Research News Roundup: November 13, 2025

Journal: JAMA Network Open, 2025, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen .2025.41061

Authors: Abbey R. Masonbrink, Dayoung Bae, Junhan Cho, Richard A. Miech, Hongying D. Dai, Alyssa F. Harlow, … Adam M. Leventhal

Abstract:

Importance: US youths who vape nicotine may be hardening into a more nicotine-dependent, treatment-resistant population over time, as evidenced by shifts toward daily vaping and difficulty quitting, which may vary by behavioral health and demographic factors.

Objective: To assess prevalence trends from 2020 to 2024 in (1) current (past 30 days) nicotine vaping, (2) daily vaping among youths who currently vape nicotine, and (3) unsuccessful quit attempts among youths who vape nicotine daily and to examine variation in these trends by behavioral health and demographic factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from Monitoring the Future (MTF), a nationally representative annual cross-sectional survey of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade respondents in US middle and high schools, from survey years 2020 to 2024.

Exposures: Survey year; grade in school; population density of school location; and self-reported sex, race and ethnicity, depressive symptoms, conduct problems, and past-30-day use of nicotine vaping, other tobacco products, cannabis, and alcohol.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of (1) past-30-day nicotine vaping (≥1 vs 0 days) among all respondents, (2) past-30-day daily vaping among currently vaping youths (vaped all 30 vs 1-29 days), and (3) unsuccessful attempts to quit vaping (yes, no) among youths vaping daily, with weights applied to generate nationally representative estimates.

Results: In the pooled sample of 115 191 MTF respondents (50.8% [95% CI, 50.0%-51.6%] male), prevalence of past-30-day nicotine vaping declined from 2020 to 2024 (risk ratio [RR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.89). Among youths who currently vaped (n = 15 226), prevalence of daily vaping rose from 15.4% (95% CI, 13.1%-18.0%) in 2020 to 28.8% (95% CI, 26.6%-31.0%) in 2024 (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.18). Among daily vapers (n = 3512), prevalence of unsuccessful quit attempts increased from 28.2% (95% CI, 19.5%-38.8%) in 2020 to 53.0% (95% CI, 45.9%-60.0%) in 2024 (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15). For female, non-Hispanic Black, cannabis-using, and tobacco-using youths, past-30-day nicotine vaping prevalence either remained stable or reduced more slowly during 2020 to 2024 compared with the overall study population (eg, from 10.4% [95% CI, 8.6%-12.5%] to 4.1% [95% CI, 3.5%-4.8%] in those without vs 58.1% [95% CI, 51.9%-64.1%] to 57.3% [95% CI, 54.0%-60.5%] in those with past-30-day cannabis use). Among current vapers, daily vaping increased more rapidly in rural youths (from 16.4% [95% CI, 11.5%-22.9%] to 41.8% [95% CI, 35.3%-48.5%]) than in urban youths (15.9% [95% CI, 12.7%-19.6%] to 18.1% [95% CI, 14.8%-21.9%]).

Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study of US youths suggest that although the prevalence of current nicotine vaping declined during 2020 to 2024, the youth vaping population may have hardened over this period, evidenced by increasing daily use, more unsuccessful quit attempts, and shifting demographic profiles. Clinicians and policy makers should be mindful that youths with frequent vaping increasingly face unique challenges that may impact treatment and prevention efforts.

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

Journal: Brain Stimulation, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2025.11.002

Authors: Sophia H. Blyth, Rabee Haq, Sahit Menon, Benson King, Gabriela Torres Quesada, Darara Borodge, … Heather Burrell Ward

Abstract:

Objective: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an exciting novel treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs). While TMS is safe and effective in the general population, there have been concerns about its safety with concurrent substance use. To date, guidelines on managing substance use during TMS have been vague – recommending caution and weighing risks and benefits – and solely based on expert opinion, rather than based on quantitative data on the prevalence of TMS side effects with concurrent substance use.

Methods: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of TMS studies for a SUD – a clinically impairing level of substance use where we would be more likely to detect adverse effects – to quantify the safety of TMS in the setting of substance use. We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library for TMS studies for SUDs that reported adverse effects. We extracted adverse effects and tested the difference between the prevalence of events in the active and sham conditions.

