Addiction Medicine

PARIS – “We need to develop new therapies to treat addiction because of the related cost to society, which is extremely high,” said Bruno Roméo, MD, psychiatrist and addiction specialist at Paul Brousse Hospital in Villejuif, France, at the Paris-based Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Neurology Conference. Dr. Roméo spoke about the current place of psychedelics in the treatment of addiction.

“Smoking and alcohol consumption are the two main preventable causes of death in France,” he said. “Current management strategies for these addictions rarely involve pharmacological therapies, which are not very effective, in any case. We have massive relapse rates, signaling the need to develop other treatments, like psychedelic drugs.”

But what data are available on the efficacy of psychedelics in treating addiction?

Alcohol use disorder

There are few data concerning the role of psychedelics in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, but one controlled, randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of psilocybin. That trial was published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2022.

That study included 95 patients with alcohol use disorder; 49 were treated with psilocybin, and 46 were treated with diphenhydramine.

An initial medication session of psilocybin was given in week 4, then another in week 8 at a higher dose. The number of drinking days, the number of heavy drinking days, and the number of drinks consumed between weeks 32 and 36 were assessed.

The investigators showed that, after two sessions with psilocybin, there was a significant reduction in the number of heavy drinking days. In the control group, between weeks 5 and 36, 20% of days involved heavy drinking, whereas in the psilocybin group, 10% of days involved heavy drinking.

There was also a significant and rapid reduction in the number of drinking days, and this was maintained over time. Between weeks 5 and 36, just over 40% of days were reported as drinking days in the control group versus slightly more than 30% in the psilocybin group.

Similarly, the number of glasses per day was drastically reduced after taking psilocybin, and the effect occurred extremely quickly. Consumption went from six drinks to less than one drink between weeks 5 and 8. Overall, between weeks 5 and 36, the number of drinks consumed per day was more than two in the placebo group and more than one in the psilocybin group.

“Psilocybin was seen as having potential efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder. But we must tread carefully with these results; the profile of the patients enrolled in this study is different to that of the patients we regularly see in our addiction clinics. The patients enrolled in the study reported less than 60% of days as heavy drinking days,” said Dr. Romeo.
 

Candidates for psilocybin

According to a retrospective survey of 160 respondents that was conducted online at Paul Brousse Hospital, patients with the most severe cases of alcohol use disorder who have the most mystical psychedelic experiences seem to respond best to psilocybin and to reduce their alcohol use. It also appears that patients whose alcohol use decreased the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study. (Psychological flexibility is the ability to adapt to change and to cope with positive and negative experiences in real time without being fazed or trying to flee from the situation.) “It’s as if they had a broader capacity for change, and psychedelics helped them more,” said Dr. Roméo.

Smoking cessation

“There are even fewer studies for smoking,” said Dr. Roméo. In a pilot study with 15 patients, the researchers gave two or three doses of psilocybin at 20-30 mg in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy one session per week for 10 weeks. Thereafter, patients were assessed three times: after 6 months, 12 months, and 30 months.

The results showed a significant reduction in smoking. Patients went from smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day to smoking one to two cigarettes per day before going back up to six cigarettes daily.

Regarding abstinence rates, 12 of 15 patients had stopped smoking after 6 months, 8 of 15 after 1 year, and 7 of 15 after 30 months. “This study produced some interesting results, although caution must obviously be taken due to the very low number of patients enrolled,” said Dr. Roméo.

As is the case for alcohol, a retrospective survey conducted via questionnaire at Paul Brousse Hospital showed that the patients who smoked the most and who had the most mystical psychedelic experiences seemed to respond best to psilocybin and therefore to reduce their tobacco use. It also seemed to be the case that patients who reduced tobacco use the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study.
 

Constraints on psychedelics

“Psychedelics are somewhat effective in treating addiction, but there are various limitations to their use,” said Dr. Roméo.

One of those limitations is societal. Laurence Bézo, MD, of the addiction services clinic at Paul Brousse Hospital, asked doctors to respond to a questionnaire to determine what they thought about psychedelics. To date, 407 have responded, including 280 general practitioners, 50 addiction specialists, and 50 specialist physicians. Overall, 50% think that psychedelics have no therapeutic potential. Three of five doctors also said that psychedelics are dangerous. Just over half thought that their use is associated with a severe risk of aggression aimed at oneself and toward others. Likewise, half think that the risk of dependency is very high and that there is a risk of co-occurring psychiatric disorders. “From the pool of physicians queried, the consensus is that psychedelics are pretty dangerous. People also seem to frown upon prescribing psychedelics in France,” said Dr. Roméo.

Participants went as far as to classify psychedelics as some of the most dangerous drugs out there.

Using a 7-point scale, they classified psychedelics below heroin and cocaine in terms of dangerousness. They are deemed much more harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.

“A survey of the public carried out several years ago by leading French market research group IFOP had the exact same findings. Nevertheless, a number of studies have set out to determine how dangerous psychedelics are, and their findings point to this class of drugs as being among the least harmful for the individual patient and those around them. On the contrary, alcohol, heroin, crack cocaine (or even cocaine),methamphetamine, and tobacco were shown to be the most harmful. Additionally, psychedelics have a very low risk of dependency and the lowest risk of lethality. There is complete dissonance between what recent studies show us and what society, and some doctors, think,” said Dr. Roméo.

Besides these assumptions, another constraint to the use of psychedelics relates to methods adopted in related clinical studies. “Due to the effect psychedelics have, in the trials conducted, 9 participants and 9 doctors out of 10 are aware of what they have taken or given, respectively. This is a very important limitation. Nowadays, researchers don’t know how to conduct accurate double-blind studies,” said Dr. Roméo.

In sum, for psychiatrists, psychedelics are promising in addiction therapy, but health care professionals, public authorities, and society as a whole must be better informed about their use, and received ideas must be dispelled.

“The findings need to be replicated, but overall, psychedelics are really quite promising in treating both alcohol and tobacco use disorder. They are generally well tolerated with few serious side effects. There is no deterioration in patients with psychiatric conditions while they are taking psychedelics. And if persistent symptoms of psychosis do occur, which is extremely rare, it’s probably because there are preexisting underlying issues at play. We also don’t see increased blood pressure or any other serious physical anomalies. In a supervised setting, as is the case with studies involving psychotherapeutic support, we can no longer say, in this day and age, that psychedelics are harmful,” said Dr. Roméo.

Dr. Roméo reported no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “We need to develop new therapies to treat addiction because of the related cost to society, which is extremely high,” said Bruno Roméo, MD, psychiatrist and addiction specialist at Paul Brousse Hospital in Villejuif, France, at the Paris-based Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Neurology Conference. Dr. Roméo spoke about the current place of psychedelics in the treatment of addiction.

“Smoking and alcohol consumption are the two main preventable causes of death in France,” he said. “Current management strategies for these addictions rarely involve pharmacological therapies, which are not very effective, in any case. We have massive relapse rates, signaling the need to develop other treatments, like psychedelic drugs.”

But what data are available on the efficacy of psychedelics in treating addiction?

Alcohol use disorder

There are few data concerning the role of psychedelics in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, but one controlled, randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of psilocybin. That trial was published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2022.

That study included 95 patients with alcohol use disorder; 49 were treated with psilocybin, and 46 were treated with diphenhydramine.

An initial medication session of psilocybin was given in week 4, then another in week 8 at a higher dose. The number of drinking days, the number of heavy drinking days, and the number of drinks consumed between weeks 32 and 36 were assessed.

The investigators showed that, after two sessions with psilocybin, there was a significant reduction in the number of heavy drinking days. In the control group, between weeks 5 and 36, 20% of days involved heavy drinking, whereas in the psilocybin group, 10% of days involved heavy drinking.

There was also a significant and rapid reduction in the number of drinking days, and this was maintained over time. Between weeks 5 and 36, just over 40% of days were reported as drinking days in the control group versus slightly more than 30% in the psilocybin group.

Similarly, the number of glasses per day was drastically reduced after taking psilocybin, and the effect occurred extremely quickly. Consumption went from six drinks to less than one drink between weeks 5 and 8. Overall, between weeks 5 and 36, the number of drinks consumed per day was more than two in the placebo group and more than one in the psilocybin group.

“Psilocybin was seen as having potential efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder. But we must tread carefully with these results; the profile of the patients enrolled in this study is different to that of the patients we regularly see in our addiction clinics. The patients enrolled in the study reported less than 60% of days as heavy drinking days,” said Dr. Romeo.
 

Candidates for psilocybin

According to a retrospective survey of 160 respondents that was conducted online at Paul Brousse Hospital, patients with the most severe cases of alcohol use disorder who have the most mystical psychedelic experiences seem to respond best to psilocybin and to reduce their alcohol use. It also appears that patients whose alcohol use decreased the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study. (Psychological flexibility is the ability to adapt to change and to cope with positive and negative experiences in real time without being fazed or trying to flee from the situation.) “It’s as if they had a broader capacity for change, and psychedelics helped them more,” said Dr. Roméo.

Smoking cessation

“There are even fewer studies for smoking,” said Dr. Roméo. In a pilot study with 15 patients, the researchers gave two or three doses of psilocybin at 20-30 mg in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy one session per week for 10 weeks. Thereafter, patients were assessed three times: after 6 months, 12 months, and 30 months.

The results showed a significant reduction in smoking. Patients went from smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day to smoking one to two cigarettes per day before going back up to six cigarettes daily.

Regarding abstinence rates, 12 of 15 patients had stopped smoking after 6 months, 8 of 15 after 1 year, and 7 of 15 after 30 months. “This study produced some interesting results, although caution must obviously be taken due to the very low number of patients enrolled,” said Dr. Roméo.

As is the case for alcohol, a retrospective survey conducted via questionnaire at Paul Brousse Hospital showed that the patients who smoked the most and who had the most mystical psychedelic experiences seemed to respond best to psilocybin and therefore to reduce their tobacco use. It also seemed to be the case that patients who reduced tobacco use the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study.
 

Constraints on psychedelics

“Psychedelics are somewhat effective in treating addiction, but there are various limitations to their use,” said Dr. Roméo.

One of those limitations is societal. Laurence Bézo, MD, of the addiction services clinic at Paul Brousse Hospital, asked doctors to respond to a questionnaire to determine what they thought about psychedelics. To date, 407 have responded, including 280 general practitioners, 50 addiction specialists, and 50 specialist physicians. Overall, 50% think that psychedelics have no therapeutic potential. Three of five doctors also said that psychedelics are dangerous. Just over half thought that their use is associated with a severe risk of aggression aimed at oneself and toward others. Likewise, half think that the risk of dependency is very high and that there is a risk of co-occurring psychiatric disorders. “From the pool of physicians queried, the consensus is that psychedelics are pretty dangerous. People also seem to frown upon prescribing psychedelics in France,” said Dr. Roméo.

Participants went as far as to classify psychedelics as some of the most dangerous drugs out there.

Using a 7-point scale, they classified psychedelics below heroin and cocaine in terms of dangerousness. They are deemed much more harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.

“A survey of the public carried out several years ago by leading French market research group IFOP had the exact same findings. Nevertheless, a number of studies have set out to determine how dangerous psychedelics are, and their findings point to this class of drugs as being among the least harmful for the individual patient and those around them. On the contrary, alcohol, heroin, crack cocaine (or even cocaine),methamphetamine, and tobacco were shown to be the most harmful. Additionally, psychedelics have a very low risk of dependency and the lowest risk of lethality. There is complete dissonance between what recent studies show us and what society, and some doctors, think,” said Dr. Roméo.

Besides these assumptions, another constraint to the use of psychedelics relates to methods adopted in related clinical studies. “Due to the effect psychedelics have, in the trials conducted, 9 participants and 9 doctors out of 10 are aware of what they have taken or given, respectively. This is a very important limitation. Nowadays, researchers don’t know how to conduct accurate double-blind studies,” said Dr. Roméo.

In sum, for psychiatrists, psychedelics are promising in addiction therapy, but health care professionals, public authorities, and society as a whole must be better informed about their use, and received ideas must be dispelled.

“The findings need to be replicated, but overall, psychedelics are really quite promising in treating both alcohol and tobacco use disorder. They are generally well tolerated with few serious side effects. There is no deterioration in patients with psychiatric conditions while they are taking psychedelics. And if persistent symptoms of psychosis do occur, which is extremely rare, it’s probably because there are preexisting underlying issues at play. We also don’t see increased blood pressure or any other serious physical anomalies. In a supervised setting, as is the case with studies involving psychotherapeutic support, we can no longer say, in this day and age, that psychedelics are harmful,” said Dr. Roméo.

Dr. Roméo reported no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “We need to develop new therapies to treat addiction because of the related cost to society, which is extremely high,” said Bruno Roméo, MD, psychiatrist and addiction specialist at Paul Brousse Hospital in Villejuif, France, at the Paris-based Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Neurology Conference. Dr. Roméo spoke about the current place of psychedelics in the treatment of addiction.

“Smoking and alcohol consumption are the two main preventable causes of death in France,” he said. “Current management strategies for these addictions rarely involve pharmacological therapies, which are not very effective, in any case. We have massive relapse rates, signaling the need to develop other treatments, like psychedelic drugs.”

But what data are available on the efficacy of psychedelics in treating addiction?

Alcohol use disorder

There are few data concerning the role of psychedelics in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, but one controlled, randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of psilocybin. That trial was published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2022.

That study included 95 patients with alcohol use disorder; 49 were treated with psilocybin, and 46 were treated with diphenhydramine.

An initial medication session of psilocybin was given in week 4, then another in week 8 at a higher dose. The number of drinking days, the number of heavy drinking days, and the number of drinks consumed between weeks 32 and 36 were assessed.

The investigators showed that, after two sessions with psilocybin, there was a significant reduction in the number of heavy drinking days. In the control group, between weeks 5 and 36, 20% of days involved heavy drinking, whereas in the psilocybin group, 10% of days involved heavy drinking.

There was also a significant and rapid reduction in the number of drinking days, and this was maintained over time. Between weeks 5 and 36, just over 40% of days were reported as drinking days in the control group versus slightly more than 30% in the psilocybin group.

Similarly, the number of glasses per day was drastically reduced after taking psilocybin, and the effect occurred extremely quickly. Consumption went from six drinks to less than one drink between weeks 5 and 8. Overall, between weeks 5 and 36, the number of drinks consumed per day was more than two in the placebo group and more than one in the psilocybin group.

“Psilocybin was seen as having potential efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder. But we must tread carefully with these results; the profile of the patients enrolled in this study is different to that of the patients we regularly see in our addiction clinics. The patients enrolled in the study reported less than 60% of days as heavy drinking days,” said Dr. Romeo.
 

Candidates for psilocybin

According to a retrospective survey of 160 respondents that was conducted online at Paul Brousse Hospital, patients with the most severe cases of alcohol use disorder who have the most mystical psychedelic experiences seem to respond best to psilocybin and to reduce their alcohol use. It also appears that patients whose alcohol use decreased the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study. (Psychological flexibility is the ability to adapt to change and to cope with positive and negative experiences in real time without being fazed or trying to flee from the situation.) “It’s as if they had a broader capacity for change, and psychedelics helped them more,” said Dr. Roméo.

Smoking cessation

“There are even fewer studies for smoking,” said Dr. Roméo. In a pilot study with 15 patients, the researchers gave two or three doses of psilocybin at 20-30 mg in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy one session per week for 10 weeks. Thereafter, patients were assessed three times: after 6 months, 12 months, and 30 months.

The results showed a significant reduction in smoking. Patients went from smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day to smoking one to two cigarettes per day before going back up to six cigarettes daily.

Regarding abstinence rates, 12 of 15 patients had stopped smoking after 6 months, 8 of 15 after 1 year, and 7 of 15 after 30 months. “This study produced some interesting results, although caution must obviously be taken due to the very low number of patients enrolled,” said Dr. Roméo.

As is the case for alcohol, a retrospective survey conducted via questionnaire at Paul Brousse Hospital showed that the patients who smoked the most and who had the most mystical psychedelic experiences seemed to respond best to psilocybin and therefore to reduce their tobacco use. It also seemed to be the case that patients who reduced tobacco use the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study.
 

Constraints on psychedelics

“Psychedelics are somewhat effective in treating addiction, but there are various limitations to their use,” said Dr. Roméo.

One of those limitations is societal. Laurence Bézo, MD, of the addiction services clinic at Paul Brousse Hospital, asked doctors to respond to a questionnaire to determine what they thought about psychedelics. To date, 407 have responded, including 280 general practitioners, 50 addiction specialists, and 50 specialist physicians. Overall, 50% think that psychedelics have no therapeutic potential. Three of five doctors also said that psychedelics are dangerous. Just over half thought that their use is associated with a severe risk of aggression aimed at oneself and toward others. Likewise, half think that the risk of dependency is very high and that there is a risk of co-occurring psychiatric disorders. “From the pool of physicians queried, the consensus is that psychedelics are pretty dangerous. People also seem to frown upon prescribing psychedelics in France,” said Dr. Roméo.

Participants went as far as to classify psychedelics as some of the most dangerous drugs out there.

Using a 7-point scale, they classified psychedelics below heroin and cocaine in terms of dangerousness. They are deemed much more harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.

“A survey of the public carried out several years ago by leading French market research group IFOP had the exact same findings. Nevertheless, a number of studies have set out to determine how dangerous psychedelics are, and their findings point to this class of drugs as being among the least harmful for the individual patient and those around them. On the contrary, alcohol, heroin, crack cocaine (or even cocaine),methamphetamine, and tobacco were shown to be the most harmful. Additionally, psychedelics have a very low risk of dependency and the lowest risk of lethality. There is complete dissonance between what recent studies show us and what society, and some doctors, think,” said Dr. Roméo.

Besides these assumptions, another constraint to the use of psychedelics relates to methods adopted in related clinical studies. “Due to the effect psychedelics have, in the trials conducted, 9 participants and 9 doctors out of 10 are aware of what they have taken or given, respectively. This is a very important limitation. Nowadays, researchers don’t know how to conduct accurate double-blind studies,” said Dr. Roméo.

In sum, for psychiatrists, psychedelics are promising in addiction therapy, but health care professionals, public authorities, and society as a whole must be better informed about their use, and received ideas must be dispelled.

“The findings need to be replicated, but overall, psychedelics are really quite promising in treating both alcohol and tobacco use disorder. They are generally well tolerated with few serious side effects. There is no deterioration in patients with psychiatric conditions while they are taking psychedelics. And if persistent symptoms of psychosis do occur, which is extremely rare, it’s probably because there are preexisting underlying issues at play. We also don’t see increased blood pressure or any other serious physical anomalies. In a supervised setting, as is the case with studies involving psychotherapeutic support, we can no longer say, in this day and age, that psychedelics are harmful,” said Dr. Roméo.

Dr. Roméo reported no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Health care systems need practical, scalable methods to reach patients and connect them to available, evidence-based resources. Ideally, these systems need to be resource nonintensive to deploy, maintain, and use. They should also be low cost, have a relative advantage to the organization, be sensitive to patient needs, use available resources, and have rigorous evidence regarding their effect on patient-centered outcomes.^1,2 Phone service is one way to reach people that remains viable. More than 97% of Americans own a cellphone of some kind, and 40% still have a landline.^3,4 One intervention that has been increasingly used in routine care settings is an interactive voice response (IVR) system that uses phones for connecting to patients.

