Research News Roundup: March 12, 2026

Journal: Addictive Behaviors Reports, 2026, doi.org/10.1016/ j.abrep.2026.100686

Authors: Narges Neyazi, Deepalika Chakravarty, Fan Xia, Mark R. Hawes, Wendy Max, Margot Kushel, & Maya Vijayaraghavan

Abstract:

Background: Over 60% of permanent supportive housing (PSH) residents smoke cigarettes, and over 50% use cannabis. Co-use of tobacco and cannabis may be linked with other substance use. We explored attitudes toward tobacco-free and cannabis-free policies among PSH residents who smoked cigarettes, co-used tobacco and cannabis, or other substances.

Methods: Between 2022 and 2024, we recruited 400 PSH residents who smoked cigarettes into a cluster-randomized clinical trial (RCT) of a smoke-free home intervention. Using baseline data from the RCT, we created scores reflecting attitudes toward tobacco-free and cannabis-free policies (higher scores reflect more favorable attitudes). We used linear mixed models to examine multivariable associations of these attitudes with predisposing, enabling, and need factors, as well as with intensity of tobacco and cannabis co-use.

Results: Participants’ mean age was 54.5 years, 62.7% were male, and 41.8% identified as Black or African American. Of the participants, 64.3% used cannabis, 31.5% used amphetamines, and 27.3% used cocaine in the past 30 days. Cocaine use in the past 30 days was associated with less favorable attitudes toward tobacco-free policies (adjusted β: −0.20, 95% CI: −0.37, −0.04). Compared to light co-users of tobacco and cannabis, heavy co-users of tobacco and cannabis had less favorable attitudes toward tobacco-free policies (adjusted β:-0.32, 95% CI: −0.56, −0.07) and cannabis-free policies (adjusted β:-0.58; 95% CI: −0.82,-0.35).

Conclusions: Interventions that address the intensity of tobacco and cannabis co-use, the high levels of indoor co-use of tobacco and cannabis, and co-occurring substance use may increase favorable attitudes towards smoke-free policies in PSH.

To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.

Journal: Molecular Psychiatry, 2026, doi: 10.1038/s41380-026-03523-5

Authors: Gabriel P. A. Costa, Mayte A. Cerezo-Matias, Melissa C. Funaro, Deniz Bagdas, Alfred Kaye, John Krystal, Ismene Petrakis, & Joao P. De Aquino

Abstract:

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a chronic condition with a staggering global burden and yet limited pharmacological treatments. Convergent evidence implicates the endocannabinoid system (ECS) as a potential therapeutic target due to its broad regulatory role across reward, stress, and affective processes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 63 preclinical and human studies evaluating ECS modulators for AUD. Preclinical studies were synthesized by mechanism of action, and meta-analyses were conducted for cannabinoid receptor (CB-1R) antagonists and inverse agonists, CB-1R agonists, and cannabidiol (CBD). Human studies were narratively synthesized due to methodological heterogeneity. Preclinical data meta-analyses demonstrated that CB-1R inverse agonists (SMD = –1.21) and CBD (SMD = –0.70) reduced alcohol intake, while CB-1R agonists increased consumption (SMD = +0.66). Dose–response analyses identified non-linear effects for CB-1R inverse agonists and CBD. In contrast, human studies showed inconsistent and generally null effects, with limited studies examining newer ECS modulators beyond rimonabant or CBD. While preclinical evidence supports ECS modulation, particularly CB-1R antagonism and CBD, as promising strategies for reducing alcohol use behaviors, clinical translation has been limited by safety concerns, methodological inconsistencies, and under-investigation of novel compounds. Mechanistically informed trials of novel compounds, including next-generation CB-1R antagonists and CBD, are needed to bridge this translational gap and yield new treatments for AUD.

To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.

Journal: Harm Reduction Journal, 2026, doi: 10.1186/s12 954-025-01379-6

Authors: Savannah P. Alexander, Elizabeth Shelton, Matthew Lee, G. Tharp, Michael P. McNeil, Melanie Bernitz, … Rachel C. Shelton

Abstract:

Background: The United States opioid epidemic’s reach is expanding. Rapidly scaling opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs is essential within a multipronged public health response. Universities offer infrastructure with potential to support routine, widespread OEND program implementation among adolescents and young adults nationally, a priority population who could disseminate to broader networks and geographic communities. This important setting is underutilized, and critical gaps remain in understanding university-based OEND program adoption/implementation.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews (n = 21) among a purposively selected national sample of college health administrators to understand their perceptions of barriers/facilitators of implementing OEND programs at their universities and among universities nationally. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided data collection and inductive-deductive thematic analysis.

