that offered specialized adolescent programs versus those that did not ("adult-focused facilities"), including ownership, payments accepted, accreditation/licensure, location, and services. We used logistic regression to identify facility characteristics associated with offering maintenance MOUD (opioid agonist maintenance with buprenorphine or methadone, or extended-release naltrexone), and included interaction terms to test whether MOUD availability differed between facilities with specialized adolescent programs and adult-focused facilities.
Result(s): Among 13,585 addiction treatment facilities in the U.S., 3,537 (26.0%) offered specialized adolescent programs. These facilities were more likely than adult-focused facilities to accept insurance or be owned by a non-profit or state/local/tribal government (p<0.001 for all). Of the 3,537 facilities with adolescent programs, 92.4% (3,267) offered outpatient treatment, 11.7% (413) offered residential treatment, and 3.6% (129) offered inpatient treatment. Among facilities with adolescent-programs, 23.1% (816) offered maintenance MOUD, compared to 35.9% (3,612) of adult-focused facilities (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.58). While facilities with adolescent-programs and adult-focused facilities were equally likely to offer naltrexone as their only MOUD (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79-1.08), facilities with adolescent-programs were only half as likely to offer opioid agonist maintenance MOUD (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.57). Among facilities with adolescent programs, non-profits were more likely than for-profits to offer maintenance MOUD (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.08-1.75). Facilities that accepted any kind of insurance were significantly more likely to provide maintenance MOUD than those not accepting insurance or providing free/reduced-fee services. Cash-only facilities with adolescent-programs had the lowest rate of providing maintenance MOUD (13.2%), whereas cash-only adult-focused facilities had the highest rate of providing maintenance MOUD (41.5%). Facilities (both adult-focused and with adolescent programs) that offered inpatient services, or were licensed/accredited by a national authority were more likely to offer maintenance MOUD. Facilities in the Midwest, South, and West were less likely to provide maintenance MOUD than facilities in the Northeast; this negative association was strongest among facilities with adolescent-programs in the South (OR, 0.24; 95% CI 0.19-0.30; interaction term p<0.001) and West (OR, 0.15; 95% CI 0.12-0.19; interaction term p<0.001).
Conclusion(s): Only one-quarter of U.S. addiction treatment facilities offer specialized adolescent-programs, and these facilities are half as likely to offer maintenance MOUD as adult-focused facilities. This disparity may be even greater in the U.S. South and West. This may explain why adolescents are less likely to receive MOUD than adults by demonstrating that the facilities that serve them are also less likely to provide MOUD. Sources of Support: T32HD052459, K23DA045085, K01DA035387, 1K01DA042139-01A1
Copyright

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are a crucial component of federal and state governments' response to the opioid epidemic. Evidence about the effectiveness of PDMPs in reducing prescription opioid-related adverse outcomes is mixed. We conducted a systematic review to examine whether PDMP implementation within the U.S. is associated with changes in four prescription opioid-related outcome domains: opioid prescribing behaviors, opioid diversion and supply, opioid-related morbidity and substance use disorders, and opioid-related mortality. We searched for eligible publications in Embase, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. A total of 29 studies, published between 2009 and 2019, met the inclusion criteria. Of the 16 studies examining PDMPs and prescribing behaviors, 11 found that implementing PDMPs reduced prescribing behaviors. All three studies on opioid diversion and supply reported reductions in the examined outcomes. In the opioid-related morbidity and substance use disorders domain, seven out of eight studies found associations with prescription opioid-related outcomes. Four out of eight studies on the opioid-related mortality domain reported reduced mortality rates. Despite the mixed findings, there is emerging evidence that implementation of state PDMPs reduces opioid prescriptions, opioid diversion and supply, and opioid-related morbidity and substance use disorder outcomes. When PDMP characteristics were examined, mandatory access provisions were associated with reductions in prescribing behaviors, diversion outcomes, hospital admissions, substance use disorders, and mortality rates. Inconsistencies in the evidence base across outcome domains are due to analytical approaches across studies and, to some extent, heterogeneities in PDMP policies implemented across states and over time.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Given changes in U.S. marijuana laws, attitudes, and use patterns, individuals with pain may be an emerging group at risk for nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. The authors examined differences in the prevalence of nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder among U.S. adults with and without pain, as well as whether these differences widened over time. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC, 2001-2002; N=43,093) and NESARC-III (2012-2013; N=36,309) were analyzed using logistic regression. Risk differences of past-year nonmedical cannabis use, frequent (at least three times a week) nonmedical use, and DSM-IV cannabis use disorder were estimated for groups with and without moderate to severe pain, and these risk differences were tested for change over time. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Any nonmedical cannabis use was more prevalent in respondents with than without pain (2001-2002: 5.15% compared with 3.74%; 2012-2013: 12.42% compared with 9.02%), a risk difference significantly greater in the 2012-2013 data than in the 2001-2002 data. The prevalence of frequent nonmedical cannabis use did not differ by pain status in the 2001-2002 survey, but was significantly more prevalent in those with than without pain in the 2012-2013 survey (5.03% compared with 3.45%). Cannabis use disorder was more prevalent in respondents with than without pain (2001-2002: 1.77% compared with 1.35%; 2012-2013: 4.18% compared with 2.74%), a significantly greater risk difference in the data from 2012-2013 than from 2001-2002. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:The results suggest that adults with pain are a group increasingly vulnerable to adverse cannabis use outcomes, warranting clinical and public health attention to this risk. Psychiatrists and other health care providers treating patients with pain should monitor such patients for signs and symptoms of cannabis use disorder.