IVR systems are a type of telehealth that provides information or adjunct health services through use of a telecommunication platform and information technologies.⁵ These systems are automated telephone systems that use prerecorded or text-to-speech–generated messages that allow respondents to provide and access information without a live agent.⁶ Text messaging (SMS) is another modality that can be used to asynchronously engage with participants. IVR systems have been used successfully for many health conditions and services, such as improving veterans’ adherence to continuous positive airway pressure, colorectal cancer screening, and cognitive behavioral therapy.^7-10 By building on existing technology and infrastructure, IVR systems can be a cost-effective option for health care system services.

A 2016 Cochrane review of IVR systems for smoking cessation identified 7 studies.¹¹ Although none used opt-out mechanisms (where individuals are automatically enrolled in programs until they decide not to participate) to engage people without an expressed motivation to quit, these interventions seemed safe and were promisingly effective. Among patients enrolled in primary care, a trial of an IVR system led to a higher quit rate: 18% vs 8%.¹²

In one study, patients in the emergency department, particularly older ones, preferred phone-based interventions over SMS.¹³ IVR-based proactive tobacco cessation systems are cost-effective and have been successfully used in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).^14,15 IVR systems using opt-out approaches are being studied, though their effectiveness in this setting has not been proven. The pros and cons of different interventions need to be explored since there is likely a tradeoff between feasibility and effectiveness. For example, intensive smoking cessation interventions are more effective but often require more resources to implement and sustain.¹⁶ Basing interventions that are not resource intensive within a reputable organizational system may amplify the effectiveness.¹⁷

This endeavor to establish an IVR system was initiated as part of our research study, a randomized trial of the Teachable Moment to Opt-Out of Tobacco (TeaM OUT) intervention at the VA Portland Health Care System in Oregon. We measured the reach and effectiveness of a novel, proactive, resource nonintensive, and pragmatic intervention to engage veterans with a recently diagnosed lung nodule who smoke cigarettes.¹⁸ Our research team extracted the contact information for patients currently smoking and found to a have a pulmonary nodule from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.¹⁹ We then manually uploaded those data to an IVR website where the system contacted patients to connect them to smoking cessation resources on an opt-out basis. In the research study, we measured the acceptability and effectiveness of the TeaM OUT intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods.

We developed and implemented an IVR system for use at 4 facilities: VA Portland Health Care System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center (Charleston, NC), and the Baltimore VA Medical Center. Setting up any type of wide-scale technology within the VA can be challenging. Due to our experience in developing and implementing the IVR system in the VA, we share what we have learned about the process of finding, contracting, developing, and implementing an IVR system. We share our experiences with developing and implementing this system to provide guidance for those who may want to establish an IVR system (or similar technologies) within the VA.

Lessons Learned

During our development and implementation process, we learned several lessons about setting up an IVR system in the VA. It is important to note that VA facilities may have differing processes, and policies frequently change; thus coordination with departments (eg, contracting, finance, Office of Information and Technology [OIT], etc) to verify the following strategies is essential (Figure).

Vendor Selection

Check with the local OIT and contracting offices to see if the facility has previously used any vendors for these services and for advice on selection. We compiled a list of questions that may be helpful based on our discussions with 4 vendors, prior to selection of a vendor already VA-approved (Appendix). There are also questions to think about in parallel with choosing a vendor. Contact your OIT, contracting, and privacy (if necessary) offices before choosing a vendor.

Online Security

After selecting a vendor, if you want an online portal to view, upload, or downloaddata, then you will need to initiate the single sign-on internal (SSOI) process (www.data.va.gov/dataset/Single-Sign-On-Internal-SSOi-/cber-kxf9). Other benefits of a website are to identify call patterns (eg, no one picks up after the 10th call) and track respondents’ selections. The SSOI process can take up to 1 year. Notably, the website login at minimum needs to be created by the IVR vendor to start the process. After the SSOI is approved you can add more to the website beyond just the login capability. Note that the script needs to be finalized prior to SSOI initiation. You will need to initiate with the SSOI team, then the vendor will need to complete the process.

Contracting

Concurrent with the above steps, contact the contracting office to get a sense of the paperwork and timeline. Make sure you are comfortable with the vendor’s responses to the questions in the Appendix, and view their written proposal or scope of work (SOW) to ensure they can do what the project protocol demands.

If the vendor has previously worked with the VA, contact your local contract office (usually part of the Finance Office) for updated forms. We needed the 6500.6 Checklist, Document Checklist for Service Requests, Single Source Justification, Research & Development Order (if research-related), and Vendor File Request forms. The vendor can help complete these forms. Review the proposal/SOW and budget first, knowing that budgets have a wide range and depend on the length and complexity of the script, number of calls, number of respondents, etc. For example, our quote was $110,000 over 4 years, including development, training, hosting on a secure server, and maintenance. Our IVR system will call about 5000 patients across 4 sites. Each patient will receive up to 15 calls over 2 weeks if they do not answer. We created 2 IVR lines (1 inbound and 1 outbound). Next, contact the lead of the local OIT and contracting departments by email to justify sharing veteran information with a contracted entity via approved methods. Finally, contact the privacy officer and information security officer. Discuss where software would be installed, whether cloud storage would be used, and what information can be shared/stored. Remember that the rules may differ for research vs nonresearch projects. Also, determine whether a data-use agreement between the VA and the vendor is needed and how the institutional review board (if research) gets integrated.

If using an outside vendor who has never worked with the VA, submit form 6550.6. Note that contracting requires several months. First, contact OIT and contracting departments. Again, you will need to justify sharing veteran information with a contracted entity. Next, complete the Project Special Forces Software and Privacy Threshold Analysis process to purchase the system. Set up a meeting with OIT to determine other forms and next steps. Business need/case use form and data security categorization may be needed. If the software needs to be installed on a VA computer, you will need to submit a Technical Reference Model request if it does not have an entry.

Vendors can answer technical questions from the contracting office, especially about the SOW, but the VA team needs to write the contract and manage all documentation and communication. You will also need sole source documentation (receive from contracting office) with justification for why you want to use a specific vendor. If you do not have that justification, in cooperation with the contracts office, you must solicit bids from other companies. Importantly, understand the staff support needed for contracting and build into your timeline and budget. Not surprisingly, we found that in-person or phone meetings were invaluable compared with email correspondence. Meet with all parties involved early and often. Once the contract is clear, this begins the build process where the vendor can program and record the script. This process usually takes 1 to 2 months.

Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support

The new Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support (PETALS) initiative is an excellent place to start with any VA IVR-related questions. PETALS is used for research.²⁰ We hoped to use this system for our study, but its implementation was delayed until 2022. The PETALS system is designed for VA investigators who conduct research studies and need a secure platform that is compliant with VA policies for deploying SMS and IVR systems for research.²⁰ At this time, PETALS is for use only with veterans, so if research will occur outside the VA, you must use an outside vendor. Users who want to set up a new IVR system can ask their local contracting office whether any contracts have already been established for IVR development and support.

From our perspective as researchers who are not telehealth savvy, we encountered several delays from failing to ask the appropriate questions or inability to navigate complicated systems. For instance, there were several tasks that needed to be completed and were not included in the original timeline developed by the vendor and researcher. Therefore, it is important to have clear communication on both sides about who is doing what, when, and how. We tried to detail these unexpected steps to help researchers, administrators, or other VA employees in the future.

Conclusions

IVR systems, once they are developed and implemented, can be efficient, low-cost, resource-nonintensive solutions in a health care setting that can effectively connect patients with needed health care services. Our experience developing an IVR system within the VA was challenging and was a huge learning curve for our research team. We hope that our experience and lessons will help VA personnel in the future.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to everyone involved in this project and who answered questions about the process, especially Nicolle Marinec, MPH; Toan Tran, and Molly Delorit, BA. This study and Christopher Slatore, MD, are supported by an award from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (HSR&D IIR 19-425). It was also supported by resources from the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (VAPORHCS).

Health care systems need practical, scalable methods to reach patients and connect them to available, evidence-based resources. Ideally, these systems need to be resource nonintensive to deploy, maintain, and use. They should also be low cost, have a relative advantage to the organization, be sensitive to patient needs, use available resources, and have rigorous evidence regarding their effect on patient-centered outcomes.^1,2 Phone service is one way to reach people that remains viable. More than 97% of Americans own a cellphone of some kind, and 40% still have a landline.^3,4 One intervention that has been increasingly used in routine care settings is an interactive voice response (IVR) system that uses phones for connecting to patients.

IVR systems are a type of telehealth that provides information or adjunct health services through use of a telecommunication platform and information technologies.⁵ These systems are automated telephone systems that use prerecorded or text-to-speech–generated messages that allow respondents to provide and access information without a live agent.⁶ Text messaging (SMS) is another modality that can be used to asynchronously engage with participants. IVR systems have been used successfully for many health conditions and services, such as improving veterans’ adherence to continuous positive airway pressure, colorectal cancer screening, and cognitive behavioral therapy.^7-10 By building on existing technology and infrastructure, IVR systems can be a cost-effective option for health care system services.

A 2016 Cochrane review of IVR systems for smoking cessation identified 7 studies.¹¹ Although none used opt-out mechanisms (where individuals are automatically enrolled in programs until they decide not to participate) to engage people without an expressed motivation to quit, these interventions seemed safe and were promisingly effective. Among patients enrolled in primary care, a trial of an IVR system led to a higher quit rate: 18% vs 8%.¹²

In one study, patients in the emergency department, particularly older ones, preferred phone-based interventions over SMS.¹³ IVR-based proactive tobacco cessation systems are cost-effective and have been successfully used in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).^14,15 IVR systems using opt-out approaches are being studied, though their effectiveness in this setting has not been proven. The pros and cons of different interventions need to be explored since there is likely a tradeoff between feasibility and effectiveness. For example, intensive smoking cessation interventions are more effective but often require more resources to implement and sustain.¹⁶ Basing interventions that are not resource intensive within a reputable organizational system may amplify the effectiveness.¹⁷

This endeavor to establish an IVR system was initiated as part of our research study, a randomized trial of the Teachable Moment to Opt-Out of Tobacco (TeaM OUT) intervention at the VA Portland Health Care System in Oregon. We measured the reach and effectiveness of a novel, proactive, resource nonintensive, and pragmatic intervention to engage veterans with a recently diagnosed lung nodule who smoke cigarettes.¹⁸ Our research team extracted the contact information for patients currently smoking and found to a have a pulmonary nodule from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.¹⁹ We then manually uploaded those data to an IVR website where the system contacted patients to connect them to smoking cessation resources on an opt-out basis. In the research study, we measured the acceptability and effectiveness of the TeaM OUT intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods.

We developed and implemented an IVR system for use at 4 facilities: VA Portland Health Care System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center (Charleston, NC), and the Baltimore VA Medical Center. Setting up any type of wide-scale technology within the VA can be challenging. Due to our experience in developing and implementing the IVR system in the VA, we share what we have learned about the process of finding, contracting, developing, and implementing an IVR system. We share our experiences with developing and implementing this system to provide guidance for those who may want to establish an IVR system (or similar technologies) within the VA.

Lessons Learned

During our development and implementation process, we learned several lessons about setting up an IVR system in the VA. It is important to note that VA facilities may have differing processes, and policies frequently change; thus coordination with departments (eg, contracting, finance, Office of Information and Technology [OIT], etc) to verify the following strategies is essential (Figure).

Vendor Selection

Check with the local OIT and contracting offices to see if the facility has previously used any vendors for these services and for advice on selection. We compiled a list of questions that may be helpful based on our discussions with 4 vendors, prior to selection of a vendor already VA-approved (Appendix). There are also questions to think about in parallel with choosing a vendor. Contact your OIT, contracting, and privacy (if necessary) offices before choosing a vendor.

Online Security

After selecting a vendor, if you want an online portal to view, upload, or downloaddata, then you will need to initiate the single sign-on internal (SSOI) process (www.data.va.gov/dataset/Single-Sign-On-Internal-SSOi-/cber-kxf9). Other benefits of a website are to identify call patterns (eg, no one picks up after the 10th call) and track respondents’ selections. The SSOI process can take up to 1 year. Notably, the website login at minimum needs to be created by the IVR vendor to start the process. After the SSOI is approved you can add more to the website beyond just the login capability. Note that the script needs to be finalized prior to SSOI initiation. You will need to initiate with the SSOI team, then the vendor will need to complete the process.

Contracting

Concurrent with the above steps, contact the contracting office to get a sense of the paperwork and timeline. Make sure you are comfortable with the vendor’s responses to the questions in the Appendix, and view their written proposal or scope of work (SOW) to ensure they can do what the project protocol demands.

If the vendor has previously worked with the VA, contact your local contract office (usually part of the Finance Office) for updated forms. We needed the 6500.6 Checklist, Document Checklist for Service Requests, Single Source Justification, Research & Development Order (if research-related), and Vendor File Request forms. The vendor can help complete these forms. Review the proposal/SOW and budget first, knowing that budgets have a wide range and depend on the length and complexity of the script, number of calls, number of respondents, etc. For example, our quote was $110,000 over 4 years, including development, training, hosting on a secure server, and maintenance. Our IVR system will call about 5000 patients across 4 sites. Each patient will receive up to 15 calls over 2 weeks if they do not answer. We created 2 IVR lines (1 inbound and 1 outbound). Next, contact the lead of the local OIT and contracting departments by email to justify sharing veteran information with a contracted entity via approved methods. Finally, contact the privacy officer and information security officer. Discuss where software would be installed, whether cloud storage would be used, and what information can be shared/stored. Remember that the rules may differ for research vs nonresearch projects. Also, determine whether a data-use agreement between the VA and the vendor is needed and how the institutional review board (if research) gets integrated.

If using an outside vendor who has never worked with the VA, submit form 6550.6. Note that contracting requires several months. First, contact OIT and contracting departments. Again, you will need to justify sharing veteran information with a contracted entity. Next, complete the Project Special Forces Software and Privacy Threshold Analysis process to purchase the system. Set up a meeting with OIT to determine other forms and next steps. Business need/case use form and data security categorization may be needed. If the software needs to be installed on a VA computer, you will need to submit a Technical Reference Model request if it does not have an entry.

Vendors can answer technical questions from the contracting office, especially about the SOW, but the VA team needs to write the contract and manage all documentation and communication. You will also need sole source documentation (receive from contracting office) with justification for why you want to use a specific vendor. If you do not have that justification, in cooperation with the contracts office, you must solicit bids from other companies. Importantly, understand the staff support needed for contracting and build into your timeline and budget. Not surprisingly, we found that in-person or phone meetings were invaluable compared with email correspondence. Meet with all parties involved early and often. Once the contract is clear, this begins the build process where the vendor can program and record the script. This process usually takes 1 to 2 months.

Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support

The new Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support (PETALS) initiative is an excellent place to start with any VA IVR-related questions. PETALS is used for research.²⁰ We hoped to use this system for our study, but its implementation was delayed until 2022. The PETALS system is designed for VA investigators who conduct research studies and need a secure platform that is compliant with VA policies for deploying SMS and IVR systems for research.²⁰ At this time, PETALS is for use only with veterans, so if research will occur outside the VA, you must use an outside vendor. Users who want to set up a new IVR system can ask their local contracting office whether any contracts have already been established for IVR development and support.

From our perspective as researchers who are not telehealth savvy, we encountered several delays from failing to ask the appropriate questions or inability to navigate complicated systems. For instance, there were several tasks that needed to be completed and were not included in the original timeline developed by the vendor and researcher. Therefore, it is important to have clear communication on both sides about who is doing what, when, and how. We tried to detail these unexpected steps to help researchers, administrators, or other VA employees in the future.

Conclusions

IVR systems, once they are developed and implemented, can be efficient, low-cost, resource-nonintensive solutions in a health care setting that can effectively connect patients with needed health care services. Our experience developing an IVR system within the VA was challenging and was a huge learning curve for our research team. We hope that our experience and lessons will help VA personnel in the future.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to everyone involved in this project and who answered questions about the process, especially Nicolle Marinec, MPH; Toan Tran, and Molly Delorit, BA. This study and Christopher Slatore, MD, are supported by an award from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (HSR&D IIR 19-425). It was also supported by resources from the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (VAPORHCS).

Health care systems need practical, scalable methods to reach patients and connect them to available, evidence-based resources. Ideally, these systems need to be resource nonintensive to deploy, maintain, and use. They should also be low cost, have a relative advantage to the organization, be sensitive to patient needs, use available resources, and have rigorous evidence regarding their effect on patient-centered outcomes.^1,2 Phone service is one way to reach people that remains viable. More than 97% of Americans own a cellphone of some kind, and 40% still have a landline.^3,4 One intervention that has been increasingly used in routine care settings is an interactive voice response (IVR) system that uses phones for connecting to patients.

IVR systems are a type of telehealth that provides information or adjunct health services through use of a telecommunication platform and information technologies.⁵ These systems are automated telephone systems that use prerecorded or text-to-speech–generated messages that allow respondents to provide and access information without a live agent.⁶ Text messaging (SMS) is another modality that can be used to asynchronously engage with participants. IVR systems have been used successfully for many health conditions and services, such as improving veterans’ adherence to continuous positive airway pressure, colorectal cancer screening, and cognitive behavioral therapy.^7-10 By building on existing technology and infrastructure, IVR systems can be a cost-effective option for health care system services.

A 2016 Cochrane review of IVR systems for smoking cessation identified 7 studies.¹¹ Although none used opt-out mechanisms (where individuals are automatically enrolled in programs until they decide not to participate) to engage people without an expressed motivation to quit, these interventions seemed safe and were promisingly effective. Among patients enrolled in primary care, a trial of an IVR system led to a higher quit rate: 18% vs 8%.¹²

In one study, patients in the emergency department, particularly older ones, preferred phone-based interventions over SMS.¹³ IVR-based proactive tobacco cessation systems are cost-effective and have been successfully used in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).^14,15 IVR systems using opt-out approaches are being studied, though their effectiveness in this setting has not been proven. The pros and cons of different interventions need to be explored since there is likely a tradeoff between feasibility and effectiveness. For example, intensive smoking cessation interventions are more effective but often require more resources to implement and sustain.¹⁶ Basing interventions that are not resource intensive within a reputable organizational system may amplify the effectiveness.¹⁷

This endeavor to establish an IVR system was initiated as part of our research study, a randomized trial of the Teachable Moment to Opt-Out of Tobacco (TeaM OUT) intervention at the VA Portland Health Care System in Oregon. We measured the reach and effectiveness of a novel, proactive, resource nonintensive, and pragmatic intervention to engage veterans with a recently diagnosed lung nodule who smoke cigarettes.¹⁸ Our research team extracted the contact information for patients currently smoking and found to a have a pulmonary nodule from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.¹⁹ We then manually uploaded those data to an IVR website where the system contacted patients to connect them to smoking cessation resources on an opt-out basis. In the research study, we measured the acceptability and effectiveness of the TeaM OUT intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods.

