Nonmedical Use Of Opioid Analgesics Research Articles

Pathways to Heroin Use: Commentary on McCabe et al.

Rates and patterns of transition from opioid analgesic to illicit opioid (ie, heroin) use is of great clinical significance. Exposure to opioid analgesics, and whether use is therapeutic or outside a doctor's orders, may have overlapping yet different patterns of transition to heroin use. Yet, this topic is rarely examined in longitudinal studies. With data from the landmark Monitoring the Future (MTF) study, McCabe and colleagues have now studied the transition from adolescent use of opioid analgesics (both medical and nonmedical) to heroin over a seventeen year follow up for adolescents first recruited from 1975 to 2000. Key findings include an overall association of both nonmedical and medical use of opioid analgesics with transition to heroin use, with particular concerns about early nonmedical use. Of note, more recent cohorts apparently have an increased risk of transition to heroin, suggesting a need for minimizing opioid prescribing and for screening of youth and young adults for prior nonmedical opioid analgesic use before prescribing opioids. New research is also suggested to address such questions as: What is the time course of exposure to the start of heroin use? How does the frequency and dosage of exposure matter? Continued analyses of MTF data, as well as exploration of other data are needed to address these and related compelling issues.

The Role of Past and Current Medical Use on Nonmedical Use of Prescription Drugs among College Students: Exploring Same-Drug and Cross-Drug Class Associations

Background: Understanding the role that medical use of prescription drugs plays in nonmedical use of prescription drugs can inform prevention efforts. In order to understand fully the potential risk that medical use of prescription drugs conveys for nonmedical use of prescription drugs, the current study explored (a) the simultaneous associations between the medical use of several classes of prescription drugs with current nonmedical use of the same and other prescription drug classes, and (b) whether the associations depended upon past or current medical use. Methods: Data came from a cross-sectional survey of 1686 college students, which assessed past and current medical use and current nonmedical use of stimulants, sedatives/anxiolytics, and opioid analgesics. Results: Logistic regression analyses revealed that both past and current medical use of sedatives/anxiolytics and opioid analgesics predicted the current nonmedical use of the same drug class, whereas past medical use of stimulants predicted the current nonmedical use of stimulants. In addition, current medical use of stimulants predicted current nonmedical use of sedatives/anxiolytics and past medical use of sedatives/anxiolytics predicted current nonmedical use of opioid analgesics. Conclusions: This study provides a broader examination than past research of simultaneous same-drug class and cross-drug class associations between medical and nonmedical prescription drug use, as well as the role of past and current medical use in these associations. Overall, the results suggest that efforts to prevent nonmedical use of a prescription drug class should move beyond targeting only those who have or who are using the same drug class medically.

Non-medical use of opioid analgesics in contemporary Brazil: Findings from the 2015 Brazilian National Household Survey on Substance Use

ABSTRACTPrior studies on substance use in Brazil have not focused on opioid misuse, previously thought to be nearly non-existent. This paper presents new findings on heroin and non-medical use of opioid analgesics. Data come from the 2015 Brazilian Household Survey on Substance Use (BHSU-3), a nationally representative survey estimating epidemiological parameters related to substance use by residents across Brazil. BHSU-3 used stratified multi-stage probability sampling across multiple geographic domains of interest, resulting in 16,273 interviews with household residents. Lifetime heroin use among Brazilians was 0.3 (95% C.I:0.2–0.4). Lifetime, past-year, and past-month non-medical use of opioid analgesics were respectively 2.9 (95%C.I.:2.3–3.4), 1.4 (95%C.I.:1.1–1.7) and 0.6 (95%C.I.:0.4–0.8). Past-year prevalence of non-medical opioid analgesics use was lower among males [Prevalence Ratio (PR): 0.54 (95% C.I.:0.36–0.78)], those aged 12–24 [0.56 (95% C.I.:0.34–0.92)], persons with monthly family incomes between R$1,501–3,000 [0.59 (95% C.I.:0.38–0.92)] or greater than R$3,000 [0.64 (95% C.I.:0.42–0.98)], and persons who were unemployed [0.65 (95% C.I.:0.46–0.92)]. Non-medical use of opioids in Brazil may be more prevalent than previously recognised. Proper measurement and evaluation of opioid misuse across Brazil and other Latin American countries is critical to understand and prevent opioid-related harms.