Results: Forty-seven studies comprising 2865 participants with a SUD were included. The prevalence of neck pain and cognitive impairment was higher for sham compared to active TMS (p < .05). The prevalence of all other adverse effects, including seizure, was not significantly different between active and sham TMS.

Conclusions: TMS is safe and well-tolerated for people with SUDs. The prevalence of side effects from TMS in people with SUDs is comparable to that in the general population. TMS can be just as safely administered for SUDs as for any other psychiatric disorder.

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

Journal: Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 2025, doi: 10.1186/ s13011-025-00678-2

Authors: Jodie M. Dewey, Justin S. Bell, Juleigh Nowinski Konchak, Keiki Hinami, & Dennis P. Watson

Abstract:

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) are a well-established treatment strategy. Supported by evidence of their effectiveness to reduce opioid misuse, they promote stabilization, prevent overdose deaths, and promote long-term recovery. Unfortunately, many individuals prescribed MOUDs face stigma inaccessing other recovery support resources. Recovery homes (RH), also known as recovery residences or sober living homes, are residential environments designed to support and provide structure to individuals working to achieve sobriety. However, some RHs have historically been unsupportive, with some explicitly denying entry to those prescribed MOUDs. The purpose of this study is to better understand obstacles hindering successful RH placement and support for those receiving MOUDs, as perceived by three groups participating in a housing navigation pilot: recovery home directors, individuals referred to a housing navigation helpline, and recovery coach navigators employed by a behavioral health organization that connects referred clients to recovery homes. Data from these three groups were collected as part of a larger evaluation of a housing linkage pilot. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each group to ascertain barriers to supporting recovery home residents receiving MOUDs. Findings show the logistical barriers recovery homes face providing access and support for residents receiving MOUDs. Part of this challenge stems from the strict abstinence focus of RHs supported by many, but not all staff. While some directors employ strategies to support residents receiving MOUDs, they unintentionally employ stigma-driven practices that can undermine medication uptake and destabilize the recovery trajectory for residents living in recovery housing. To best support this population, RH staff need more education around evidence-based medication and support to address logistical challenges serving this population, such as providing timely and consistent medication access, especially for those arriving from carceral settings. Finally, to implement effective strategies to destigmatize medications and integrate residents receiving MOUDs, training is needed to help staff understand laws and policies that inform their work.

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

Journal: Journal of Cannabis Research, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s42238-025-00347-y

Authors: Eleftherios M. Hetelekides, Tabitha McMichael, Alexander J. Tyskiewicz, Mark A. Prince, Noah N. Emery, Bradley T. Conner, & Hollis C. Karoly

Abstract:

Background: Alcohol and cannabis are two of the most commonly used and co-used substances by young adults, and simultaneous cannabis and alcohol (SCA) use has been linked to increased risk for negative consequences, including poor mental health. College students represent an important group to study given their high prevalence of co-use and rising rates of depression, anxiety, and stress. Further, sex-related differences have been observed in polysubstance use, and research is needed on how SCA use may be differentially related to mental health outcomes in male and female college students.

Methods: This cross-sectional survey study on N = 367 college students compared male and female sexes on the relationships between monthly SCA use (compared to less than monthly) and depression, anxiety, and stress. A multigroup path analysis was conducted to simultaneously regress mental health symptoms onto a dichotomously coded SCA group variable, while controlling for age, most recent cannabis use, and typical alcohol frequency, with sex as the grouping variable. A post-hoc Monte Carlo simulation was conducted to examine power and provide recommendations for sample sizes in future research.

Results: Monthly SCA use significantly positively predicted depression in male (β = 0.322) and female (β = 0.296) college students, and the relation between SCA and depression was not different between sexes (p = 0.939). While anxiety (β = 0.323) and stress (β = 0.369) were significantly positively predicted by monthly SCA use in males, but not females, the relations between SCA and anxiety, as well as stress, were not significantly different between the sexes.

Conclusions: Across sexes, more frequent SCA use is positively associated with depression symptoms in college students. Although SCA use was also linked to higher anxiety and stress among males but not females, these sex differences were not significant. Studies with greater statistical power are warranted to investigate potential sex differences.

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