We developed and implemented an IVR system for use at 4 facilities: VA Portland Health Care System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center (Charleston, NC), and the Baltimore VA Medical Center. Setting up any type of wide-scale technology within the VA can be challenging. Due to our experience in developing and implementing the IVR system in the VA, we share what we have learned about the process of finding, contracting, developing, and implementing an IVR system. We share our experiences with developing and implementing this system to provide guidance for those who may want to establish an IVR system (or similar technologies) within the VA.

Lessons Learned

During our development and implementation process, we learned several lessons about setting up an IVR system in the VA. It is important to note that VA facilities may have differing processes, and policies frequently change; thus coordination with departments (eg, contracting, finance, Office of Information and Technology [OIT], etc) to verify the following strategies is essential (Figure).

Vendor Selection

Check with the local OIT and contracting offices to see if the facility has previously used any vendors for these services and for advice on selection. We compiled a list of questions that may be helpful based on our discussions with 4 vendors, prior to selection of a vendor already VA-approved (Appendix). There are also questions to think about in parallel with choosing a vendor. Contact your OIT, contracting, and privacy (if necessary) offices before choosing a vendor.

Online Security

After selecting a vendor, if you want an online portal to view, upload, or downloaddata, then you will need to initiate the single sign-on internal (SSOI) process (www.data.va.gov/dataset/Single-Sign-On-Internal-SSOi-/cber-kxf9). Other benefits of a website are to identify call patterns (eg, no one picks up after the 10th call) and track respondents’ selections. The SSOI process can take up to 1 year. Notably, the website login at minimum needs to be created by the IVR vendor to start the process. After the SSOI is approved you can add more to the website beyond just the login capability. Note that the script needs to be finalized prior to SSOI initiation. You will need to initiate with the SSOI team, then the vendor will need to complete the process.

Contracting

Concurrent with the above steps, contact the contracting office to get a sense of the paperwork and timeline. Make sure you are comfortable with the vendor’s responses to the questions in the Appendix, and view their written proposal or scope of work (SOW) to ensure they can do what the project protocol demands.

If the vendor has previously worked with the VA, contact your local contract office (usually part of the Finance Office) for updated forms. We needed the 6500.6 Checklist, Document Checklist for Service Requests, Single Source Justification, Research & Development Order (if research-related), and Vendor File Request forms. The vendor can help complete these forms. Review the proposal/SOW and budget first, knowing that budgets have a wide range and depend on the length and complexity of the script, number of calls, number of respondents, etc. For example, our quote was $110,000 over 4 years, including development, training, hosting on a secure server, and maintenance. Our IVR system will call about 5000 patients across 4 sites. Each patient will receive up to 15 calls over 2 weeks if they do not answer. We created 2 IVR lines (1 inbound and 1 outbound). Next, contact the lead of the local OIT and contracting departments by email to justify sharing veteran information with a contracted entity via approved methods. Finally, contact the privacy officer and information security officer. Discuss where software would be installed, whether cloud storage would be used, and what information can be shared/stored. Remember that the rules may differ for research vs nonresearch projects. Also, determine whether a data-use agreement between the VA and the vendor is needed and how the institutional review board (if research) gets integrated.

If using an outside vendor who has never worked with the VA, submit form 6550.6. Note that contracting requires several months. First, contact OIT and contracting departments. Again, you will need to justify sharing veteran information with a contracted entity. Next, complete the Project Special Forces Software and Privacy Threshold Analysis process to purchase the system. Set up a meeting with OIT to determine other forms and next steps. Business need/case use form and data security categorization may be needed. If the software needs to be installed on a VA computer, you will need to submit a Technical Reference Model request if it does not have an entry.

Vendors can answer technical questions from the contracting office, especially about the SOW, but the VA team needs to write the contract and manage all documentation and communication. You will also need sole source documentation (receive from contracting office) with justification for why you want to use a specific vendor. If you do not have that justification, in cooperation with the contracts office, you must solicit bids from other companies. Importantly, understand the staff support needed for contracting and build into your timeline and budget. Not surprisingly, we found that in-person or phone meetings were invaluable compared with email correspondence. Meet with all parties involved early and often. Once the contract is clear, this begins the build process where the vendor can program and record the script. This process usually takes 1 to 2 months.

Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support

The new Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support (PETALS) initiative is an excellent place to start with any VA IVR-related questions. PETALS is used for research.²⁰ We hoped to use this system for our study, but its implementation was delayed until 2022. The PETALS system is designed for VA investigators who conduct research studies and need a secure platform that is compliant with VA policies for deploying SMS and IVR systems for research.²⁰ At this time, PETALS is for use only with veterans, so if research will occur outside the VA, you must use an outside vendor. Users who want to set up a new IVR system can ask their local contracting office whether any contracts have already been established for IVR development and support.

From our perspective as researchers who are not telehealth savvy, we encountered several delays from failing to ask the appropriate questions or inability to navigate complicated systems. For instance, there were several tasks that needed to be completed and were not included in the original timeline developed by the vendor and researcher. Therefore, it is important to have clear communication on both sides about who is doing what, when, and how. We tried to detail these unexpected steps to help researchers, administrators, or other VA employees in the future.

Conclusions

IVR systems, once they are developed and implemented, can be efficient, low-cost, resource-nonintensive solutions in a health care setting that can effectively connect patients with needed health care services. Our experience developing an IVR system within the VA was challenging and was a huge learning curve for our research team. We hope that our experience and lessons will help VA personnel in the future.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to everyone involved in this project and who answered questions about the process, especially Nicolle Marinec, MPH; Toan Tran, and Molly Delorit, BA. This study and Christopher Slatore, MD, are supported by an award from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (HSR&D IIR 19-425). It was also supported by resources from the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (VAPORHCS).

Four themes in responses to a survey describe the multilevel barriers that make it difficult for primary care teams to incorporate medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in their practices, according to research published in JAMA Network Open.

Elizabeth J. Austin, PhD, MPH, with the department of health systems and population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues describe the four major themes in the answers:

• Structural barriers delay or limit primary care team responsiveness to patients needing opioid-related care.
• Patient engagement was more challenging than expected.
• Prescribing physicians needed tools and to be able to see the patients on an ongoing basis.
• Teams had conflicting views on expanding MOUD care.

The survey

The researchers used a cohort of 12 clinics diverse in geography and structure and explored the experiences multidisciplinary primary care teams had in expanding MOUD services, such as use of buprenorphine and naltrexone.

A sample of 62 team members completed the survey for a response rate of 77%. Two-thirds (66%) identified as female and 46 (74%) identified as White. Evaluation of responses occurred between 2020 and 2022 in a sample of primary care clinics that agreed to participate in the Collaborating to Heal Addiction and Mental Health in Primary Care (CHAMP) study. The trial is ongoing.
 

Rigid scheduling a barrier

Some respondents said inflexible scheduling tied their hands.

One clinician responded, “[M]y practice has been really busy right now ... it’s been tough to find openings for my current patients as it is.”

Others described closed or limited patient panels, often set by their health systems. Twenty clinicians (32%) said they were worried their clinic couldn’t accommodate the volume of patients seeking OUD treatment.

Some reported productivity pressure from their health systems to keep the schedule full, which doesn’t allow for walk-in patients needing MOUD.
 

Frustration with no-shows

Some responses indicated frustration in locating patients and with no-shows.

One responded, “[W]e can’t find these people for months and months. [...] I’m spending 3 weeks, 4 weeks, trying to get them in.” Another said, “[I]t’s frustrating when patients don’t show up when they have been referred.”

Margret Chang, MD, a primary care doctor at Tri-River Family Health Center of Worcester, Mass., who was not part of the study, said the four categories the authors describe ring true.
 

Stigma for providers and patients

Dr. Chang said the biggest overarching part of those barriers comes down to stigma, but she says it’s not just a problem for patients, but for providers as well.

In fact, a responder in the Austin et al. survey wrote, “Our faculty group as a whole has expressed that that’s not the direction they want for our clinic; we already provide more psychiatric care and addiction medicine than other clinics, but we can’t be like the addiction medicine clinic in town either.”

Dr. Chang’s clinic, on the other hand, recruits addicted patients to their primary care practice by making a local drug court, addiction-support services in the community, and their colleagues in the UMass Health System aware that their services are available. Patients also refer their friends to the clinic and the clinic has a steady influx.

“I honestly feel that primary care is the discipline that really should be involved in substance disorder treatment,” says Dr. Chang, who is an assistant professor of medicine and the addiction curriculum director for internal medicine at UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester. “In medicine there’s a huge stigma around even being able to help these patients even though we have medications that are pretty effective.”

She runs a medication-assisted treatment program and said her semirural clinic and one other are the only two primary care clinics in the Worcester area with such a program.

Patients also have “huge inertia around taking a medication to recover from addiction or substance abuse,” she says.
 

Confidence lacking in treating patients

Dr. Chang said primary care residents in recent years are coming out of medical school with knowledge about treating OUD, but they often run into more experienced physicians who didn’t get training in the treatment so they feel intimidated about initiating the treatment.

At their clinic, Dr. Chang says, they have a nurse dedicated to OUD, which helps alleviate some of the barriers described in the survey. Patients know they can contact a particular person at the clinic who is dedicated to their needs. The nurse can track down patients who may miss appointments or be hard to locate so physicians don’t have to add that to their workload. They can collect fluid samples and connect patients to services.

Dr. Chang says a nurse might say, “I see we had you on (buprenorphine-naloxone) for opioid use disorder but I see you also have cocaine in your urine. How can we keep you safe?”

Having a health team member, whether a nurse or medical assistant or social worker, designated to help with people who need OUD treatment really makes a difference, she says.

People living with addiction “have a lot of needs,” she says, “and they are hard to address in the typical template a primary care provider might have.”

Family medicine, she says, has been more open to adding support staff for this population than other specialties.

Coauthor Andrew J. Saxon, MD, reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) during the conduct of the study as well as personal fees from Indivior and royalties from UpToDate outside the submitted work. Coauthor John C. Fortney, PhD, reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Anna D. Ratzliff, MD, PhD, reported grants from the University of Washington during the conduct of the study and royalties from Wiley outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

This story was updated on 8/15/2023.

Four themes in responses to a survey describe the multilevel barriers that make it difficult for primary care teams to incorporate medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in their practices, according to research published in JAMA Network Open.

Elizabeth J. Austin, PhD, MPH, with the department of health systems and population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues describe the four major themes in the answers:

• Structural barriers delay or limit primary care team responsiveness to patients needing opioid-related care.
• Patient engagement was more challenging than expected.
• Prescribing physicians needed tools and to be able to see the patients on an ongoing basis.
• Teams had conflicting views on expanding MOUD care.

The survey

The researchers used a cohort of 12 clinics diverse in geography and structure and explored the experiences multidisciplinary primary care teams had in expanding MOUD services, such as use of buprenorphine and naltrexone.

A sample of 62 team members completed the survey for a response rate of 77%. Two-thirds (66%) identified as female and 46 (74%) identified as White. Evaluation of responses occurred between 2020 and 2022 in a sample of primary care clinics that agreed to participate in the Collaborating to Heal Addiction and Mental Health in Primary Care (CHAMP) study. The trial is ongoing.
 

Rigid scheduling a barrier

Some respondents said inflexible scheduling tied their hands.

One clinician responded, “[M]y practice has been really busy right now ... it’s been tough to find openings for my current patients as it is.”

Others described closed or limited patient panels, often set by their health systems. Twenty clinicians (32%) said they were worried their clinic couldn’t accommodate the volume of patients seeking OUD treatment.

Some reported productivity pressure from their health systems to keep the schedule full, which doesn’t allow for walk-in patients needing MOUD.
 

Frustration with no-shows

Some responses indicated frustration in locating patients and with no-shows.

One responded, “[W]e can’t find these people for months and months. [...] I’m spending 3 weeks, 4 weeks, trying to get them in.” Another said, “[I]t’s frustrating when patients don’t show up when they have been referred.”

Margret Chang, MD, a primary care doctor at Tri-River Family Health Center of Worcester, Mass., who was not part of the study, said the four categories the authors describe ring true.
 

Stigma for providers and patients

Dr. Chang said the biggest overarching part of those barriers comes down to stigma, but she says it’s not just a problem for patients, but for providers as well.

In fact, a responder in the Austin et al. survey wrote, “Our faculty group as a whole has expressed that that’s not the direction they want for our clinic; we already provide more psychiatric care and addiction medicine than other clinics, but we can’t be like the addiction medicine clinic in town either.”

Dr. Chang’s clinic, on the other hand, recruits addicted patients to their primary care practice by making a local drug court, addiction-support services in the community, and their colleagues in the UMass Health System aware that their services are available. Patients also refer their friends to the clinic and the clinic has a steady influx.

“I honestly feel that primary care is the discipline that really should be involved in substance disorder treatment,” says Dr. Chang, who is an assistant professor of medicine and the addiction curriculum director for internal medicine at UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester. “In medicine there’s a huge stigma around even being able to help these patients even though we have medications that are pretty effective.”

She runs a medication-assisted treatment program and said her semirural clinic and one other are the only two primary care clinics in the Worcester area with such a program.

Patients also have “huge inertia around taking a medication to recover from addiction or substance abuse,” she says.
 

Confidence lacking in treating patients

Dr. Chang said primary care residents in recent years are coming out of medical school with knowledge about treating OUD, but they often run into more experienced physicians who didn’t get training in the treatment so they feel intimidated about initiating the treatment.

At their clinic, Dr. Chang says, they have a nurse dedicated to OUD, which helps alleviate some of the barriers described in the survey. Patients know they can contact a particular person at the clinic who is dedicated to their needs. The nurse can track down patients who may miss appointments or be hard to locate so physicians don’t have to add that to their workload. They can collect fluid samples and connect patients to services.

Dr. Chang says a nurse might say, “I see we had you on (buprenorphine-naloxone) for opioid use disorder but I see you also have cocaine in your urine. How can we keep you safe?”

Having a health team member, whether a nurse or medical assistant or social worker, designated to help with people who need OUD treatment really makes a difference, she says.

People living with addiction “have a lot of needs,” she says, “and they are hard to address in the typical template a primary care provider might have.”

Family medicine, she says, has been more open to adding support staff for this population than other specialties.

Coauthor Andrew J. Saxon, MD, reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) during the conduct of the study as well as personal fees from Indivior and royalties from UpToDate outside the submitted work. Coauthor John C. Fortney, PhD, reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Anna D. Ratzliff, MD, PhD, reported grants from the University of Washington during the conduct of the study and royalties from Wiley outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

This story was updated on 8/15/2023.

Four themes in responses to a survey describe the multilevel barriers that make it difficult for primary care teams to incorporate medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in their practices, according to research published in JAMA Network Open.

Elizabeth J. Austin, PhD, MPH, with the department of health systems and population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues describe the four major themes in the answers:

• Structural barriers delay or limit primary care team responsiveness to patients needing opioid-related care.
• Patient engagement was more challenging than expected.
• Prescribing physicians needed tools and to be able to see the patients on an ongoing basis.
• Teams had conflicting views on expanding MOUD care.

The survey

The researchers used a cohort of 12 clinics diverse in geography and structure and explored the experiences multidisciplinary primary care teams had in expanding MOUD services, such as use of buprenorphine and naltrexone.

A sample of 62 team members completed the survey for a response rate of 77%. Two-thirds (66%) identified as female and 46 (74%) identified as White. Evaluation of responses occurred between 2020 and 2022 in a sample of primary care clinics that agreed to participate in the Collaborating to Heal Addiction and Mental Health in Primary Care (CHAMP) study. The trial is ongoing.
 

Rigid scheduling a barrier

Some respondents said inflexible scheduling tied their hands.

One clinician responded, “[M]y practice has been really busy right now ... it’s been tough to find openings for my current patients as it is.”

Others described closed or limited patient panels, often set by their health systems. Twenty clinicians (32%) said they were worried their clinic couldn’t accommodate the volume of patients seeking OUD treatment.

Some reported productivity pressure from their health systems to keep the schedule full, which doesn’t allow for walk-in patients needing MOUD.
 

Frustration with no-shows

Some responses indicated frustration in locating patients and with no-shows.

One responded, “[W]e can’t find these people for months and months. [...] I’m spending 3 weeks, 4 weeks, trying to get them in.” Another said, “[I]t’s frustrating when patients don’t show up when they have been referred.”

Margret Chang, MD, a primary care doctor at Tri-River Family Health Center of Worcester, Mass., who was not part of the study, said the four categories the authors describe ring true.
 

Stigma for providers and patients

Dr. Chang said the biggest overarching part of those barriers comes down to stigma, but she says it’s not just a problem for patients, but for providers as well.

In fact, a responder in the Austin et al. survey wrote, “Our faculty group as a whole has expressed that that’s not the direction they want for our clinic; we already provide more psychiatric care and addiction medicine than other clinics, but we can’t be like the addiction medicine clinic in town either.”

Dr. Chang’s clinic, on the other hand, recruits addicted patients to their primary care practice by making a local drug court, addiction-support services in the community, and their colleagues in the UMass Health System aware that their services are available. Patients also refer their friends to the clinic and the clinic has a steady influx.

“I honestly feel that primary care is the discipline that really should be involved in substance disorder treatment,” says Dr. Chang, who is an assistant professor of medicine and the addiction curriculum director for internal medicine at UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester. “In medicine there’s a huge stigma around even being able to help these patients even though we have medications that are pretty effective.”

She runs a medication-assisted treatment program and said her semirural clinic and one other are the only two primary care clinics in the Worcester area with such a program.

Patients also have “huge inertia around taking a medication to recover from addiction or substance abuse,” she says.
 

Confidence lacking in treating patients

Dr. Chang said primary care residents in recent years are coming out of medical school with knowledge about treating OUD, but they often run into more experienced physicians who didn’t get training in the treatment so they feel intimidated about initiating the treatment.

At their clinic, Dr. Chang says, they have a nurse dedicated to OUD, which helps alleviate some of the barriers described in the survey. Patients know they can contact a particular person at the clinic who is dedicated to their needs. The nurse can track down patients who may miss appointments or be hard to locate so physicians don’t have to add that to their workload. They can collect fluid samples and connect patients to services.

Dr. Chang says a nurse might say, “I see we had you on (buprenorphine-naloxone) for opioid use disorder but I see you also have cocaine in your urine. How can we keep you safe?”

Having a health team member, whether a nurse or medical assistant or social worker, designated to help with people who need OUD treatment really makes a difference, she says.

People living with addiction “have a lot of needs,” she says, “and they are hard to address in the typical template a primary care provider might have.”

Family medicine, she says, has been more open to adding support staff for this population than other specialties.

Coauthor Andrew J. Saxon, MD, reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) during the conduct of the study as well as personal fees from Indivior and royalties from UpToDate outside the submitted work. Coauthor John C. Fortney, PhD, reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Anna D. Ratzliff, MD, PhD, reported grants from the University of Washington during the conduct of the study and royalties from Wiley outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

This story was updated on 8/15/2023.

Just one in five American adults with opioid use disorder (OUD) in 2021 received medication for the condition, a new study shows.

Using data from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), investigators found that of the 2.5 million adults with OUD in that year, 35.6% received some kind of substance abuse treatment, but only 22.3% received recommended medications for the condition, such as methadone, buprenorphine, or extended-release naltrexone.