Does Medical Cannabis Use Increase or Decrease the Use of Opioid Analgesics and Other Prescription Drugs?

: In observational and retrospective studies, people who use cannabis are more likely than people who do not use cannabis to also use other drugs. People who take medical cannabis are also more likely to report medical and non-medical use of opioid analgesics, stimulants, and tranquilizers. Given that people who take medical cannabis and those who do not are likely to have different underlying morbidity, it is possible that medical cannabis use reduces prescription drug use yet prescription drug use remains relatively high. Studies comparing people who take medical cannabis with people who do not take it cannot draw conclusions about the effect of medical cannabis on drug use. To fully understand the effect of medical cannabis on the use of other drugs, prospective longitudinal studies randomizing individuals to cannabis versus other treatments are urgently needed.

The paradox of decreasing nonmedical opioid analgesic use and increasing abuse or dependence — An assessment of demographic and substance use trends, United States, 2003–2014

BackgroundThe harms related to nonmedical use of opioid analgesics have impacted the United States for more than a decade. Examining trends in nonmedical use, abuse, and dependence among various demographic and substance using groups can provide critical insight for prevention and treatment activities. MethodsData from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health were used to assess trends in opioid analgesic nonmedical use, abuse, and dependence for 2003–2005, 2006–2008, 2009–2011, and 2012–2014. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify characteristics associated with opioid analgesic abuse or dependence. ResultsRates of past-year opioid analgesic nonmedical use decreased from 48.4 per 1000 persons aged 12years and older in 2003–2005 to 43.3 in 2012–2014. Declines were seen among most demographic and substance using groups. In contrast, rates of past-year opioid analgesic abuse or dependence increased from 6.0 per 1000 persons in 2003–2005 to 7.5 in 2012–2014; increases were seen among most demographic and substance using groups. In 2012–2014, odds of opioid analgesic abuse or dependence were highest among those with sedative or tranquilizer and heroin abuse or dependence. ConclusionsThese findings indicate encouraging trends in overall nonmedical use of opioid analgesics which declined among many demographic and substance using groups. However, continued increases in rates of opioid analgesic abuse or dependence highlight the critical importance of maintaining efforts to drive down inappropriate opioid prescribing and expanding efforts to increase the provision of medication assisted treatment and psychosocial services for opioid use disorders and equipping individuals with naloxone to reverse opioid overdose.

Non-Prescribed Buprenorphine in New York City: Motivations for Use, Practices of Diversion, and Experiences of Stigma

Non-medical use of opioid analgesics (OAs) has increased in the United States over the past decade. Concurrently, access to opioid agonist therapies (OATs) such as buprenorphine has expanded. However, there has been little in-depth qualitative exploration into circumstances surrounding buprenorphine diversion and non-prescribed use. This study reports on qualitative data from in-depth interviews conducted with persons in New York City reporting non-medical OA use in the past 12 months. Participants (n=42) were aged between 18 and 49 years. The majority were male (n=29) and non-Hispanic White (n=35). All participants self-reported physical opioid dependence. Motivations for non-prescribed buprenorphine use included the abatement of withdrawal symptoms or a self-initiated detoxification or treatment plan. Few participants reported buprenorphine use for euphoric effect, and no participants reported using buprenorphine as a primary drug. Buprenorphine diversion primarily occurred as a means of supporting ongoing illicit drug use, and no participants reported selling buprenorphine as a primary source of income. Participants reported misinformation around some key areas of buprenorphine induction and use, as well as stigma within peer networks and from drug treatment providers. As access to buprenorphine treatment continues to expand in the United States, enhancing patient education is a critical step toward minimizing diversion and incidental harms from non-prescribed use.