Results: Unexpected student opioid overdoses and deaths catalyzed university administration to implement OEND programming. Absent the urgency induced by such events and in contrast to the incidental exposure they implicate, administrations perceived the prevalence of opioid misuse within their student population as too low to justify OEND program implementation. For some, this reluctance to proactively implement OEND programming was heightened by a desire to avoid political controversy, related to stigma surrounding harm reduction. Participants described the need for campus partners to collaboratively navigate university administrations’ inaction/opposition, and ultimately, spearhead implementation, often with external collaborators. Key roles among campus and external collaborators were identified, including (a) allowing students to access existing OEND programming prior to obtaining administrative approval for university-based implementation; (b) compiling data and anecdotal evidence to understand the campus substance use environment and sharing that information with administration to establish program need; (c) overcoming stigma and legal complexity of harm reduction programming; (d) overcoming funding/resource constraints and building capacity to sustain OEND programming.

Conclusions: Our findings underscore complexities of university-based OEND program implementation while providing actionable insights to support its national scale-up. Building on identified distinctions between universities in the process of implementing OEND programming and those without intention to implement, future research should identify OEND programming implementation phase among universities nationally, advance understanding of implementation determinants and strategies distinguishing each phase and establish best practices for OEND program implementation.

To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.

Journal: JAMA Network Open, 2026, doi: 10.1001/jamanet workopen.2026.0250

Authors: Taylor Holdaway, Susan H. Busch, Jackson Reimer, Tamara Beetham, David A. Fiellin, & Marissa King

Abstract:

Importance: Private equity investment in US health care, including substance use disorder treatment, has grown. However, the implications of private equity acquisition of substance use disorder treatment facilities for buprenorphine access and quality of care are unknown.

Objective: To examine the associations of private equity acquisition of substance use disorder treatment facilities and buprenorphine prescribing patterns.

Design, setting, and participants: In this cross-sectional study using difference-in-differences analysis, aggregate prescription claims from an analytical dataset for buprenorphine from acquired substance use disorder treatment facilities were compared with those from nonacquired facilities from 2019 quarter 3 through 2021 quarter 2. Prescriptions for buprenorphine filled by adult individuals (aged >18 years) were included in the analyses. An event study difference-in-differences design was used to assess changes in buprenorphine prescribing characteristics at facilities from 4 quarters before to 4 quarters after acquisition using a linear model adjusted for facility, year, and treatment cohort characteristics. Analyses were performed from January 2025 to December 2025.

Main outcomes and measures: Patient volume, prescription volume, payer mix, and treatment retention duration.

Results: In a sample of 90 acquired facilities and 2374 never-acquired facilities, private equity acquisition was associated with increases in patient volumes. Acquisition was associated with a mean increase of 65.66 (95% CI, 30.57-100.76; P < .001) patients receiving buprenorphine per facility quarter. Similarly, acquisition was associated with a mean increase of 163.90 (95% CI, 47.07-280.73; P = .006) buprenorphine prescriptions per facility quarter. Acquisition was associated with an increase of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.07-1.40; P = .03) percentage points in prescriptions paid with cash compared with the control group. Other payer types were not associated with acquisition. Measures of treatment episode duration decreased after acquisition, with decreases of 6.24 (95% CI, -11.47 to -1.00; P = .02) percentage points in 90-day retention and 7.91 (95% CI, -13.96 to -1.86; P = .01) percentage points in 180-day retention.

Conclusion and relevance: In this study, the volume of patients treated with buprenorphine increased after private equity acquisition, with minimal changes in the payer mix among these patients. However, the quality of treatment, in terms of buprenorphine retention duration, decreased after acquisition. These results underscore the need for oversight mechanisms and continued research to ensure incentives for private investment in addiction care align with delivery of high-quality evidence-based treatment.

To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.