“More than 80,000 people are dying of a drug overdose involving an opioid every year, while safe and effective medicines to treat opioid use disorder are sitting on the shelf unused,” senior author Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), said in a statement. “This study adds to the growing evidence that telehealth services are an important strategy that could help us bridge this gap, supporting the delivery of safe, effective, and lifesaving care for people with opioid use disorder.”

The findings were published online as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

The study included 47,291 adults aged 18 years or older in the 2021 NSDUH, which provides nationally representative data of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population based on past-year OUD.

Men, people aged 35 years or older, urban residents, and non-Hispanic Whites were the most likely to receive medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). MOUD use was more common among those who received substance use treatment via telehealth, those with severe OUD, and people with annual incomes below $50,000.

Black people, women, unemployed individuals, those living in rural areas, and people with past-year cannabis use disorder were less likely to receive MOUD.

“It is not a matter of whether we should address health disparities and inequities that many racial/ethnic minority groups face when trying to access substance use treatment,” lead author Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, MPH, DrPH, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a statement. “We must address these issues if we hope to reverse the trend of increasing drug overdose deaths.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Compton reported long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M Companies, and Pfizer outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Just one in five American adults with opioid use disorder (OUD) in 2021 received medication for the condition, a new study shows.

Using data from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), investigators found that of the 2.5 million adults with OUD in that year, 35.6% received some kind of substance abuse treatment, but only 22.3% received recommended medications for the condition, such as methadone, buprenorphine, or extended-release naltrexone.

“More than 80,000 people are dying of a drug overdose involving an opioid every year, while safe and effective medicines to treat opioid use disorder are sitting on the shelf unused,” senior author Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), said in a statement. “This study adds to the growing evidence that telehealth services are an important strategy that could help us bridge this gap, supporting the delivery of safe, effective, and lifesaving care for people with opioid use disorder.”

The findings were published online as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

The study included 47,291 adults aged 18 years or older in the 2021 NSDUH, which provides nationally representative data of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population based on past-year OUD.

Men, people aged 35 years or older, urban residents, and non-Hispanic Whites were the most likely to receive medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). MOUD use was more common among those who received substance use treatment via telehealth, those with severe OUD, and people with annual incomes below $50,000.

Black people, women, unemployed individuals, those living in rural areas, and people with past-year cannabis use disorder were less likely to receive MOUD.

“It is not a matter of whether we should address health disparities and inequities that many racial/ethnic minority groups face when trying to access substance use treatment,” lead author Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, MPH, DrPH, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a statement. “We must address these issues if we hope to reverse the trend of increasing drug overdose deaths.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Compton reported long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M Companies, and Pfizer outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Just one in five American adults with opioid use disorder (OUD) in 2021 received medication for the condition, a new study shows.

Using data from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), investigators found that of the 2.5 million adults with OUD in that year, 35.6% received some kind of substance abuse treatment, but only 22.3% received recommended medications for the condition, such as methadone, buprenorphine, or extended-release naltrexone.

“More than 80,000 people are dying of a drug overdose involving an opioid every year, while safe and effective medicines to treat opioid use disorder are sitting on the shelf unused,” senior author Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), said in a statement. “This study adds to the growing evidence that telehealth services are an important strategy that could help us bridge this gap, supporting the delivery of safe, effective, and lifesaving care for people with opioid use disorder.”

The findings were published online as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

The study included 47,291 adults aged 18 years or older in the 2021 NSDUH, which provides nationally representative data of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population based on past-year OUD.

Men, people aged 35 years or older, urban residents, and non-Hispanic Whites were the most likely to receive medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). MOUD use was more common among those who received substance use treatment via telehealth, those with severe OUD, and people with annual incomes below $50,000.

Black people, women, unemployed individuals, those living in rural areas, and people with past-year cannabis use disorder were less likely to receive MOUD.

“It is not a matter of whether we should address health disparities and inequities that many racial/ethnic minority groups face when trying to access substance use treatment,” lead author Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, MPH, DrPH, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a statement. “We must address these issues if we hope to reverse the trend of increasing drug overdose deaths.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Compton reported long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M Companies, and Pfizer outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Aggressive marketing of OxyContin in the mid-1990s not only fueled the opioid crisis but also the spread of infectious diseases associated with injection drug use, a new analysis shows.

The uptick in rates of infectious diseases, namely, hepatitis and infective endocarditis, occurred after 2010, when OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma reformulated OxyContin to make it harder to crush and snort. This led many people who were already addicted to the powerful pain pills to move on to injecting heroin or fentanyl, which fueled the spread of infectious disease.

“Our results suggest that the mortality and morbidity consequences of OxyContin marketing continue to be salient more than 25 years later,” write Julia Dennett, PhD, and Gregg Gonsalves, PhD, with Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Conn.

Their study was published online in Health Affairs.
 

Long-term effects revealed

Until now, the long-term effects of widespread OxyContin marketing with regard to complications of injection drug use were unknown.

Dr. Dennett and Dr. Gonsalves evaluated the effects of OxyContin marketing on the long-term trajectories of various injection drug use–related outcomes. Using a difference-in-difference analysis, they compared states with high vs. low exposure to OxyContin marketing before and after the 2010 reformulation of the drug.

Before 2010, rates of infections associated with injection drug use and overdose deaths were similar in high- and low-marketing states, they found.

Those rates diverged after the 2010 reformulation, with more infections related to injection drug use in states exposed to more marketing.

Specifically, from 2010 until 2020, high-exposure states saw, on average, an additional 0.85 acute hepatitis B cases, 0.83 hepatitis C cases, and 0.62 cases of death from infective endocarditis per 100,000 residents.

High-exposure states also had 5.3 more deaths per 100,000 residents from synthetic opioid overdose.

“Prior to 2010, among these states, there were generally no statistically significant differences in these outcomes. After 2010, you saw them diverge dramatically,” Dr. Dennett said in a news release.

Dr. Dennett and Dr. Gonsalves say their findings support the view that the opioid epidemic is creating a converging public health crisis, as it is fueling a surge in infectious diseases, particularly hepatitis, infective endocarditis, and HIV.

“This study highlights a critical need for actions to address the spread of viral and bacterial infections and overdose associated with injection drug use, both in the states that were subject to Purdue’s promotional campaign and across the U.S. more broadly,” they add.

Purdue Pharma did not provide a comment on the study.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Disclosures for Dr. Dennett and Dr. Gonsalves were not available.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Aggressive marketing of OxyContin in the mid-1990s not only fueled the opioid crisis but also the spread of infectious diseases associated with injection drug use, a new analysis shows.

The uptick in rates of infectious diseases, namely, hepatitis and infective endocarditis, occurred after 2010, when OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma reformulated OxyContin to make it harder to crush and snort. This led many people who were already addicted to the powerful pain pills to move on to injecting heroin or fentanyl, which fueled the spread of infectious disease.

“Our results suggest that the mortality and morbidity consequences of OxyContin marketing continue to be salient more than 25 years later,” write Julia Dennett, PhD, and Gregg Gonsalves, PhD, with Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Conn.

Their study was published online in Health Affairs.
 

Long-term effects revealed

Until now, the long-term effects of widespread OxyContin marketing with regard to complications of injection drug use were unknown.

Dr. Dennett and Dr. Gonsalves evaluated the effects of OxyContin marketing on the long-term trajectories of various injection drug use–related outcomes. Using a difference-in-difference analysis, they compared states with high vs. low exposure to OxyContin marketing before and after the 2010 reformulation of the drug.

Before 2010, rates of infections associated with injection drug use and overdose deaths were similar in high- and low-marketing states, they found.

Those rates diverged after the 2010 reformulation, with more infections related to injection drug use in states exposed to more marketing.

Specifically, from 2010 until 2020, high-exposure states saw, on average, an additional 0.85 acute hepatitis B cases, 0.83 hepatitis C cases, and 0.62 cases of death from infective endocarditis per 100,000 residents.

High-exposure states also had 5.3 more deaths per 100,000 residents from synthetic opioid overdose.

“Prior to 2010, among these states, there were generally no statistically significant differences in these outcomes. After 2010, you saw them diverge dramatically,” Dr. Dennett said in a news release.

Dr. Dennett and Dr. Gonsalves say their findings support the view that the opioid epidemic is creating a converging public health crisis, as it is fueling a surge in infectious diseases, particularly hepatitis, infective endocarditis, and HIV.

“This study highlights a critical need for actions to address the spread of viral and bacterial infections and overdose associated with injection drug use, both in the states that were subject to Purdue’s promotional campaign and across the U.S. more broadly,” they add.

Purdue Pharma did not provide a comment on the study.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Disclosures for Dr. Dennett and Dr. Gonsalves were not available.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Aggressive marketing of OxyContin in the mid-1990s not only fueled the opioid crisis but also the spread of infectious diseases associated with injection drug use, a new analysis shows.

The uptick in rates of infectious diseases, namely, hepatitis and infective endocarditis, occurred after 2010, when OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma reformulated OxyContin to make it harder to crush and snort. This led many people who were already addicted to the powerful pain pills to move on to injecting heroin or fentanyl, which fueled the spread of infectious disease.

“Our results suggest that the mortality and morbidity consequences of OxyContin marketing continue to be salient more than 25 years later,” write Julia Dennett, PhD, and Gregg Gonsalves, PhD, with Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Conn.

Their study was published online in Health Affairs.
 

Long-term effects revealed

Until now, the long-term effects of widespread OxyContin marketing with regard to complications of injection drug use were unknown.

Dr. Dennett and Dr. Gonsalves evaluated the effects of OxyContin marketing on the long-term trajectories of various injection drug use–related outcomes. Using a difference-in-difference analysis, they compared states with high vs. low exposure to OxyContin marketing before and after the 2010 reformulation of the drug.

Before 2010, rates of infections associated with injection drug use and overdose deaths were similar in high- and low-marketing states, they found.

Those rates diverged after the 2010 reformulation, with more infections related to injection drug use in states exposed to more marketing.

Specifically, from 2010 until 2020, high-exposure states saw, on average, an additional 0.85 acute hepatitis B cases, 0.83 hepatitis C cases, and 0.62 cases of death from infective endocarditis per 100,000 residents.

High-exposure states also had 5.3 more deaths per 100,000 residents from synthetic opioid overdose.

“Prior to 2010, among these states, there were generally no statistically significant differences in these outcomes. After 2010, you saw them diverge dramatically,” Dr. Dennett said in a news release.

Dr. Dennett and Dr. Gonsalves say their findings support the view that the opioid epidemic is creating a converging public health crisis, as it is fueling a surge in infectious diseases, particularly hepatitis, infective endocarditis, and HIV.

“This study highlights a critical need for actions to address the spread of viral and bacterial infections and overdose associated with injection drug use, both in the states that were subject to Purdue’s promotional campaign and across the U.S. more broadly,” they add.

Purdue Pharma did not provide a comment on the study.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Disclosures for Dr. Dennett and Dr. Gonsalves were not available.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When you stub your toe or get a paper cut on your finger, you feel the pain in that part of your body. It feels like the pain is coming from that place. But, of course, that’s not really what is happening. Pain doesn’t really happen in your toe or your finger. It happens in your brain.

It’s a game of telephone, really. The afferent nerve fiber detects the noxious stimulus, passing that signal to the second-order neuron in the dorsal root ganglia of the spinal cord, which runs it up to the thalamus to be passed to the third-order neuron which brings it to the cortex for localization and conscious perception. It’s not even a very good game of telephone. It takes about 100 ms for a pain signal to get from the hand to the brain – longer from the feet, given the greater distance. You see your foot hit the corner of the coffee table and have just enough time to think: “Oh no!” before the pain hits.

Wikimedia Commons

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

The New England Journal of Medicine

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

The New England Journal of Medicine

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When you stub your toe or get a paper cut on your finger, you feel the pain in that part of your body. It feels like the pain is coming from that place. But, of course, that’s not really what is happening. Pain doesn’t really happen in your toe or your finger. It happens in your brain.

It’s a game of telephone, really. The afferent nerve fiber detects the noxious stimulus, passing that signal to the second-order neuron in the dorsal root ganglia of the spinal cord, which runs it up to the thalamus to be passed to the third-order neuron which brings it to the cortex for localization and conscious perception. It’s not even a very good game of telephone. It takes about 100 ms for a pain signal to get from the hand to the brain – longer from the feet, given the greater distance. You see your foot hit the corner of the coffee table and have just enough time to think: “Oh no!” before the pain hits.

Wikimedia Commons

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

The New England Journal of Medicine

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

The New England Journal of Medicine

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When you stub your toe or get a paper cut on your finger, you feel the pain in that part of your body. It feels like the pain is coming from that place. But, of course, that’s not really what is happening. Pain doesn’t really happen in your toe or your finger. It happens in your brain.

It’s a game of telephone, really. The afferent nerve fiber detects the noxious stimulus, passing that signal to the second-order neuron in the dorsal root ganglia of the spinal cord, which runs it up to the thalamus to be passed to the third-order neuron which brings it to the cortex for localization and conscious perception. It’s not even a very good game of telephone. It takes about 100 ms for a pain signal to get from the hand to the brain – longer from the feet, given the greater distance. You see your foot hit the corner of the coffee table and have just enough time to think: “Oh no!” before the pain hits.

Wikimedia Commons

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

The New England Journal of Medicine

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

The New England Journal of Medicine

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In psychiatry, patients come to us with their list of symptoms, often a diagnosis they’ve made themselves, and the expectation that they will be given medication to fix their problem. Their diagnoses are often right on target – people often know if they are depressed or anxious, and Doctor Google may provide useful information.

Sometimes they want a specific medication, one they saw in a TV ad, or one that helped them in the past or has helped someone they know. As psychiatrists have focused more on their strengths as psychopharmacologists and less on psychotherapy, it gets easy for both the patient and the doctor to look to medication, cocktails, and titration as the only thing we do.

“My medicine stopped working,” is a line I commonly hear. Often the patient is on a complicated regimen that has been serving them well, and it seems unlikely that the five psychotropic medications they are taking have suddenly “stopped working.” An obvious exception is the SSRI “poop out” that can occur 6-12 months or more after beginning treatment. In addition, it’s important to make sure patients are taking their medications as prescribed, and that the generic formulations have not changed.

But as rates of mental illness increase, some of it spurred on by difficult times, it is important to talk with patients about other factors that contribute to psychiatric conditions and to empower them to see their illnesses as something other than deranged brain chemicals in need of a medication fix.

This is not to devalue our medications, but to help the patient see symptoms as having multiple factors and give them some means to intervene, in addition to medications. At the beginning of therapy, it is important to “prescribe” lifestyle changes that will facilitate the best possible outcomes.
 

Nonpharmaceutical prescriptions

Early in my career, people with alcohol use problems were told they needed to be substance free before they were candidates for antidepressants. While we no longer do that, it is still important to emphasize abstinence from addictive substances, and to recommend specific treatment when necessary.

Patients are often reluctant to see their use of alcohol, marijuana (it’s medical! It’s part of wellness!), or their pain medications as part of the problem, and this can be difficult. There have been times, after multiple medications have failed to help their symptoms, when I have said, “If you don’t get treatment for this problem, I am not going to be able to help you feel better” and that has been motivating for the patient.

There are other “prescriptions” to write. Regular sleep is essential for people with mood disorders, and this can be difficult for many patients, especially those who do shift work, or who have regular disruptions to their sleep from noise, pets, and children. Exercise is wonderful for the cardiovascular system, calms anxiety, and maintains strength, endurance, mobility, and quality of life as people age. But it can be a hard sell to people in a mental health crisis.

Nature is healing, and sunshine helps with maintaining circadian rhythms. For those who don’t exercise, I often “prescribe” 20 to 30 minutes a day of walking, preferably outside, during daylight hours, in a park or natural setting. For people with anxiety, it is important to check their caffeine consumption and to suggest ways to moderate it – moving to decaffeinated beverages or titrating down by mixing decaf with caffeinated.

Meditation is something that many people find helpful. For anxious people, it can be very difficult, and I will prescribe a specific instructional video course that I like on the well-being app InsightTimer – Sarah Blondin’s Learn How to Meditate in Seven Days. The sessions are approximately 10 minutes long, and that seems like the right amount of time for a beginner.

When people are very ill and don’t want to go into the hospital, I talk with them about things that happen in the hospital that are helpful, things they can try to mimic at home. In the hospital, patients don’t go to work, they don’t spend hours a day on the computer, and they are given a pass from dealing with the routine stresses of daily life.

I ask them to take time off work, to avoid as much stress as possible, to spend time with loved ones who give them comfort, and to avoid the people who leave them feeling drained or distressed. I ask them to engage in activities they find healing, to eat well, exercise, and avoid social media. In the hospital, I emphasize, they wake patients up in the morning, ask them to get out of bed and engage in therapeutic activities. They are fed and kept from intoxicants.

When it comes to nutrition, we know so little about how food affects mental health. I feel like it can’t hurt to ask people to avoid fast foods, soft drinks, and processed foods, and so I do.

And what about compliance? Of course, not everyone complies; not everyone is interested in making changes and these can be hard changes. I’ve recently started to recommend the book Atomic Habits by James Clear. Sometimes a bit of motivational interviewing can also be helpful in getting people to look at slowly moving toward making changes.

In prescribing lifestyle changes, it is important to offer most of these changes as suggestions, not as things we insist on, or that will leave the patient feeling ashamed if he doesn’t follow through. They should be discussed early in treatment so that patients don’t feel blamed for their illness or relapses. As with all the things we prescribe, some of these behavior changes help some of the people some of the time. Suggesting them, however, makes the strong statement that treating psychiatric disorders can be about more than passively swallowing a pill.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

In psychiatry, patients come to us with their list of symptoms, often a diagnosis they’ve made themselves, and the expectation that they will be given medication to fix their problem. Their diagnoses are often right on target – people often know if they are depressed or anxious, and Doctor Google may provide useful information.

Sometimes they want a specific medication, one they saw in a TV ad, or one that helped them in the past or has helped someone they know. As psychiatrists have focused more on their strengths as psychopharmacologists and less on psychotherapy, it gets easy for both the patient and the doctor to look to medication, cocktails, and titration as the only thing we do.

“My medicine stopped working,” is a line I commonly hear. Often the patient is on a complicated regimen that has been serving them well, and it seems unlikely that the five psychotropic medications they are taking have suddenly “stopped working.” An obvious exception is the SSRI “poop out” that can occur 6-12 months or more after beginning treatment. In addition, it’s important to make sure patients are taking their medications as prescribed, and that the generic formulations have not changed.

But as rates of mental illness increase, some of it spurred on by difficult times, it is important to talk with patients about other factors that contribute to psychiatric conditions and to empower them to see their illnesses as something other than deranged brain chemicals in need of a medication fix.

This is not to devalue our medications, but to help the patient see symptoms as having multiple factors and give them some means to intervene, in addition to medications. At the beginning of therapy, it is important to “prescribe” lifestyle changes that will facilitate the best possible outcomes.
 

Nonpharmaceutical prescriptions

Early in my career, people with alcohol use problems were told they needed to be substance free before they were candidates for antidepressants. While we no longer do that, it is still important to emphasize abstinence from addictive substances, and to recommend specific treatment when necessary.

Patients are often reluctant to see their use of alcohol, marijuana (it’s medical! It’s part of wellness!), or their pain medications as part of the problem, and this can be difficult. There have been times, after multiple medications have failed to help their symptoms, when I have said, “If you don’t get treatment for this problem, I am not going to be able to help you feel better” and that has been motivating for the patient.

