Journal: Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10578-021-01280-w
Authors: Colleen Stiles-Shields, Joseph Archer, Jim Zhang, Amanda Burnside, Janel Draxler, Lauren M. Potthoff, Karen M. Reyes, Faith Summersett Williams, Jennifer Westrick & Niranjan S. Karnik
Abstract:
Cannabis and anxiety are both rising issues that impact young people. This review seeks to explore the association between anxiety and cannabis in adolescents and young adults (AYA). A database search was run retrospectively from July 2020 through calendar year 2013. Articles had to present outcomes examining cannabis use and symptoms of anxiety, be written in English, contain samples with ≥ 50% who are age 25 or younger, and be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Forty-seven studies were identified that examined the relationship between anxiety and cannabis use. Twenty-three studies found a positive association that greater anxiety among AYA was associated with greater cannabis use. In contrast, seven studies found a negative association that greater anxiety was related to less cannabis use. And finally, 17 studies found no clear association between anxiety and cannabis use. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between anxiety and cannabis use.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.
Journal: Communications Biology, 2021, doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-02685-y
Authors: Daniel B. Rosoff, Joyce Yoo & Falk W. Lohoff
Abstract:
Observational studies suggest smoking, cannabis use, alcohol consumption, and substance use disorders (SUDs) may impact risk for respiratory infections, including coronavirus 2019 (COVID-2019). However, causal inference is challenging due to comorbid substance use. Using summary-level European ancestry data (>1.7 million participants), we performed single-variable and multivariable Mendelian randomization (MR) to evaluate relationships between substance use behaviors, COVID-19 and other respiratory infections. Genetic liability for smoking demonstrated the strongest associations with COVID-19 infection risk, including the risk for very severe respiratory confirmed COVID-19 (odds ratio (OR) = 2.69, 95% CI, 1.42, 5.10, P-value = 0.002), and COVID-19 infections requiring hospitalization (OR = 3.49, 95% CI, 2.23, 5.44, P-value = 3.74 × 10−8); these associations generally remained robust in models accounting for other substance use and cardiometabolic risk factors. Smoking was also strongly associated with increased risk of other respiratory infections, including asthma-related pneumonia/sepsis (OR = 3.64, 95% CI, 2.16, 6.11, P-value = 1.07 × 10−6), chronic lower respiratory diseases (OR = 2.29, 95% CI, 1.80, 2.91, P-value = 1.69 × 10−11), and bacterial pneumonia (OR = 2.14, 95% CI, 1.42, 3.24, P-value = 2.84 × 10−4). We provide strong genetic evidence showing smoking increases the risk for COVID-19 and other respiratory infections even after accounting for other substance use behaviors and cardiometabolic diseases, which suggests that prevention programs aimed at reducing smoking may be important for the COVID-19 pandemic and have substantial public health benefits.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.
Journal: Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2021, doi: 10.2196/28069
Authors: Michael Robert Haupt, Qing Xu, Joshua Yang, Mingxiang Cai & Tim K Mackey
Abstract:
Background: In response to recent policy efforts to regulate tobacco and vaping products, the vaping industry has been aggressive in mobilizing opposition by using a network of manufacturers, trade associations, and tobacco user communities, and by appealing to the general public. One strategy the alternative tobacco industry uses to mobilize political action is coordinating on social media platforms, such as the social networking site Facebook. However, few studies have specifically assessed how platforms such as Facebook are used to influence public sentiment and attitudes towards tobacco control policy.
Objective: This study used social network analysis to examine how the alternative tobacco industry uses Facebook to mobilize online users to influence tobacco control policy outcomes with a focus on the state of California.
Methods: Data were collected from local and national alternative tobacco Facebook groups that had affiliations with activities in the state of California. Network ties were constructed based on users’ reactions to posts (eg, “like” and “love”) and comments to characterize political mobilization networks.
Results: Findings show that alternative tobacco industry employees were more likely to engage within these networks and that these employees were also more likely to be influential members (ie, be more active) in the network. Comparisons between subnetworks show that communication within the local alternative tobacco advocacy group network was less dense and more centralized in contrast to a national advocacy group that had overall higher levels of engagement among members. A timeline analysis found that a higher number of influential posts that disseminated widely across networks occurred during e-cigarette–related legislative events, suggesting strategic online engagement and increased mobilization of online activity for the purposes of influencing policy outcomes.
Conclusions: Results from this study provide important insights into how tobacco industry–related advocacy groups leverage the Facebook platform to mobilize their online constituents in an effort to influence public perceptions and coordinate to defeat tobacco control efforts at the local, state, and federal level. Study results reveal one part of a vast network of socially enabled alternative tobacco industry actors and constituents that use Facebook as a mobilization point to support goals of the alternative tobacco industry.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.