Circumstances and contexts of heroin initiation following non-medical opioid analgesic use in New York City

BackgroundAs the prevalence of opioid analgesic (OA) misuse and associated harms have increased in the United States, the prevalence of heroin use and rates of unintentional overdose have concurrently risen. Research has begun to identify connections between OA misuse and heroin use, although this relationship remains under explored. The present study explores the context of heroin initiation among persons with histories of OA misuse in New York City. MethodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with 31 individuals with histories of OA misuse who initiated heroin use within the past five years. Data were collected between August 2013 and January 2015. All participants’ OA misuse temporally preceded their heroin use. Interviews were coded and analyzed utilizing thematic qualitative methods. ResultsParticipants ranged in age from 18 to 44 years; 25 identified as male and 30 identified as non-Hispanic white and heterosexual. All participants had stable housing at the time of interview and all were high school graduates. Participants described several key points of transition along their trajectories from OA misuse to heroin initiation: dual- to single-entity OAs; oral to intranasal OA administration; and the development of physical opioid dependence. Participants described the breaking down of heroin-related stigma across social networks as new drug use permeated social groups. ConclusionSeveral points of transition were identified in participants’ trajectories from OA misuse to heroin initiation. In particular the development of physical dependence was a critical factor as existing heroin stigma was rapidly overcome in the face of opioid withdrawal. The relatively short time to heroin initiation documented among new user groups serves as an added challenge to the development of interventions.

Routes Into Opioid Analgesic Misuse

Non-medical use of opioid analgesics (OAs) has increased in the United States over the past decade, yet there has been little in-depth exploration into the circumstances of initiation of OA misuse. This study is based on qualitative data from five focus groups conducted with individuals who misused OAs in New York City. Participants ( n = 19) were aged between 20 and 47 years. The majority were male ( n = 14) and non-Hispanic White ( n = 12). Three initiate groups were identified: recreational initiates, who typically began misusing OAs in their teens through non-medical sources; medical initiates, who initiated OA use through medical treatment; and experienced opioid users, who initiated OA use through both recreational and medical channels but whose entry into misuse followed a history of heroin use. Findings show heterogeneous patterns of initiation, indicating the need for prevention and intervention strategies to be tailored to particular groups.

Psychological and Drug Abuse Symptoms Associated With Nonmedical Use of Opioid Analgesics Among Adolescents

ABSTRACT. Background: Approximately 18% of US adolescents engaged in prescription opioid abuse in 2013. However, this estimate may be misleading because it includes both medical misusers and nonmedical users, and there is evidence that these are 2 groups that differ relative to substance abuse and criminal risk. Thus, this study does not combine medical and nonmedical users; rather, it seeks to better understand the characteristics of nonmedical users. Methods: This was a school-based, cross-sectional study that was conducted during 2009–2010 in southeastern Michigan with a sample of 2627 adolescents using a Web-based survey. Three mutually exclusive groups were created based on responses regarding medical and nonmedical use of opioid analgesics. Group 1 had never used an opioid analgesic, Group 2 used an opioid analgesic only as prescribed, and Group 3 nonmedically used an opioid analgesic. In addition, Group 3 was divided into 2 mutually exclusive subgroups (self-treaters and sensation-seekers) based on reasons for nonmedical use. A series of multinomial logistic regressions were conducted to determine if the groups differed on the presence of pain, psychological symptoms (e.g., affective disorder, conduct disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]), and drug abuse. Results: Sixty-five percent (65.0%) of the sample was white/Caucasian and 29.5% was African American. The average age was 14.8 years (SD = 1.9). Seventy percent (70.4%; n = 1850) reported no lifetime opioid use, 24.5% (n = 644) were medical users, 3.5% (n = 92) were nonmedical users who used for pain relief only, and 1.6% (n = 41) were classified as nonmedical users for reasons other than for pain relief (e.g., to get high). Both medical users and nonmedical users reported more pain and substance abuse symptoms compared with never users. Those nonmedical users who used opioids for sensation-seeking motivations had greater odds of having psychological symptoms. Conclusions: These data support the need to further consider subgroups of nonmedical users of opioid analgesics.