There are other “prescriptions” to write. Regular sleep is essential for people with mood disorders, and this can be difficult for many patients, especially those who do shift work, or who have regular disruptions to their sleep from noise, pets, and children. Exercise is wonderful for the cardiovascular system, calms anxiety, and maintains strength, endurance, mobility, and quality of life as people age. But it can be a hard sell to people in a mental health crisis.

Nature is healing, and sunshine helps with maintaining circadian rhythms. For those who don’t exercise, I often “prescribe” 20 to 30 minutes a day of walking, preferably outside, during daylight hours, in a park or natural setting. For people with anxiety, it is important to check their caffeine consumption and to suggest ways to moderate it – moving to decaffeinated beverages or titrating down by mixing decaf with caffeinated.

Meditation is something that many people find helpful. For anxious people, it can be very difficult, and I will prescribe a specific instructional video course that I like on the well-being app InsightTimer – Sarah Blondin’s Learn How to Meditate in Seven Days. The sessions are approximately 10 minutes long, and that seems like the right amount of time for a beginner.

When people are very ill and don’t want to go into the hospital, I talk with them about things that happen in the hospital that are helpful, things they can try to mimic at home. In the hospital, patients don’t go to work, they don’t spend hours a day on the computer, and they are given a pass from dealing with the routine stresses of daily life.

I ask them to take time off work, to avoid as much stress as possible, to spend time with loved ones who give them comfort, and to avoid the people who leave them feeling drained or distressed. I ask them to engage in activities they find healing, to eat well, exercise, and avoid social media. In the hospital, I emphasize, they wake patients up in the morning, ask them to get out of bed and engage in therapeutic activities. They are fed and kept from intoxicants.

When it comes to nutrition, we know so little about how food affects mental health. I feel like it can’t hurt to ask people to avoid fast foods, soft drinks, and processed foods, and so I do.

And what about compliance? Of course, not everyone complies; not everyone is interested in making changes and these can be hard changes. I’ve recently started to recommend the book Atomic Habits by James Clear. Sometimes a bit of motivational interviewing can also be helpful in getting people to look at slowly moving toward making changes.

In prescribing lifestyle changes, it is important to offer most of these changes as suggestions, not as things we insist on, or that will leave the patient feeling ashamed if he doesn’t follow through. They should be discussed early in treatment so that patients don’t feel blamed for their illness or relapses. As with all the things we prescribe, some of these behavior changes help some of the people some of the time. Suggesting them, however, makes the strong statement that treating psychiatric disorders can be about more than passively swallowing a pill.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

In psychiatry, patients come to us with their list of symptoms, often a diagnosis they’ve made themselves, and the expectation that they will be given medication to fix their problem. Their diagnoses are often right on target – people often know if they are depressed or anxious, and Doctor Google may provide useful information.

Sometimes they want a specific medication, one they saw in a TV ad, or one that helped them in the past or has helped someone they know. As psychiatrists have focused more on their strengths as psychopharmacologists and less on psychotherapy, it gets easy for both the patient and the doctor to look to medication, cocktails, and titration as the only thing we do.

“My medicine stopped working,” is a line I commonly hear. Often the patient is on a complicated regimen that has been serving them well, and it seems unlikely that the five psychotropic medications they are taking have suddenly “stopped working.” An obvious exception is the SSRI “poop out” that can occur 6-12 months or more after beginning treatment. In addition, it’s important to make sure patients are taking their medications as prescribed, and that the generic formulations have not changed.

But as rates of mental illness increase, some of it spurred on by difficult times, it is important to talk with patients about other factors that contribute to psychiatric conditions and to empower them to see their illnesses as something other than deranged brain chemicals in need of a medication fix.

This is not to devalue our medications, but to help the patient see symptoms as having multiple factors and give them some means to intervene, in addition to medications. At the beginning of therapy, it is important to “prescribe” lifestyle changes that will facilitate the best possible outcomes.
 

Nonpharmaceutical prescriptions

Early in my career, people with alcohol use problems were told they needed to be substance free before they were candidates for antidepressants. While we no longer do that, it is still important to emphasize abstinence from addictive substances, and to recommend specific treatment when necessary.

Patients are often reluctant to see their use of alcohol, marijuana (it’s medical! It’s part of wellness!), or their pain medications as part of the problem, and this can be difficult. There have been times, after multiple medications have failed to help their symptoms, when I have said, “If you don’t get treatment for this problem, I am not going to be able to help you feel better” and that has been motivating for the patient.

There are other “prescriptions” to write. Regular sleep is essential for people with mood disorders, and this can be difficult for many patients, especially those who do shift work, or who have regular disruptions to their sleep from noise, pets, and children. Exercise is wonderful for the cardiovascular system, calms anxiety, and maintains strength, endurance, mobility, and quality of life as people age. But it can be a hard sell to people in a mental health crisis.

Nature is healing, and sunshine helps with maintaining circadian rhythms. For those who don’t exercise, I often “prescribe” 20 to 30 minutes a day of walking, preferably outside, during daylight hours, in a park or natural setting. For people with anxiety, it is important to check their caffeine consumption and to suggest ways to moderate it – moving to decaffeinated beverages or titrating down by mixing decaf with caffeinated.

Meditation is something that many people find helpful. For anxious people, it can be very difficult, and I will prescribe a specific instructional video course that I like on the well-being app InsightTimer – Sarah Blondin’s Learn How to Meditate in Seven Days. The sessions are approximately 10 minutes long, and that seems like the right amount of time for a beginner.

When people are very ill and don’t want to go into the hospital, I talk with them about things that happen in the hospital that are helpful, things they can try to mimic at home. In the hospital, patients don’t go to work, they don’t spend hours a day on the computer, and they are given a pass from dealing with the routine stresses of daily life.

I ask them to take time off work, to avoid as much stress as possible, to spend time with loved ones who give them comfort, and to avoid the people who leave them feeling drained or distressed. I ask them to engage in activities they find healing, to eat well, exercise, and avoid social media. In the hospital, I emphasize, they wake patients up in the morning, ask them to get out of bed and engage in therapeutic activities. They are fed and kept from intoxicants.

When it comes to nutrition, we know so little about how food affects mental health. I feel like it can’t hurt to ask people to avoid fast foods, soft drinks, and processed foods, and so I do.

And what about compliance? Of course, not everyone complies; not everyone is interested in making changes and these can be hard changes. I’ve recently started to recommend the book Atomic Habits by James Clear. Sometimes a bit of motivational interviewing can also be helpful in getting people to look at slowly moving toward making changes.

In prescribing lifestyle changes, it is important to offer most of these changes as suggestions, not as things we insist on, or that will leave the patient feeling ashamed if he doesn’t follow through. They should be discussed early in treatment so that patients don’t feel blamed for their illness or relapses. As with all the things we prescribe, some of these behavior changes help some of the people some of the time. Suggesting them, however, makes the strong statement that treating psychiatric disorders can be about more than passively swallowing a pill.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Nonalcohol substance use disorder (SUD) was 2.5 times more common in people who had gastric bypass surgery, compared with a control group who received usual obesity care, a new prospective study has found.

The findings suggest that the risk for nonalcohol SUD should be carefully explained to patients getting a gastric bypass and that the risk should be considered in care before and after the surgery, said the study authors and editorialists.

Though alcohol use disorder is a well-known side effect for some bariatric procedures, little is known about the link between the procedures and other substance abuse, wrote the study authors, led by Per-Arne Svensson, PhD, with the department of molecular and clinical medicine, Institute of Medicine, at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

The study was published online in Obesity.

The researchers analyzed data from the SOS study. It was originally designed to compare bariatric surgery with usual obesity care, with overall mortality as the primary outcome. The protocol also called for reporting negative effects of included treatments.

The study was conducted throughout Sweden at 25 public surgical departments and 480 primary health centers. Participants were between ages 37 and 60 years and had a body mass index of at least 34 kg/m² for men and 38 for women.

After people with previous nonalcoholic SUD were excluded, the study population included 1,990 patients who had undergone bariatric surgery between September 1987 and January 2001, as well as 2,030 matched controls who received usual obesity care. The three types of bariatric surgery were gastric bypass (264 patients), vertical banded gastroplasty (1,353), and gastric banding (373), as chosen by the surgeons.

The follow-up was nearly 24 years.
 

Link found only with gastric bypass

The researchers identified participants who had nonalcoholic SUDs using the ICD from the Swedish National Patient Register covering hospital treatment (hospital stays or hospital-based outpatient care) but not primary care.

Only gastric bypass was associated with an increased incidence of nonalcoholic SUD (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-5.65), compared with controls during the follow-up period.

Among those who had gastric bypass surgery, three developed opioid-related disorders; three had sedative-, hypnotic-, or anxiolytic-related disorders; and three had other psychoactive substance–related disorders, the study authors wrote.

The researchers found no statistical difference in the incidence of nonalcoholic SUD when the groups who had undergone different surgical procedures were compared with each other.

“It is important to acknowledge that the number of affected patients was relatively low, in the single digits,” Jihad Kudsi, MD, a bariatric surgeon and chairman of surgery at Duly Health and Care, Oak Brook, Ill., said in a press release.

The findings “highlight the critical role of bariatric behavioral health clinicians in the comprehensive evaluation and care of patients both before and after weight loss surgery,” added Dr. Kudsi, who was not associated with the research.
 

Bariatric surgery candidates should be warned, monitored

The data indicate that patients who are candidates for bariatric surgery should be “carefully warned” about risks for nonalcoholic SUD and be monitored after the procedure, wrote James E. Mitchell, MD, a psychiatrist with the department of psychiatry and behavioral science, University of North Dakota, Fargo, and Devika Umashanker, MD, with Obesity Medicine, Hartford (Conn.) Health Care, in an accompanying editorial.

They acknowledged, however, that monitoring can be difficult given the typical low rate of follow-up of these patients.

Though the reasons for the rise in nonalcoholic SUD are not clear, Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Umashanker said biologic and psychosocial issues may be contributors to the increase.

The persistence of medical comorbidities and a lack of noted improvement in quality of life or physical mobility after the surgery has been addressed in a paper on suicide risk after bariatric surgery, the study authors also noted.

Dr. Svensson said in an interview that a mechanism for alcohol abuse after gastric bypass surgery is more evident, as measured by “increased blood alcohol levels after the surgery for a given amount of alcohol.” However, for other addictive substances, the mechanism is not obvious and needs further study.

The editorialists reminded clinicians that measuring phosphatidylethanol can be very useful in identifying and quantifying recent alcohol intake, suggesting that all clinicians, not just those in bariatric surgery clinics, should be aware of the connection between the procedures and subsequent alcohol abuse and monitor those patients carefully.

Both the study authors and the editorialists pointed out that the SOS cohort was recruited when vertical banded gastroplasty and banding were commonly used, and both methods are now rarely, if ever, used. Gastric sleeve procedures are now the most common approach, and those patients were not included in the study.

“However, gastric bypass surgery patients were included, albeit in a minority of the sample,” Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Umashanker wrote. In addition, the sample size of patients with SUD was too small to determine the drugs that were being abused.

Dr. Svensson said in an interview the main limitation is that SUD events were identified in the Swedish National Patient Register, which misses nonhospitalized patients.

“This register is very complete for hospitals, but it does not include SUD events detected in the primary health care setting,” he said. “Hence, the absolute number of events is probably a clear underestimation. However, it is unlikely that this limitation would affect the study groups (control group vs. groups with different surgical procedures) in different ways and hence the conclusions from this study are most likely valid.”

The study authors and the editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonalcohol substance use disorder (SUD) was 2.5 times more common in people who had gastric bypass surgery, compared with a control group who received usual obesity care, a new prospective study has found.

The findings suggest that the risk for nonalcohol SUD should be carefully explained to patients getting a gastric bypass and that the risk should be considered in care before and after the surgery, said the study authors and editorialists.

Though alcohol use disorder is a well-known side effect for some bariatric procedures, little is known about the link between the procedures and other substance abuse, wrote the study authors, led by Per-Arne Svensson, PhD, with the department of molecular and clinical medicine, Institute of Medicine, at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

The study was published online in Obesity.

The researchers analyzed data from the SOS study. It was originally designed to compare bariatric surgery with usual obesity care, with overall mortality as the primary outcome. The protocol also called for reporting negative effects of included treatments.

The study was conducted throughout Sweden at 25 public surgical departments and 480 primary health centers. Participants were between ages 37 and 60 years and had a body mass index of at least 34 kg/m² for men and 38 for women.

After people with previous nonalcoholic SUD were excluded, the study population included 1,990 patients who had undergone bariatric surgery between September 1987 and January 2001, as well as 2,030 matched controls who received usual obesity care. The three types of bariatric surgery were gastric bypass (264 patients), vertical banded gastroplasty (1,353), and gastric banding (373), as chosen by the surgeons.

The follow-up was nearly 24 years.
 

Link found only with gastric bypass

The researchers identified participants who had nonalcoholic SUDs using the ICD from the Swedish National Patient Register covering hospital treatment (hospital stays or hospital-based outpatient care) but not primary care.

Only gastric bypass was associated with an increased incidence of nonalcoholic SUD (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-5.65), compared with controls during the follow-up period.

Among those who had gastric bypass surgery, three developed opioid-related disorders; three had sedative-, hypnotic-, or anxiolytic-related disorders; and three had other psychoactive substance–related disorders, the study authors wrote.

The researchers found no statistical difference in the incidence of nonalcoholic SUD when the groups who had undergone different surgical procedures were compared with each other.

“It is important to acknowledge that the number of affected patients was relatively low, in the single digits,” Jihad Kudsi, MD, a bariatric surgeon and chairman of surgery at Duly Health and Care, Oak Brook, Ill., said in a press release.

The findings “highlight the critical role of bariatric behavioral health clinicians in the comprehensive evaluation and care of patients both before and after weight loss surgery,” added Dr. Kudsi, who was not associated with the research.
 

Bariatric surgery candidates should be warned, monitored

The data indicate that patients who are candidates for bariatric surgery should be “carefully warned” about risks for nonalcoholic SUD and be monitored after the procedure, wrote James E. Mitchell, MD, a psychiatrist with the department of psychiatry and behavioral science, University of North Dakota, Fargo, and Devika Umashanker, MD, with Obesity Medicine, Hartford (Conn.) Health Care, in an accompanying editorial.

They acknowledged, however, that monitoring can be difficult given the typical low rate of follow-up of these patients.

Though the reasons for the rise in nonalcoholic SUD are not clear, Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Umashanker said biologic and psychosocial issues may be contributors to the increase.

The persistence of medical comorbidities and a lack of noted improvement in quality of life or physical mobility after the surgery has been addressed in a paper on suicide risk after bariatric surgery, the study authors also noted.

Dr. Svensson said in an interview that a mechanism for alcohol abuse after gastric bypass surgery is more evident, as measured by “increased blood alcohol levels after the surgery for a given amount of alcohol.” However, for other addictive substances, the mechanism is not obvious and needs further study.

The editorialists reminded clinicians that measuring phosphatidylethanol can be very useful in identifying and quantifying recent alcohol intake, suggesting that all clinicians, not just those in bariatric surgery clinics, should be aware of the connection between the procedures and subsequent alcohol abuse and monitor those patients carefully.

Both the study authors and the editorialists pointed out that the SOS cohort was recruited when vertical banded gastroplasty and banding were commonly used, and both methods are now rarely, if ever, used. Gastric sleeve procedures are now the most common approach, and those patients were not included in the study.

“However, gastric bypass surgery patients were included, albeit in a minority of the sample,” Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Umashanker wrote. In addition, the sample size of patients with SUD was too small to determine the drugs that were being abused.

Dr. Svensson said in an interview the main limitation is that SUD events were identified in the Swedish National Patient Register, which misses nonhospitalized patients.

“This register is very complete for hospitals, but it does not include SUD events detected in the primary health care setting,” he said. “Hence, the absolute number of events is probably a clear underestimation. However, it is unlikely that this limitation would affect the study groups (control group vs. groups with different surgical procedures) in different ways and hence the conclusions from this study are most likely valid.”

The study authors and the editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonalcohol substance use disorder (SUD) was 2.5 times more common in people who had gastric bypass surgery, compared with a control group who received usual obesity care, a new prospective study has found.

The findings suggest that the risk for nonalcohol SUD should be carefully explained to patients getting a gastric bypass and that the risk should be considered in care before and after the surgery, said the study authors and editorialists.

Though alcohol use disorder is a well-known side effect for some bariatric procedures, little is known about the link between the procedures and other substance abuse, wrote the study authors, led by Per-Arne Svensson, PhD, with the department of molecular and clinical medicine, Institute of Medicine, at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

The study was published online in Obesity.

The researchers analyzed data from the SOS study. It was originally designed to compare bariatric surgery with usual obesity care, with overall mortality as the primary outcome. The protocol also called for reporting negative effects of included treatments.

The study was conducted throughout Sweden at 25 public surgical departments and 480 primary health centers. Participants were between ages 37 and 60 years and had a body mass index of at least 34 kg/m² for men and 38 for women.

After people with previous nonalcoholic SUD were excluded, the study population included 1,990 patients who had undergone bariatric surgery between September 1987 and January 2001, as well as 2,030 matched controls who received usual obesity care. The three types of bariatric surgery were gastric bypass (264 patients), vertical banded gastroplasty (1,353), and gastric banding (373), as chosen by the surgeons.

The follow-up was nearly 24 years.
 

Link found only with gastric bypass

The researchers identified participants who had nonalcoholic SUDs using the ICD from the Swedish National Patient Register covering hospital treatment (hospital stays or hospital-based outpatient care) but not primary care.

Only gastric bypass was associated with an increased incidence of nonalcoholic SUD (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-5.65), compared with controls during the follow-up period.

Among those who had gastric bypass surgery, three developed opioid-related disorders; three had sedative-, hypnotic-, or anxiolytic-related disorders; and three had other psychoactive substance–related disorders, the study authors wrote.

The researchers found no statistical difference in the incidence of nonalcoholic SUD when the groups who had undergone different surgical procedures were compared with each other.

“It is important to acknowledge that the number of affected patients was relatively low, in the single digits,” Jihad Kudsi, MD, a bariatric surgeon and chairman of surgery at Duly Health and Care, Oak Brook, Ill., said in a press release.

The findings “highlight the critical role of bariatric behavioral health clinicians in the comprehensive evaluation and care of patients both before and after weight loss surgery,” added Dr. Kudsi, who was not associated with the research.
 

Bariatric surgery candidates should be warned, monitored

The data indicate that patients who are candidates for bariatric surgery should be “carefully warned” about risks for nonalcoholic SUD and be monitored after the procedure, wrote James E. Mitchell, MD, a psychiatrist with the department of psychiatry and behavioral science, University of North Dakota, Fargo, and Devika Umashanker, MD, with Obesity Medicine, Hartford (Conn.) Health Care, in an accompanying editorial.

They acknowledged, however, that monitoring can be difficult given the typical low rate of follow-up of these patients.

Though the reasons for the rise in nonalcoholic SUD are not clear, Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Umashanker said biologic and psychosocial issues may be contributors to the increase.