Journal: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s13722-021-00272-4
Authors: Travis M. Scott, Julia Arnsten, James Patrick Olsen, Franchesca Arias, Chinazo O. Cunningham & Monica Rivera Mindt
Abstract:
Background: Medications for opioid use disorder such as opioid agonist treatment (OAT, including methadone, buprenorphine) are the gold standard intervention for opioid use disorder (OUD). Persons with OUD have high rates of neurocognitive impairment and psychiatric and substance use disorders, but few studies have examined these characteristics in diverse patients initiating OAT in opioid treatment programs (OTPs). Additionally, in these individuals, poor neurocognitive functioning and psychiatric/other substance use disorders are associated with poor OUD treatment outcomes. Given rapid changes in the opioid epidemic, we sought to replicate findings from our pilot study by examining these characteristics in a large diverse sample of persons with OUD starting OTP-based OAT.
Methods: Ninety-seven adults with OUD (M age = 42.2 years [SD = 10.3]; M education = 11.4 years [SD = 2.3]; 27% female; 22% non-Hispanic white) were enrolled in a randomized longitudinal trial evaluating methadone versus buprenorphine/naloxone on neurocognitive functioning. All participants completed a comprehensive neurocognitive, psychiatric, and substance use evaluation within one week of initiating OAT.
Results: Most of the sample met criteria for learning (79%) or memory (69%) impairment. Half exhibited symptoms of current depression, and comorbid substance use was highly prevalent. Lifetime cannabis and cocaine use disorders were associated with better neurocognitive functioning, while depression was associated with worse neurocognitive functioning.
Conclusions: Learning and memory impairment are highly prevalent in persons with OUD starting treatment with either methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone in OTPs. Depression and comorbid substance use are prevalent among these individuals, but neither impact learning or memory. However, depression is associated with neurocognitive impairment in other domains. These findings might allow clinicians to help persons with OUD starting OAT to develop compensatory strategies for learning and memory, while providing adjunctive treatment for depression.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.
Journal: JAMA Network Open, 2021, doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.29409
Authors: Beth Han, Christopher M. Jones, Emily B. Einstein & Wilson M. Compton
Abstract:
Importance: There is a lack of empirical research regarding misuse of buprenorphine hydrochloride.
Objective: To identify prescription opioids that are most frequently misused, assess differences in motivations for misuse between buprenorphine and nonbuprenorphine prescription opioids, and examine trends in and factors associated with buprenorphine misuse among individuals with or without opioid use disorder (OUD).
Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used nationally representative data on past-year prescription opioid use, misuse, OUD, and motivations for the most recent misuse from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Participants included 214 505 civilian, noninstitutionalized adult NSDUH respondents. Data were collected from January 2015 to December 2019 and analyzed from February 15 to March 15, 2021.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Buprenorphine use, misuse, and OUD. Misuse was defined as use “in any way that a doctor [physician] did not direct you to use them, including (1) use without a prescription of your own; (2) use in greater amounts, more often, or longer than you were told to take them; or (3) use in any other way a doctor did not direct you to use them.”
Results: The 214 505 respondents included in the analysis represented an estimated annual average 246.7 million US adults during 2015-2019 (51.7% [95% CI, 51.4%-52.0%] women; 13.9% [95% CI, 13.7%-14.1%] aged 18-25 y; 40.6% [95% CI, 40.3%-41.0%] aged 26-49 y; 45.5% [95% CI, 45.0-45.9%] aged ≥50 y). In 2019, an estimated 2.4 (95% CI, 2.2-2.7) million US adults used buprenorphine, and an estimated 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5-0.9) million misused buprenorphine compared with an estimated 4.9 (95% CI, 4.4-5.4) million and an estimated 3.0 (95% CI, 2.7-3.2) million who misused hydrocodone and oxycodone, respectively. Prevalence of OUD with buprenorphine misuse trended downward during the period from 2015 to 2019. “Because I am hooked” (27.3% [95% CI, 21.6%-33.8%]) and “to relieve physical pain” (20.5% [95% CI, 14.0%-29.0%]) were the most common motivations for the most recent buprenorphine misuse among adults with OUD. Adults who misused buprenorphine were more likely to report using prescription opioids without having their own prescriptions than those who misused nonbuprenorphine prescription opioids (with OUD: 71.8% [95% CI, 66.4%-76.6%] vs 53.2% [95% CI, 48.5%-57.8%], P < .001; without OUD: 74.7% [95% CI, 68.7%-79.9%] vs 60.0% [58.1%-61.8%], P < .001). Among adults with past-year OUD who used buprenorphine, multivariable multinomial logistic regression results indicated that buprenorphine misuse was associated with being 24 to 34 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.9 [95% CI, 1.4-5.8]) and 35 to 49 (AOR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.2-4.5]) years of age, residing in nonmetropolitan areas (AOR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.0-3.0]), and polysubstance use (eg, past-year prescription stimulant use disorder; AOR, 3.9 [95% CI, 1.3-11.2]) but was negatively associated with receiving treatment for drug use only (AOR, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.3-0.7]).
Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among adults with OUD, prevalence of buprenorphine misuse trended downward from 2015 to 2019. In 2019, nearly three-fourths of US adults reporting past-year buprenorphine use did not misuse their prescribed buprenorphine, and most who misused reported using prescription opioids without having their own prescriptions. These findings underscore the need to pursue actions that expand access to buprenorphine-based OUD treatment, to develop strategies to monitor and reduce buprenorphine misuse, and to address associated conditions (eg, suicide risk, co-occurring mental illness, and polysubstance use).
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.