The Development of the Washington State Emergency Department Opioid Prescribing Guidelines

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has classified prescription drug abuse as an epidemic due to the recent dramatic increase in prescription drug overdose deaths. In addition to an increase in overdose deaths involving opioid analgesics, there has also been an increase in substance abuse treatment admissions and an increase in emergency department (ED) visits for nonmedical use of opioid analgesics [1]. According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, the estimated number of ED visits for nonmedical use of opioid analgesics more than doubled from 2004 to 2008 (from 144,600 to 305,900 visits) [2]. Although quantifying the amount of opioids prescribed from an ED in comparison to other specialties has been a challenge, data from the 2003–2004 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey suggest that the ED accounts for 39 % of opioid administration or medical record prescription mentions compared with 30.5 % for primary care offices [3]; however, this source does not likely account for the small total amount prescribed from the ED. Analyses of the Vector One National database suggest that ED physicians are among the top five outpatient specialties prescribing opioids to patients 39 years old and younger along with primary care physicians, dentists, and pediatricians [4]. Among individuals who abused prescription opioids upon entering methadone treatment, 13 % reported obtaining their opioids from EDs; [5] Washington State Department of Health (WSDOH) had been concerned regarding data suggesting higher rates of drug overdose deaths and a higher percentage of nonmedical use of prescription pain medication in Washington State compared to the rest of the nation [6]. In 2010, opioid analgesic prescribing per capita in Washington State was significantly higher than the national average—ranking ninth in the nation. In addition, Washington State ranked 14th in the nation in drug overdose deaths in 2008 [1].

Nonmedical Use of Opioid Analgesics Obtained Directly From Physicians: Prevalence and Correlates

Nonmedical Use of Opioid Analgesics Obtained Directly From Physicians: Prevalence and Correlates

Detecting signals of opioid analgesic abuse: application of a spatial mixed effect poisson regression model using data from a network of poison control centers

The recent rise in the non-medical use of opioid analgesics in the US has underscored the importance of comprehensive post-marketing surveillance of these products. To assist pharmacovigilance efforts, we developed a methodology for detecting geo-specific "signals" of potential outbreaks of prescription drug abuse by 3-digit ZIP (3DZ) code. The number of intentional exposure calls involving nine specific opioid analgesics were obtained from eight regional poison control centers between first quarter 2003 and fourth quarter 2004. The unit of analysis was a combination of drug-quarter/year-3DZ. We fitted an empirical Bayes mixed effects Poisson-Gamma regression model that adjusted for differences across 3DZs in opioid analgesic exposure. A relative report rate (RR) >or=3 at a probability of >0.95 was the signal threshold criterion. A total of 15,769 valid drug-time-3DZ combinations were identified. Of these, 1.9% (n = 294) met the signal threshold criterion. The number of signals generated per drug-quarter/year-3DZ combination ranged from 0 to 13. The largest number of signals were those involving methadone (n = 71), hydrocodone (n = 57), and branded oxycodone extended-release (n = 45). Signals for methadone and branded oxycodone extended-release were predominantly clustered in Appalachia. Hydrocodone-related signals showed less geographic clustering with approximately 26% reported from California, and the remainder from other regions in the US. Our results show marked regional differences in reported abuse of specific opioid analgesics. Additional research is needed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of signals obtained using this spatial mixed effect Poisson regression model.

Quantifying morbidity associated with the abuse and misuse of opioid analgesics: A comparison of two approaches

Background. Due to the rising nonmedical use of opioid analgesics, methods are needed to quantify the associated health-related consequences. Methods. Using opioid analgesic intentional exposure reports from poison control centers from January 2003–June 2004, we calculated quarterly rates for 7 opioids at the 3-digit ZIP code level using population- and patient-based denominators. Results. Hydrocodone was the most widely prescribed opioid (maximum: 5,321,390 patients per quarter), with the largest intentional exposure caseload (range: 498–1,290), and the highest aggregate population-based rate (maximum of 13.61 cases per 1,000,000 individuals). Methadone had the highest aggregate patient-based rate (maximum 2.03 cases per 1,000 patients). Conclusion. Population- and patient-based rates are complementary tools that address different public health questions. Population-based rates describe the health-related burden of nonmedical opioid analgesic use on the community as a whole, while patient-based rates show this burden (“risk”) in relation to the level of corresponding medicinal use (“benefit”) within a given area.