The persistence of medical comorbidities and a lack of noted improvement in quality of life or physical mobility after the surgery has been addressed in a paper on suicide risk after bariatric surgery, the study authors also noted.

Dr. Svensson said in an interview that a mechanism for alcohol abuse after gastric bypass surgery is more evident, as measured by “increased blood alcohol levels after the surgery for a given amount of alcohol.” However, for other addictive substances, the mechanism is not obvious and needs further study.

The editorialists reminded clinicians that measuring phosphatidylethanol can be very useful in identifying and quantifying recent alcohol intake, suggesting that all clinicians, not just those in bariatric surgery clinics, should be aware of the connection between the procedures and subsequent alcohol abuse and monitor those patients carefully.

Both the study authors and the editorialists pointed out that the SOS cohort was recruited when vertical banded gastroplasty and banding were commonly used, and both methods are now rarely, if ever, used. Gastric sleeve procedures are now the most common approach, and those patients were not included in the study.

“However, gastric bypass surgery patients were included, albeit in a minority of the sample,” Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Umashanker wrote. In addition, the sample size of patients with SUD was too small to determine the drugs that were being abused.

Dr. Svensson said in an interview the main limitation is that SUD events were identified in the Swedish National Patient Register, which misses nonhospitalized patients.

“This register is very complete for hospitals, but it does not include SUD events detected in the primary health care setting,” he said. “Hence, the absolute number of events is probably a clear underestimation. However, it is unlikely that this limitation would affect the study groups (control group vs. groups with different surgical procedures) in different ways and hence the conclusions from this study are most likely valid.”

The study authors and the editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initiating oxycodone instead of codeine for postpartum analgesia was associated with an increased risk of persistent opioid use after vaginal, but not cesarean, delivery, new research suggests.

“In the last decade in Ontario, oxycodone surpassed codeine as the most commonly prescribed opioid postpartum for pain control,” Jonathan Zipursky, MD, PhD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, ICES, Toronto, and the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “This likely had to do with concerns with codeine use during breastfeeding, many of which are unsubstantiated.

“We hypothesized that use of oxycodone would be associated with an increased risk of persistent postpartum opioid use,” he said. “However, we did not find this.”

Instead, other factors, such as the quantity of opioids initially prescribed, were probably more important risks, he said.

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Oxycodone okay

The investigators analyzed data from 70,607 people (median age, 32) who filled an opioid prescription within 7 days of discharge from the hospital between 2012 and 2020. Two-thirds (69.8%) received oxycodone and one-third received (30.2%) codeine.

The median gestational age at delivery was 39 weeks, and 80% of participants had a cesarean delivery. The median opioid prescription duration was 3 days. The median opioid content per prescription was 150 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) among those prescribed oxycodone and 135 MMEs for codeine.

The main outcome was persistent opioid use. This was defined as one or more additional prescriptions for an opioid within 90 days of the first postpartum prescription and one or more additional prescriptions in the 91-365 days after.

Oxycodone receipt was not associated with persistent opioid use, compared with codeine (relative risk, 1.04).

However, in a secondary analysis by mode of delivery, an association was seen between a prescription for oxycodone and persistent use after vaginal (RR, 1.63), but not after cesarean (RR, 0.85), delivery.

Dr. Zipursky noted that the quantity of opioids prescribed in the initial postpartum prescription “is likely a more important modifiable risk factor for new persistent opioid use, rather than the type of opioid prescribed.”

For example, a prescription containing more than 225 MMEs (equivalent to about 30 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone and to 50 tablets of 30 mg codeine) was associated with a roughly twofold increased risk of persistent use, compared with less than 112.5 MMEs after both vaginal (odds ratio, 2.51) and cesarean (OR, 1.78) delivery.

Furthermore, a prescription duration of more than 7 days was also associated with a roughly twofold increased risk of persistent use, compared with a duration of 1-3 days after both vaginal (OR, 2.43) and cesarean (OR, 1.52) delivery.

Most risk factors for persistent opioid use – a history of mental illness, substance use disorder, and more maternal comorbidities (aggregated diagnosis groups > 10) – were consistent across modes of delivery.

“Awareness of modifiable factors associated with new, persistent opioid use may help clinicians tailor opioid prescribing while ensuring adequate analgesia after delivery,” Dr. Zipursky suggested.
 

Less is more

In a comment, Elaine Duryea, MD, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at UT Southwestern Medical Center and medical director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Clinic at Parkland Health and Hospital System, both in Dallas, said, “It is likely exposure to any opioid, rather than a specific opioid, that can promote continued use – that is, past the medically indicated period.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Dr. Duryea was principal investigator of a study, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, that showed a multimodal regimen that included scheduled nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen, with opioids used as needed, resulted in a decrease in opioid use while adequately controlling pain after cesarean delivery.

“It is important to understand how to appropriately tailor the amount of opioid given to patients at the time of hospital discharge after cesarean in order to treat pain effectively but not send patients home with more opioids than [are] really needed,” she said.

It is also important to “individualize prescribing practices and maximize the use of non-opioid medication to treat postpartum and postoperative pain. Opioids should be a last resort for breakthrough pain, not first-line therapy,” Dr. Duryea concluded.

The study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research project grant. Dr. Zipursky has received payments from private law firms for medicolegal opinions on the safety and effectiveness of analgesics, including opioids.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initiating oxycodone instead of codeine for postpartum analgesia was associated with an increased risk of persistent opioid use after vaginal, but not cesarean, delivery, new research suggests.

“In the last decade in Ontario, oxycodone surpassed codeine as the most commonly prescribed opioid postpartum for pain control,” Jonathan Zipursky, MD, PhD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, ICES, Toronto, and the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “This likely had to do with concerns with codeine use during breastfeeding, many of which are unsubstantiated.

“We hypothesized that use of oxycodone would be associated with an increased risk of persistent postpartum opioid use,” he said. “However, we did not find this.”

Instead, other factors, such as the quantity of opioids initially prescribed, were probably more important risks, he said.

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Oxycodone okay

The investigators analyzed data from 70,607 people (median age, 32) who filled an opioid prescription within 7 days of discharge from the hospital between 2012 and 2020. Two-thirds (69.8%) received oxycodone and one-third received (30.2%) codeine.

The median gestational age at delivery was 39 weeks, and 80% of participants had a cesarean delivery. The median opioid prescription duration was 3 days. The median opioid content per prescription was 150 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) among those prescribed oxycodone and 135 MMEs for codeine.

The main outcome was persistent opioid use. This was defined as one or more additional prescriptions for an opioid within 90 days of the first postpartum prescription and one or more additional prescriptions in the 91-365 days after.

Oxycodone receipt was not associated with persistent opioid use, compared with codeine (relative risk, 1.04).

However, in a secondary analysis by mode of delivery, an association was seen between a prescription for oxycodone and persistent use after vaginal (RR, 1.63), but not after cesarean (RR, 0.85), delivery.

Dr. Zipursky noted that the quantity of opioids prescribed in the initial postpartum prescription “is likely a more important modifiable risk factor for new persistent opioid use, rather than the type of opioid prescribed.”

For example, a prescription containing more than 225 MMEs (equivalent to about 30 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone and to 50 tablets of 30 mg codeine) was associated with a roughly twofold increased risk of persistent use, compared with less than 112.5 MMEs after both vaginal (odds ratio, 2.51) and cesarean (OR, 1.78) delivery.

Furthermore, a prescription duration of more than 7 days was also associated with a roughly twofold increased risk of persistent use, compared with a duration of 1-3 days after both vaginal (OR, 2.43) and cesarean (OR, 1.52) delivery.

Most risk factors for persistent opioid use – a history of mental illness, substance use disorder, and more maternal comorbidities (aggregated diagnosis groups > 10) – were consistent across modes of delivery.

“Awareness of modifiable factors associated with new, persistent opioid use may help clinicians tailor opioid prescribing while ensuring adequate analgesia after delivery,” Dr. Zipursky suggested.
 

Less is more

In a comment, Elaine Duryea, MD, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at UT Southwestern Medical Center and medical director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Clinic at Parkland Health and Hospital System, both in Dallas, said, “It is likely exposure to any opioid, rather than a specific opioid, that can promote continued use – that is, past the medically indicated period.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Dr. Duryea was principal investigator of a study, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, that showed a multimodal regimen that included scheduled nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen, with opioids used as needed, resulted in a decrease in opioid use while adequately controlling pain after cesarean delivery.

“It is important to understand how to appropriately tailor the amount of opioid given to patients at the time of hospital discharge after cesarean in order to treat pain effectively but not send patients home with more opioids than [are] really needed,” she said.

It is also important to “individualize prescribing practices and maximize the use of non-opioid medication to treat postpartum and postoperative pain. Opioids should be a last resort for breakthrough pain, not first-line therapy,” Dr. Duryea concluded.

The study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research project grant. Dr. Zipursky has received payments from private law firms for medicolegal opinions on the safety and effectiveness of analgesics, including opioids.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initiating oxycodone instead of codeine for postpartum analgesia was associated with an increased risk of persistent opioid use after vaginal, but not cesarean, delivery, new research suggests.

“In the last decade in Ontario, oxycodone surpassed codeine as the most commonly prescribed opioid postpartum for pain control,” Jonathan Zipursky, MD, PhD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, ICES, Toronto, and the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “This likely had to do with concerns with codeine use during breastfeeding, many of which are unsubstantiated.

“We hypothesized that use of oxycodone would be associated with an increased risk of persistent postpartum opioid use,” he said. “However, we did not find this.”

Instead, other factors, such as the quantity of opioids initially prescribed, were probably more important risks, he said.

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Oxycodone okay

The investigators analyzed data from 70,607 people (median age, 32) who filled an opioid prescription within 7 days of discharge from the hospital between 2012 and 2020. Two-thirds (69.8%) received oxycodone and one-third received (30.2%) codeine.

The median gestational age at delivery was 39 weeks, and 80% of participants had a cesarean delivery. The median opioid prescription duration was 3 days. The median opioid content per prescription was 150 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) among those prescribed oxycodone and 135 MMEs for codeine.

The main outcome was persistent opioid use. This was defined as one or more additional prescriptions for an opioid within 90 days of the first postpartum prescription and one or more additional prescriptions in the 91-365 days after.

Oxycodone receipt was not associated with persistent opioid use, compared with codeine (relative risk, 1.04).

However, in a secondary analysis by mode of delivery, an association was seen between a prescription for oxycodone and persistent use after vaginal (RR, 1.63), but not after cesarean (RR, 0.85), delivery.

Dr. Zipursky noted that the quantity of opioids prescribed in the initial postpartum prescription “is likely a more important modifiable risk factor for new persistent opioid use, rather than the type of opioid prescribed.”

For example, a prescription containing more than 225 MMEs (equivalent to about 30 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone and to 50 tablets of 30 mg codeine) was associated with a roughly twofold increased risk of persistent use, compared with less than 112.5 MMEs after both vaginal (odds ratio, 2.51) and cesarean (OR, 1.78) delivery.

Furthermore, a prescription duration of more than 7 days was also associated with a roughly twofold increased risk of persistent use, compared with a duration of 1-3 days after both vaginal (OR, 2.43) and cesarean (OR, 1.52) delivery.

Most risk factors for persistent opioid use – a history of mental illness, substance use disorder, and more maternal comorbidities (aggregated diagnosis groups > 10) – were consistent across modes of delivery.

“Awareness of modifiable factors associated with new, persistent opioid use may help clinicians tailor opioid prescribing while ensuring adequate analgesia after delivery,” Dr. Zipursky suggested.
 

Less is more

In a comment, Elaine Duryea, MD, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at UT Southwestern Medical Center and medical director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Clinic at Parkland Health and Hospital System, both in Dallas, said, “It is likely exposure to any opioid, rather than a specific opioid, that can promote continued use – that is, past the medically indicated period.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Dr. Duryea was principal investigator of a study, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, that showed a multimodal regimen that included scheduled nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen, with opioids used as needed, resulted in a decrease in opioid use while adequately controlling pain after cesarean delivery.

“It is important to understand how to appropriately tailor the amount of opioid given to patients at the time of hospital discharge after cesarean in order to treat pain effectively but not send patients home with more opioids than [are] really needed,” she said.

It is also important to “individualize prescribing practices and maximize the use of non-opioid medication to treat postpartum and postoperative pain. Opioids should be a last resort for breakthrough pain, not first-line therapy,” Dr. Duryea concluded.

The study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research project grant. Dr. Zipursky has received payments from private law firms for medicolegal opinions on the safety and effectiveness of analgesics, including opioids.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Off-label prescribing (OLP) refers to the practice of using medications for indications outside of those approved by the FDA, or in dosages, dose forms, or patient populations that have not been approved by the FDA.¹ OLP is common, occurring in many practice settings and nearly every medical specialty. In a 2006 review, Radley et al² found OLP accounted for 21% of the overall use of 160 common medications. The frequency of OLP varies between medication classes. Off-label use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics tends to be higher than that of other medications.^3,4 OLP is often more common in patient populations unlikely to be included in clinical trials due to ethical or logistical difficulties, such as pediatric patients and individuals who are pregnant. The Box summarizes several components that contribute to the prevalence of OLP and explains why this practice is often necessary for treating certain substance-related and addictive disorders.

Box

Several important medicolegal and ethical considerations surround OLP. The FDA prohibits off-label promotion, in which manufacturers advertise the use of a medication for off-label use.⁵ However, regulations allow physicians to use their best clinical judgment when prescribing medications for off-label use. When considering off-label use of any medication, physicians should review the most up-to-date research, including clinical trials, case reports, and reviews to safely support their decision-making. OLP should be guided by ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Physicians should obtain informed consent by conducting an appropriate discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of off-label medications. This conversation should be clearly documented, and physicians should provide written material regarding off-label options to patients when available. Finally, physicians should verify their patients’ understanding of this discussion, and allow patients to accept or decline off-label medications without pressure.

This article focuses on current and potential future medications available for OLP to treat patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), gambling disorder (GD), stimulant use disorder, and cannabis use disorder.

Alcohol use disorder

CASE 1

Ms. X, age 67, has a history of severe AUD, mild renal impairment, and migraines. She presents to the outpatient clinic seeking help to drink less alcohol. Ms. X reports drinking 1 to 2 bottles of wine each day. She was previously treated for AUD but was not helped by naltrexone and did not tolerate disulfiram (abstinence was not her goal and she experienced significant adverse effects). Ms. X says she has a medical history of chronic migraines but denies other medical issues. The treatment team discusses alternative pharmacologic options, including acamprosate and topiramate. After outlining the dosing schedule and risks/benefits with Ms. X, you make the joint decision to start topiramate to reduce alcohol cravings and target her migraine symptoms.

Only 3 medications are FDA-approved for treating AUD: disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and injectable formulations), and acamprosate. Off-label options for AUD treatment include gabapentin, topiramate, and baclofen.

Gabapentin is FDA-approved for treating postherpetic neuralgia and partial seizures in patients age ≥3. The exact mechanism of action is unclear, though its effects are possibly related to its activity as a calcium channel ligand. It also carries a structural resemblance to gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), though it lacks activity at GABA receptors.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of gabapentin for AUD produced promising results. In a comparison of gabapentin vs placebo for AUD, Anton et al⁶ found gabapentin led to significant increases in the number of participants with total alcohol abstinence and participants who reported reduced drinking. Notably, the effect was most prominent in those with heavy drinking patterns and pretreatment alcohol withdrawal symptoms. A total of 41% of participants with high alcohol withdrawal scores on pretreatment evaluation achieved total abstinence while taking gabapentin, compared to 1% in the placebo group.⁶ A meta-analysis of gabapentin for AUD by Kranzler et al⁷ included 7 RCTs and 32 effect measures. It found that although all outcome measures favored gabapentin over placebo, only the percentage of heavy drinking days was significantly different.

Gabapentin is dosed between 300 to 600 mg 3 times per day, but 1 study found that a higher dose (1,800 mg/d) was associated with better outcomes.⁸ Common adverse effects include sedation, dizziness, peripheral edema, and ataxia.

Continue to: Topiramate

Topiramate blocks voltage-gated sodium channels and enhances GABA-A receptor activity.⁹ It is indicated for the treatment of seizures, migraine prophylaxis, weight management, and weight loss. Several clinical trials, including RCTs,^10-12 demonstrated that topiramate was superior to placebo in reducing the percentage of heavy drinking days and overall drinking days. Some also showed that topiramate was associated with abstinence and reduced craving levels.^12,13 A meta-analysis by Blodgett et al¹⁴ found that compared to placebo, topiramate lowered the rate of heavy drinking and increased abstinence.

Topiramate is dosed from 50 to 150 mg twice daily, although some studies suggest a lower dose (≤75 mg/d) may be associated with clinical benefits.^15,16 One important clinical consideration: topiramate must follow a slow titration schedule (4 to 6 weeks) to increase tolerability and avoid adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation, word-finding difficulty, paresthesia, increased risk for renal calculi, dizziness, anorexia, and alterations in taste.

Baclofen is a GABA-B agonist FDA-approved for the treatment of muscle spasticity related to multiple sclerosis and reversible spasticity related to spinal cord lesions and multiple sclerosis. Of note, it is approved for treatment of AUD in Europe.

In a meta-analysis of 13 RCTs, Pierce et al¹⁷ found a greater likelihood of abstinence and greater time to first lapse of drinking with baclofen compared to placebo. Interestingly, a subgroup analysis found that the positive effects were limited to trials that used 30 to 60 mg/d of baclofen, and not evident in those that used higher doses. Additionally, there was no difference between baclofen and placebo with regard to several important outcomes, including alcohol cravings, anxiety, depression, or number of total abstinent days. A review by Andrade¹⁸ proposed that individualized treatment with high-dose baclofen (30 to 300 mg/d) may be a useful second-line approach in heavy drinkers who wish to reduce their alcohol intake.

Continue to: Before starting baclofen...

Before starting baclofen, patients should be informed about its adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation and motor impairment. More serious but less common adverse effects include seizures, respiratory depression with sleep apnea, severe mood disorders (ie, mania, depression, or suicide risk), and mental confusion. Baclofen should be gradually discontinued, because there is some risk of clinical withdrawal symptoms (ie, agitation, confusion, seizures, or delirium).

Among the medications discussed in this section, the evidence for gabapentin and topiramate is moderate to strong, while the evidence for baclofen is overall weaker or mixed. The American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guideline suggests offering gabapentin or topiramate to patients with moderate to severe AUD whose goal is to achieve abstinence or reduce alcohol use, or those who prefer gabapentin or topiramate or cannot tolerate or have not responded to naltrexone and acamprosate.¹⁹ Clinicians must ensure patients have no contra­indications to the use of these medications. Due to the moderate quality evidence for a significant reduction in heavy drinking and increased abstinence,^14,20 a practice guideline from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense²¹ recommends topiramate as 1 of 2 first-line treatments (the other is naltrexone). This guideline suggests gabapentin as a second-line treatment for AUD.²¹

Gambling disorder

CASE 2

Mr. P, age 28, seeks treatment for GD and cocaine use disorder. He reports a 7-year history of sports betting that has increasingly impaired his functioning over the past year. He lost his job, savings, and familial relationships due to his impulsive and risky behavior. Mr. P also reports frequent cocaine use, about 2 to 3 days per week, mostly on the weekends. The psychiatrist tells Mr. P there is no FDA-approved pharmacologic treatment for GD or cocaine use disorder. The psychiatrist discusses the option of naltrexone as off-label treatment for GD with the goal of reducing Mr. P’s urges to gamble, and points to possible benefits for cocaine use disorder.

GD impacts approximately 0.5% of the adult US population and is often co-occurring with substance use disorders.²² It is thought to share neurobiological and clinical similarities with substance use disorders.²³ There are currently no FDA-approved medications to treat the disorder. In studies of GD, treatment success with antidepressants and mood stabilizers has not been consistent,^23,24 but some promising results have been published for the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone^24-29and N-acetylcysteine (NAC).^30-32

Naltrexone is thought to reduce gambling behavior and urges via downstream modulation of mesolimbic dopamine circuitry.²⁴ It is FDA-approved for the treatment of AUD and opioid use disorder. Open-label RCTs have found a reduction in gambling urges and behavior with daily naltrexone.^25-27 Dosing at 50 mg/d appears to be just as efficacious as higher doses such as 100 and 150 mg/d.²⁷ When used as a daily as-needed medication for strong gambling urges or if an individual was planning to gamble, naltrexone 50 mg/d was not effective.²⁸

Continue to: Naltrexone typically is started...

Naltrexone typically is started at 25 mg/d to assess tolerability and quickly titrated to 50 mg/d. When titrating, common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, and transient elevations in transaminases. Another opioid antagonist, nalmefene, has also been studied in patients with GD. An RCT by Grant et al²⁹ that evaluated 207 patients found that compared with placebo, nalmefene 25 mg/d for 16 weeks was associated with a significant reduction in gambling assessment scores. In Europe, nalmefene is approved for treating AUD but the oral formulation is not currently available in the US.

N-acetylcysteine is thought to potentially reverse neuronal dysfunction seen in addictive disorders by glutamatergic modulation.³⁰ Research investigating NAC for GD is scarce. A pilot study found 16 of 27 patients with GD reduced gambling behavior with a mean dose of 1,476.9 mg/d.³¹ An additional study investigating the addition of NAC to behavioral therapy in nicotine-dependent individuals with pathologic gambling found a reduction in problem gambling after 18 weeks (6 weeks + 3 months follow-up).³² Common but mild adverse effects associated with NAC are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

A meta-analysis by Goslar et al³³ that reviewed 34 studies (1,340 participants) found pharmacologic treatments were associated with large and medium pre-post reductions in global severity, frequency, and financial loss in patients with GD. RCTs studying opioid antagonists and mood stabilizers (combined with a cognitive intervention) as well as lithium for patients with comorbid bipolar disorder and GD demonstrated promising results.³³

Stimulant use disorder

There are no FDA-approved medications for stimulant use disorder. Multiple off-label options have been studied for the treatment of methamphetamine abuse and cocaine abuse.

Methamphetamine use has been expanding over the past decade with a 3.6-fold increase in positive methamphetamine screens in overdose deaths from 2011 to 2016.³⁴ Pharmacologic options studied for OLP of methamphetamine use disorder include mirtazapine, bupropion, naltrexone, and topiramate.

Continue to: Mirtazapine

Mirtazapine is an atypical antidepressant whose mechanism of action includes modulation of the serotonin, norepinephrine, and alpha-2 adrenergic systems. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In a randomized placebo-controlled study, mirtazapine 30 mg/d at night was found to decrease methamphetamine use for active users and led to decreased sexual risk in men who have sex with men.³⁵ These results were supported by an additional RCT in which mirtazapine 30 mg/d significantly reduced rates of methamphetamine use vs placebo at 24 and 36 weeks despite poor medication adherence.³⁶ Adverse effects to monitor in patients treated with mirtazapine include increased appetite, weight gain, sedation, and constipation.

Bupropion is a norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitor that produces increased neurotransmission of norepinephrine and dopamine in the CNS. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of MDD and as an aid for smoking cessation. Bupropion has been studied for methamphetamine use disorder with mixed results. In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, bupropion sustained release 150 mg twice daily was not more effective than placebo in reducing methamphetamine use.³⁷ However, the extended-release formulation of bupropion 450 mg/d combined with long-acting injectable naltrexone was associated with a reduction in methamphetamine use over 12 weeks.³⁸ Bupropion is generally well tolerated; common adverse effects include insomnia, tremor, headache, and dizziness.

Naltrexone. Data about using oral naltrexone to treat stimulant use disorders are limited. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial by Jayaram-Lindström et al³⁹ found naltrexone 50 mg/d significantly reduced amphetamine use compared to placebo. Additionally, naltrexone 50 and 150 mg/d have been shown to reduce cocaine use over time in combination with therapy for cocaine-dependent patients and those dependent on alcohol and cocaine.^40,41

Topiramate has been studied for the treatment of cocaine use disorder. It is hypothesized that modulation of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system may contribute to decreased cocaine cravings.⁴² A pilot study by Kampman et al⁴³ found that after an 8-week titration of topiramate to 200 mg/d, individuals were more likely to achieve cocaine abstinence compared to those who receive placebo. In an RCT, Elkashef et al⁴⁴ did not find topiramate assisted with increased abstinence of methamphetamine in active users at a target dose of 200 mg/d. However, it was associated with reduced relapse rates in individuals who were abstinent prior to the study.⁴⁴ At a target dose of 300 mg/d, topiramate also outperformed placebo in decreasing days of cocaine use.⁴² Adverse effects of topiramate included paresthesia, alteration in taste, and difficulty with concentration.

Cannabis use disorder

In recent years, cannabis use in the US has greatly increased⁴⁵ but no medications are FDA-approved for treating cannabis use disorder. Studies of pharmacologic options for cannabis use disorder have had mixed results.⁴⁶ A meta-analysis by Bahji et al⁴⁷ of 24 studies investigating pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder highlighted the lack of adequate evidence. In this section, we focus on a few positive trials of NAC and gabapentin.

Continue to: N-acetylcysteine

N-acetylcysteine. Studies investigating NAC 1,200 mg twice daily have been promising in adolescent and adult populations.^48-50 There are some mixed results, however. A large RCT found NAC 1,200 mg twice daily was not better than placebo in helping adults achieve abstinence from cannabis.⁵¹

Gabapentin may be a viable option for treating cannabis use disorder. A pilot study by Mason et al⁵² found gabapentin 1,200 mg/d was more effective than placebo at reducing cannabis use among treatment-seeking adults.

When and how to consider OLP

OLP for addictive disorders is common and often necessary. This is primarily due to limitations of the FDA-approved medications and because there are no FDA-approved medications for many substance-related and addictive disorders (ie, GD, cannabis use disorder, and stimulant use disorder). When assessing pharmacotherapy options, if FDA-approved medications are available for certain diagnoses, clinicians should first consider them. The off-label medications discussed in this article are outlined in the Table.^{6-21,24-28,30-33,35-44,48-52}

The overall level of evidence to support the use of off-label medications is lower than that of FDA-approved medications, which contributes to potential medicolegal concerns of OLP. Off-label medications should be considered when there are no FDA-approved medications available, and the decision to use off-label medications should be based on evidence from the literature and current standard of care. Additionally, OLP is necessary if a patient cannot tolerate FDA-approved medications, is not helped by FDA-approved treatments, or when there are other clinical reasons to choose a particular off-label medication. For example, if a patient has comorbid AUD and obesity (or migraines), using topiramate may be appropriate because it may target alcohol cravings and can be helpful for weight loss (and migraine prophylaxis). Similarly, for patients with AUD and neuropathic pain, using gabapentin can be considered for its dual therapeutic effects.

It is critical for clinicians to understand the landscape of off-label options for treating addictive disorders. Additional research in the form of RCTs is needed to better clarify the efficacy and adverse effects of these treatments.

Continue to: Bottom Line

Off-label prescribing is prevalent in practice, including in the treatment of substance-related and addictive disorders. When considering off-label use of any medication, clinicians should review the most recent research, obtain informed consent from patients, and verify patients’ understanding of the potential risks and adverse effects associated with the particular medication.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG, Frierson RL. Off-label prescribing: how to limit your liability. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):12,39. doi:10.12788/ cp.0035
• Stanciu CN, Gnanasegaram SA. Don’t balk at using medical therapy to manage alcohol use disorder. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(2):50-52.

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Baclofen • Ozobax
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Topiramate • Topamax

Off-label prescribing (OLP) refers to the practice of using medications for indications outside of those approved by the FDA, or in dosages, dose forms, or patient populations that have not been approved by the FDA.¹ OLP is common, occurring in many practice settings and nearly every medical specialty. In a 2006 review, Radley et al² found OLP accounted for 21% of the overall use of 160 common medications. The frequency of OLP varies between medication classes. Off-label use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics tends to be higher than that of other medications.^3,4 OLP is often more common in patient populations unlikely to be included in clinical trials due to ethical or logistical difficulties, such as pediatric patients and individuals who are pregnant. The Box summarizes several components that contribute to the prevalence of OLP and explains why this practice is often necessary for treating certain substance-related and addictive disorders.

Box

Several important medicolegal and ethical considerations surround OLP. The FDA prohibits off-label promotion, in which manufacturers advertise the use of a medication for off-label use.⁵ However, regulations allow physicians to use their best clinical judgment when prescribing medications for off-label use. When considering off-label use of any medication, physicians should review the most up-to-date research, including clinical trials, case reports, and reviews to safely support their decision-making. OLP should be guided by ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Physicians should obtain informed consent by conducting an appropriate discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of off-label medications. This conversation should be clearly documented, and physicians should provide written material regarding off-label options to patients when available. Finally, physicians should verify their patients’ understanding of this discussion, and allow patients to accept or decline off-label medications without pressure.

This article focuses on current and potential future medications available for OLP to treat patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), gambling disorder (GD), stimulant use disorder, and cannabis use disorder.

Alcohol use disorder

CASE 1

Ms. X, age 67, has a history of severe AUD, mild renal impairment, and migraines. She presents to the outpatient clinic seeking help to drink less alcohol. Ms. X reports drinking 1 to 2 bottles of wine each day. She was previously treated for AUD but was not helped by naltrexone and did not tolerate disulfiram (abstinence was not her goal and she experienced significant adverse effects). Ms. X says she has a medical history of chronic migraines but denies other medical issues. The treatment team discusses alternative pharmacologic options, including acamprosate and topiramate. After outlining the dosing schedule and risks/benefits with Ms. X, you make the joint decision to start topiramate to reduce alcohol cravings and target her migraine symptoms.

Only 3 medications are FDA-approved for treating AUD: disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and injectable formulations), and acamprosate. Off-label options for AUD treatment include gabapentin, topiramate, and baclofen.

Gabapentin is FDA-approved for treating postherpetic neuralgia and partial seizures in patients age ≥3. The exact mechanism of action is unclear, though its effects are possibly related to its activity as a calcium channel ligand. It also carries a structural resemblance to gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), though it lacks activity at GABA receptors.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of gabapentin for AUD produced promising results. In a comparison of gabapentin vs placebo for AUD, Anton et al⁶ found gabapentin led to significant increases in the number of participants with total alcohol abstinence and participants who reported reduced drinking. Notably, the effect was most prominent in those with heavy drinking patterns and pretreatment alcohol withdrawal symptoms. A total of 41% of participants with high alcohol withdrawal scores on pretreatment evaluation achieved total abstinence while taking gabapentin, compared to 1% in the placebo group.⁶ A meta-analysis of gabapentin for AUD by Kranzler et al⁷ included 7 RCTs and 32 effect measures. It found that although all outcome measures favored gabapentin over placebo, only the percentage of heavy drinking days was significantly different.

Gabapentin is dosed between 300 to 600 mg 3 times per day, but 1 study found that a higher dose (1,800 mg/d) was associated with better outcomes.⁸ Common adverse effects include sedation, dizziness, peripheral edema, and ataxia.

Continue to: Topiramate

Topiramate blocks voltage-gated sodium channels and enhances GABA-A receptor activity.⁹ It is indicated for the treatment of seizures, migraine prophylaxis, weight management, and weight loss. Several clinical trials, including RCTs,^10-12 demonstrated that topiramate was superior to placebo in reducing the percentage of heavy drinking days and overall drinking days. Some also showed that topiramate was associated with abstinence and reduced craving levels.^12,13 A meta-analysis by Blodgett et al¹⁴ found that compared to placebo, topiramate lowered the rate of heavy drinking and increased abstinence.

Topiramate is dosed from 50 to 150 mg twice daily, although some studies suggest a lower dose (≤75 mg/d) may be associated with clinical benefits.^15,16 One important clinical consideration: topiramate must follow a slow titration schedule (4 to 6 weeks) to increase tolerability and avoid adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation, word-finding difficulty, paresthesia, increased risk for renal calculi, dizziness, anorexia, and alterations in taste.

Baclofen is a GABA-B agonist FDA-approved for the treatment of muscle spasticity related to multiple sclerosis and reversible spasticity related to spinal cord lesions and multiple sclerosis. Of note, it is approved for treatment of AUD in Europe.

In a meta-analysis of 13 RCTs, Pierce et al¹⁷ found a greater likelihood of abstinence and greater time to first lapse of drinking with baclofen compared to placebo. Interestingly, a subgroup analysis found that the positive effects were limited to trials that used 30 to 60 mg/d of baclofen, and not evident in those that used higher doses. Additionally, there was no difference between baclofen and placebo with regard to several important outcomes, including alcohol cravings, anxiety, depression, or number of total abstinent days. A review by Andrade¹⁸ proposed that individualized treatment with high-dose baclofen (30 to 300 mg/d) may be a useful second-line approach in heavy drinkers who wish to reduce their alcohol intake.

Continue to: Before starting baclofen...

Before starting baclofen, patients should be informed about its adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation and motor impairment. More serious but less common adverse effects include seizures, respiratory depression with sleep apnea, severe mood disorders (ie, mania, depression, or suicide risk), and mental confusion. Baclofen should be gradually discontinued, because there is some risk of clinical withdrawal symptoms (ie, agitation, confusion, seizures, or delirium).

Among the medications discussed in this section, the evidence for gabapentin and topiramate is moderate to strong, while the evidence for baclofen is overall weaker or mixed. The American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guideline suggests offering gabapentin or topiramate to patients with moderate to severe AUD whose goal is to achieve abstinence or reduce alcohol use, or those who prefer gabapentin or topiramate or cannot tolerate or have not responded to naltrexone and acamprosate.¹⁹ Clinicians must ensure patients have no contra­indications to the use of these medications. Due to the moderate quality evidence for a significant reduction in heavy drinking and increased abstinence,^14,20 a practice guideline from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense²¹ recommends topiramate as 1 of 2 first-line treatments (the other is naltrexone). This guideline suggests gabapentin as a second-line treatment for AUD.²¹

Gambling disorder

CASE 2

Mr. P, age 28, seeks treatment for GD and cocaine use disorder. He reports a 7-year history of sports betting that has increasingly impaired his functioning over the past year. He lost his job, savings, and familial relationships due to his impulsive and risky behavior. Mr. P also reports frequent cocaine use, about 2 to 3 days per week, mostly on the weekends. The psychiatrist tells Mr. P there is no FDA-approved pharmacologic treatment for GD or cocaine use disorder. The psychiatrist discusses the option of naltrexone as off-label treatment for GD with the goal of reducing Mr. P’s urges to gamble, and points to possible benefits for cocaine use disorder.

GD impacts approximately 0.5% of the adult US population and is often co-occurring with substance use disorders.²² It is thought to share neurobiological and clinical similarities with substance use disorders.²³ There are currently no FDA-approved medications to treat the disorder. In studies of GD, treatment success with antidepressants and mood stabilizers has not been consistent,^23,24 but some promising results have been published for the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone^24-29and N-acetylcysteine (NAC).^30-32

Naltrexone is thought to reduce gambling behavior and urges via downstream modulation of mesolimbic dopamine circuitry.²⁴ It is FDA-approved for the treatment of AUD and opioid use disorder. Open-label RCTs have found a reduction in gambling urges and behavior with daily naltrexone.^25-27 Dosing at 50 mg/d appears to be just as efficacious as higher doses such as 100 and 150 mg/d.²⁷ When used as a daily as-needed medication for strong gambling urges or if an individual was planning to gamble, naltrexone 50 mg/d was not effective.²⁸

Continue to: Naltrexone typically is started...

Naltrexone typically is started at 25 mg/d to assess tolerability and quickly titrated to 50 mg/d. When titrating, common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, and transient elevations in transaminases. Another opioid antagonist, nalmefene, has also been studied in patients with GD. An RCT by Grant et al²⁹ that evaluated 207 patients found that compared with placebo, nalmefene 25 mg/d for 16 weeks was associated with a significant reduction in gambling assessment scores. In Europe, nalmefene is approved for treating AUD but the oral formulation is not currently available in the US.

N-acetylcysteine is thought to potentially reverse neuronal dysfunction seen in addictive disorders by glutamatergic modulation.³⁰ Research investigating NAC for GD is scarce. A pilot study found 16 of 27 patients with GD reduced gambling behavior with a mean dose of 1,476.9 mg/d.³¹ An additional study investigating the addition of NAC to behavioral therapy in nicotine-dependent individuals with pathologic gambling found a reduction in problem gambling after 18 weeks (6 weeks + 3 months follow-up).³² Common but mild adverse effects associated with NAC are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

A meta-analysis by Goslar et al³³ that reviewed 34 studies (1,340 participants) found pharmacologic treatments were associated with large and medium pre-post reductions in global severity, frequency, and financial loss in patients with GD. RCTs studying opioid antagonists and mood stabilizers (combined with a cognitive intervention) as well as lithium for patients with comorbid bipolar disorder and GD demonstrated promising results.³³

Stimulant use disorder

There are no FDA-approved medications for stimulant use disorder. Multiple off-label options have been studied for the treatment of methamphetamine abuse and cocaine abuse.

Methamphetamine use has been expanding over the past decade with a 3.6-fold increase in positive methamphetamine screens in overdose deaths from 2011 to 2016.³⁴ Pharmacologic options studied for OLP of methamphetamine use disorder include mirtazapine, bupropion, naltrexone, and topiramate.

Continue to: Mirtazapine

Mirtazapine is an atypical antidepressant whose mechanism of action includes modulation of the serotonin, norepinephrine, and alpha-2 adrenergic systems. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In a randomized placebo-controlled study, mirtazapine 30 mg/d at night was found to decrease methamphetamine use for active users and led to decreased sexual risk in men who have sex with men.³⁵ These results were supported by an additional RCT in which mirtazapine 30 mg/d significantly reduced rates of methamphetamine use vs placebo at 24 and 36 weeks despite poor medication adherence.³⁶ Adverse effects to monitor in patients treated with mirtazapine include increased appetite, weight gain, sedation, and constipation.

Bupropion is a norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitor that produces increased neurotransmission of norepinephrine and dopamine in the CNS. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of MDD and as an aid for smoking cessation. Bupropion has been studied for methamphetamine use disorder with mixed results. In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, bupropion sustained release 150 mg twice daily was not more effective than placebo in reducing methamphetamine use.³⁷ However, the extended-release formulation of bupropion 450 mg/d combined with long-acting injectable naltrexone was associated with a reduction in methamphetamine use over 12 weeks.³⁸ Bupropion is generally well tolerated; common adverse effects include insomnia, tremor, headache, and dizziness.

Naltrexone. Data about using oral naltrexone to treat stimulant use disorders are limited. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial by Jayaram-Lindström et al³⁹ found naltrexone 50 mg/d significantly reduced amphetamine use compared to placebo. Additionally, naltrexone 50 and 150 mg/d have been shown to reduce cocaine use over time in combination with therapy for cocaine-dependent patients and those dependent on alcohol and cocaine.^40,41

Topiramate has been studied for the treatment of cocaine use disorder. It is hypothesized that modulation of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system may contribute to decreased cocaine cravings.⁴² A pilot study by Kampman et al⁴³ found that after an 8-week titration of topiramate to 200 mg/d, individuals were more likely to achieve cocaine abstinence compared to those who receive placebo. In an RCT, Elkashef et al⁴⁴ did not find topiramate assisted with increased abstinence of methamphetamine in active users at a target dose of 200 mg/d. However, it was associated with reduced relapse rates in individuals who were abstinent prior to the study.⁴⁴ At a target dose of 300 mg/d, topiramate also outperformed placebo in decreasing days of cocaine use.⁴² Adverse effects of topiramate included paresthesia, alteration in taste, and difficulty with concentration.

Cannabis use disorder

In recent years, cannabis use in the US has greatly increased⁴⁵ but no medications are FDA-approved for treating cannabis use disorder. Studies of pharmacologic options for cannabis use disorder have had mixed results.⁴⁶ A meta-analysis by Bahji et al⁴⁷ of 24 studies investigating pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder highlighted the lack of adequate evidence. In this section, we focus on a few positive trials of NAC and gabapentin.

Continue to: N-acetylcysteine

N-acetylcysteine. Studies investigating NAC 1,200 mg twice daily have been promising in adolescent and adult populations.^48-50 There are some mixed results, however. A large RCT found NAC 1,200 mg twice daily was not better than placebo in helping adults achieve abstinence from cannabis.⁵¹

Gabapentin may be a viable option for treating cannabis use disorder. A pilot study by Mason et al⁵² found gabapentin 1,200 mg/d was more effective than placebo at reducing cannabis use among treatment-seeking adults.

When and how to consider OLP

OLP for addictive disorders is common and often necessary. This is primarily due to limitations of the FDA-approved medications and because there are no FDA-approved medications for many substance-related and addictive disorders (ie, GD, cannabis use disorder, and stimulant use disorder). When assessing pharmacotherapy options, if FDA-approved medications are available for certain diagnoses, clinicians should first consider them. The off-label medications discussed in this article are outlined in the Table.^{6-21,24-28,30-33,35-44,48-52}

The overall level of evidence to support the use of off-label medications is lower than that of FDA-approved medications, which contributes to potential medicolegal concerns of OLP. Off-label medications should be considered when there are no FDA-approved medications available, and the decision to use off-label medications should be based on evidence from the literature and current standard of care. Additionally, OLP is necessary if a patient cannot tolerate FDA-approved medications, is not helped by FDA-approved treatments, or when there are other clinical reasons to choose a particular off-label medication. For example, if a patient has comorbid AUD and obesity (or migraines), using topiramate may be appropriate because it may target alcohol cravings and can be helpful for weight loss (and migraine prophylaxis). Similarly, for patients with AUD and neuropathic pain, using gabapentin can be considered for its dual therapeutic effects.

It is critical for clinicians to understand the landscape of off-label options for treating addictive disorders. Additional research in the form of RCTs is needed to better clarify the efficacy and adverse effects of these treatments.

Continue to: Bottom Line

Off-label prescribing is prevalent in practice, including in the treatment of substance-related and addictive disorders. When considering off-label use of any medication, clinicians should review the most recent research, obtain informed consent from patients, and verify patients’ understanding of the potential risks and adverse effects associated with the particular medication.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG, Frierson RL. Off-label prescribing: how to limit your liability. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):12,39. doi:10.12788/ cp.0035
• Stanciu CN, Gnanasegaram SA. Don’t balk at using medical therapy to manage alcohol use disorder. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(2):50-52.

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Baclofen • Ozobax
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Topiramate • Topamax

Off-label prescribing (OLP) refers to the practice of using medications for indications outside of those approved by the FDA, or in dosages, dose forms, or patient populations that have not been approved by the FDA.¹ OLP is common, occurring in many practice settings and nearly every medical specialty. In a 2006 review, Radley et al² found OLP accounted for 21% of the overall use of 160 common medications. The frequency of OLP varies between medication classes. Off-label use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics tends to be higher than that of other medications.^3,4 OLP is often more common in patient populations unlikely to be included in clinical trials due to ethical or logistical difficulties, such as pediatric patients and individuals who are pregnant. The Box summarizes several components that contribute to the prevalence of OLP and explains why this practice is often necessary for treating certain substance-related and addictive disorders.

Box

Several important medicolegal and ethical considerations surround OLP. The FDA prohibits off-label promotion, in which manufacturers advertise the use of a medication for off-label use.⁵ However, regulations allow physicians to use their best clinical judgment when prescribing medications for off-label use. When considering off-label use of any medication, physicians should review the most up-to-date research, including clinical trials, case reports, and reviews to safely support their decision-making. OLP should be guided by ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Physicians should obtain informed consent by conducting an appropriate discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of off-label medications. This conversation should be clearly documented, and physicians should provide written material regarding off-label options to patients when available. Finally, physicians should verify their patients’ understanding of this discussion, and allow patients to accept or decline off-label medications without pressure.

This article focuses on current and potential future medications available for OLP to treat patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), gambling disorder (GD), stimulant use disorder, and cannabis use disorder.

Alcohol use disorder

CASE 1

Ms. X, age 67, has a history of severe AUD, mild renal impairment, and migraines. She presents to the outpatient clinic seeking help to drink less alcohol. Ms. X reports drinking 1 to 2 bottles of wine each day. She was previously treated for AUD but was not helped by naltrexone and did not tolerate disulfiram (abstinence was not her goal and she experienced significant adverse effects). Ms. X says she has a medical history of chronic migraines but denies other medical issues. The treatment team discusses alternative pharmacologic options, including acamprosate and topiramate. After outlining the dosing schedule and risks/benefits with Ms. X, you make the joint decision to start topiramate to reduce alcohol cravings and target her migraine symptoms.

Only 3 medications are FDA-approved for treating AUD: disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and injectable formulations), and acamprosate. Off-label options for AUD treatment include gabapentin, topiramate, and baclofen.

Gabapentin is FDA-approved for treating postherpetic neuralgia and partial seizures in patients age ≥3. The exact mechanism of action is unclear, though its effects are possibly related to its activity as a calcium channel ligand. It also carries a structural resemblance to gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), though it lacks activity at GABA receptors.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of gabapentin for AUD produced promising results. In a comparison of gabapentin vs placebo for AUD, Anton et al⁶ found gabapentin led to significant increases in the number of participants with total alcohol abstinence and participants who reported reduced drinking. Notably, the effect was most prominent in those with heavy drinking patterns and pretreatment alcohol withdrawal symptoms. A total of 41% of participants with high alcohol withdrawal scores on pretreatment evaluation achieved total abstinence while taking gabapentin, compared to 1% in the placebo group.⁶ A meta-analysis of gabapentin for AUD by Kranzler et al⁷ included 7 RCTs and 32 effect measures. It found that although all outcome measures favored gabapentin over placebo, only the percentage of heavy drinking days was significantly different.

Gabapentin is dosed between 300 to 600 mg 3 times per day, but 1 study found that a higher dose (1,800 mg/d) was associated with better outcomes.⁸ Common adverse effects include sedation, dizziness, peripheral edema, and ataxia.

Continue to: Topiramate

Topiramate blocks voltage-gated sodium channels and enhances GABA-A receptor activity.⁹ It is indicated for the treatment of seizures, migraine prophylaxis, weight management, and weight loss. Several clinical trials, including RCTs,^10-12 demonstrated that topiramate was superior to placebo in reducing the percentage of heavy drinking days and overall drinking days. Some also showed that topiramate was associated with abstinence and reduced craving levels.^12,13 A meta-analysis by Blodgett et al¹⁴ found that compared to placebo, topiramate lowered the rate of heavy drinking and increased abstinence.

Topiramate is dosed from 50 to 150 mg twice daily, although some studies suggest a lower dose (≤75 mg/d) may be associated with clinical benefits.^15,16 One important clinical consideration: topiramate must follow a slow titration schedule (4 to 6 weeks) to increase tolerability and avoid adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation, word-finding difficulty, paresthesia, increased risk for renal calculi, dizziness, anorexia, and alterations in taste.

Baclofen is a GABA-B agonist FDA-approved for the treatment of muscle spasticity related to multiple sclerosis and reversible spasticity related to spinal cord lesions and multiple sclerosis. Of note, it is approved for treatment of AUD in Europe.

In a meta-analysis of 13 RCTs, Pierce et al¹⁷ found a greater likelihood of abstinence and greater time to first lapse of drinking with baclofen compared to placebo. Interestingly, a subgroup analysis found that the positive effects were limited to trials that used 30 to 60 mg/d of baclofen, and not evident in those that used higher doses. Additionally, there was no difference between baclofen and placebo with regard to several important outcomes, including alcohol cravings, anxiety, depression, or number of total abstinent days. A review by Andrade¹⁸ proposed that individualized treatment with high-dose baclofen (30 to 300 mg/d) may be a useful second-line approach in heavy drinkers who wish to reduce their alcohol intake.

Continue to: Before starting baclofen...

Before starting baclofen, patients should be informed about its adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation and motor impairment. More serious but less common adverse effects include seizures, respiratory depression with sleep apnea, severe mood disorders (ie, mania, depression, or suicide risk), and mental confusion. Baclofen should be gradually discontinued, because there is some risk of clinical withdrawal symptoms (ie, agitation, confusion, seizures, or delirium).

Among the medications discussed in this section, the evidence for gabapentin and topiramate is moderate to strong, while the evidence for baclofen is overall weaker or mixed. The American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guideline suggests offering gabapentin or topiramate to patients with moderate to severe AUD whose goal is to achieve abstinence or reduce alcohol use, or those who prefer gabapentin or topiramate or cannot tolerate or have not responded to naltrexone and acamprosate.¹⁹ Clinicians must ensure patients have no contra­indications to the use of these medications. Due to the moderate quality evidence for a significant reduction in heavy drinking and increased abstinence,^14,20 a practice guideline from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense²¹ recommends topiramate as 1 of 2 first-line treatments (the other is naltrexone). This guideline suggests gabapentin as a second-line treatment for AUD.²¹

Gambling disorder

CASE 2

Mr. P, age 28, seeks treatment for GD and cocaine use disorder. He reports a 7-year history of sports betting that has increasingly impaired his functioning over the past year. He lost his job, savings, and familial relationships due to his impulsive and risky behavior. Mr. P also reports frequent cocaine use, about 2 to 3 days per week, mostly on the weekends. The psychiatrist tells Mr. P there is no FDA-approved pharmacologic treatment for GD or cocaine use disorder. The psychiatrist discusses the option of naltrexone as off-label treatment for GD with the goal of reducing Mr. P’s urges to gamble, and points to possible benefits for cocaine use disorder.

GD impacts approximately 0.5% of the adult US population and is often co-occurring with substance use disorders.²² It is thought to share neurobiological and clinical similarities with substance use disorders.²³ There are currently no FDA-approved medications to treat the disorder. In studies of GD, treatment success with antidepressants and mood stabilizers has not been consistent,^23,24 but some promising results have been published for the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone^24-29and N-acetylcysteine (NAC).^30-32

Naltrexone is thought to reduce gambling behavior and urges via downstream modulation of mesolimbic dopamine circuitry.²⁴ It is FDA-approved for the treatment of AUD and opioid use disorder. Open-label RCTs have found a reduction in gambling urges and behavior with daily naltrexone.^25-27 Dosing at 50 mg/d appears to be just as efficacious as higher doses such as 100 and 150 mg/d.²⁷ When used as a daily as-needed medication for strong gambling urges or if an individual was planning to gamble, naltrexone 50 mg/d was not effective.²⁸

Continue to: Naltrexone typically is started...

Naltrexone typically is started at 25 mg/d to assess tolerability and quickly titrated to 50 mg/d. When titrating, common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, and transient elevations in transaminases. Another opioid antagonist, nalmefene, has also been studied in patients with GD. An RCT by Grant et al²⁹ that evaluated 207 patients found that compared with placebo, nalmefene 25 mg/d for 16 weeks was associated with a significant reduction in gambling assessment scores. In Europe, nalmefene is approved for treating AUD but the oral formulation is not currently available in the US.

N-acetylcysteine is thought to potentially reverse neuronal dysfunction seen in addictive disorders by glutamatergic modulation.³⁰ Research investigating NAC for GD is scarce. A pilot study found 16 of 27 patients with GD reduced gambling behavior with a mean dose of 1,476.9 mg/d.³¹ An additional study investigating the addition of NAC to behavioral therapy in nicotine-dependent individuals with pathologic gambling found a reduction in problem gambling after 18 weeks (6 weeks + 3 months follow-up).³² Common but mild adverse effects associated with NAC are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

A meta-analysis by Goslar et al³³ that reviewed 34 studies (1,340 participants) found pharmacologic treatments were associated with large and medium pre-post reductions in global severity, frequency, and financial loss in patients with GD. RCTs studying opioid antagonists and mood stabilizers (combined with a cognitive intervention) as well as lithium for patients with comorbid bipolar disorder and GD demonstrated promising results.³³

Stimulant use disorder

There are no FDA-approved medications for stimulant use disorder. Multiple off-label options have been studied for the treatment of methamphetamine abuse and cocaine abuse.

Methamphetamine use has been expanding over the past decade with a 3.6-fold increase in positive methamphetamine screens in overdose deaths from 2011 to 2016.³⁴ Pharmacologic options studied for OLP of methamphetamine use disorder include mirtazapine, bupropion, naltrexone, and topiramate.

Continue to: Mirtazapine

Mirtazapine is an atypical antidepressant whose mechanism of action includes modulation of the serotonin, norepinephrine, and alpha-2 adrenergic systems. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In a randomized placebo-controlled study, mirtazapine 30 mg/d at night was found to decrease methamphetamine use for active users and led to decreased sexual risk in men who have sex with men.³⁵ These results were supported by an additional RCT in which mirtazapine 30 mg/d significantly reduced rates of methamphetamine use vs placebo at 24 and 36 weeks despite poor medication adherence.³⁶ Adverse effects to monitor in patients treated with mirtazapine include increased appetite, weight gain, sedation, and constipation.

Bupropion is a norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitor that produces increased neurotransmission of norepinephrine and dopamine in the CNS. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of MDD and as an aid for smoking cessation. Bupropion has been studied for methamphetamine use disorder with mixed results. In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, bupropion sustained release 150 mg twice daily was not more effective than placebo in reducing methamphetamine use.³⁷ However, the extended-release formulation of bupropion 450 mg/d combined with long-acting injectable naltrexone was associated with a reduction in methamphetamine use over 12 weeks.³⁸ Bupropion is generally well tolerated; common adverse effects include insomnia, tremor, headache, and dizziness.

Naltrexone. Data about using oral naltrexone to treat stimulant use disorders are limited. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial by Jayaram-Lindström et al³⁹ found naltrexone 50 mg/d significantly reduced amphetamine use compared to placebo. Additionally, naltrexone 50 and 150 mg/d have been shown to reduce cocaine use over time in combination with therapy for cocaine-dependent patients and those dependent on alcohol and cocaine.^40,41

Topiramate has been studied for the treatment of cocaine use disorder. It is hypothesized that modulation of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system may contribute to decreased cocaine cravings.⁴² A pilot study by Kampman et al⁴³ found that after an 8-week titration of topiramate to 200 mg/d, individuals were more likely to achieve cocaine abstinence compared to those who receive placebo. In an RCT, Elkashef et al⁴⁴ did not find topiramate assisted with increased abstinence of methamphetamine in active users at a target dose of 200 mg/d. However, it was associated with reduced relapse rates in individuals who were abstinent prior to the study.⁴⁴ At a target dose of 300 mg/d, topiramate also outperformed placebo in decreasing days of cocaine use.⁴² Adverse effects of topiramate included paresthesia, alteration in taste, and difficulty with concentration.

Cannabis use disorder

In recent years, cannabis use in the US has greatly increased⁴⁵ but no medications are FDA-approved for treating cannabis use disorder. Studies of pharmacologic options for cannabis use disorder have had mixed results.⁴⁶ A meta-analysis by Bahji et al⁴⁷ of 24 studies investigating pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder highlighted the lack of adequate evidence. In this section, we focus on a few positive trials of NAC and gabapentin.

Continue to: N-acetylcysteine

N-acetylcysteine. Studies investigating NAC 1,200 mg twice daily have been promising in adolescent and adult populations.^48-50 There are some mixed results, however. A large RCT found NAC 1,200 mg twice daily was not better than placebo in helping adults achieve abstinence from cannabis.⁵¹

Gabapentin may be a viable option for treating cannabis use disorder. A pilot study by Mason et al⁵² found gabapentin 1,200 mg/d was more effective than placebo at reducing cannabis use among treatment-seeking adults.

When and how to consider OLP

OLP for addictive disorders is common and often necessary. This is primarily due to limitations of the FDA-approved medications and because there are no FDA-approved medications for many substance-related and addictive disorders (ie, GD, cannabis use disorder, and stimulant use disorder). When assessing pharmacotherapy options, if FDA-approved medications are available for certain diagnoses, clinicians should first consider them. The off-label medications discussed in this article are outlined in the Table.^{6-21,24-28,30-33,35-44,48-52}

The overall level of evidence to support the use of off-label medications is lower than that of FDA-approved medications, which contributes to potential medicolegal concerns of OLP. Off-label medications should be considered when there are no FDA-approved medications available, and the decision to use off-label medications should be based on evidence from the literature and current standard of care. Additionally, OLP is necessary if a patient cannot tolerate FDA-approved medications, is not helped by FDA-approved treatments, or when there are other clinical reasons to choose a particular off-label medication. For example, if a patient has comorbid AUD and obesity (or migraines), using topiramate may be appropriate because it may target alcohol cravings and can be helpful for weight loss (and migraine prophylaxis). Similarly, for patients with AUD and neuropathic pain, using gabapentin can be considered for its dual therapeutic effects.

It is critical for clinicians to understand the landscape of off-label options for treating addictive disorders. Additional research in the form of RCTs is needed to better clarify the efficacy and adverse effects of these treatments.

Continue to: Bottom Line

Off-label prescribing is prevalent in practice, including in the treatment of substance-related and addictive disorders. When considering off-label use of any medication, clinicians should review the most recent research, obtain informed consent from patients, and verify patients’ understanding of the potential risks and adverse effects associated with the particular medication.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG, Frierson RL. Off-label prescribing: how to limit your liability. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):12,39. doi:10.12788/ cp.0035
• Stanciu CN, Gnanasegaram SA. Don’t balk at using medical therapy to manage alcohol use disorder. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(2):50-52.

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Baclofen • Ozobax
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Topiramate • Topamax