Addiction Medicine

Since the last Practice Alert update on recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force,¹ the Task Force has completed work on 12 topics (TABLE 1).^2-17 Five of these topics have been discussed in JFP audio recordings, and the links are provided in TABLE 1.

This latest Task Force endeavor resulted in 18 recommendations (TABLE 2), all of which reaffirm previous recommendations on these topics and expand the scope of 2. There were 2 “A” recommendations, 6 “B” recommendations, 2 “D” recommendations, and 8 “I” statements, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to assess effectiveness or harms. The willingness to make “I” statements when there is little or no evidence on the intervention being assessed distinguishes the USPSTF from other clinical guideline committees.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis

One of the “D” recommendations this past year reaffirms the prior recommendation against screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic adults—ie, those without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or neurologic signs or symptoms that might be caused by carotid artery stenosis.² The screening tests the Task Force researched included carotid duplex ultrasonography (DUS), magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography. The Task Force did not look at the value of auscultation for carotid bruits because it has been proven to be inaccurate and they do not consider it to be a useful screening tool. 

The Task Force based its “D” recommendation on a lack of evidence for any benefit in detecting asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and on evidence that screening can lead to harms through false-positive tests and potential complications from carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. In its clinical considerations, the Task Force emphasized the primary prevention of atherosclerotic disease by focusing on the following actions:

• screening for high blood pressure in adults
• encouraging tobacco smoking cessation in adults
• promoting a healthy diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors
• recommending aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer
• advising statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults ages 45 to 75 years who have 1 or more risk factors (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking) and those with a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or greater.

This “D” recommendation differs from recommendations made by other professional organizations, some of which recommend testing with DUS for asymptomatic patients with a carotid bruit, and others that recommend DUS screening in patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and in those with known peripheral artery disease or other cardiovascular disease.^18,19

Smoking cessation in adults

Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 480,000 deaths annually.³ Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications including miscarriage, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption.

The Task Force published recommendations earlier this year advising all clinicians to ask all adult patients about tobacco use; and, for those who smoke, to provide (or refer them to) smoking cessation behavioral therapy. The Task Force also recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults. (There is a lack of information to assess the harms and benefits of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.)

Continue to: FDA-approved medications...

The Task Force recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the FDA for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults.

FDA-approved medications for treating tobacco smoking dependence are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion hydrochloride, and varenicline.³ NRT is available in transdermal patches, lozenges, gum, inhalers, and nasal sprays.

In addition, the Task Force indicates that there is insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes when used as a method of achieving smoking cessation: “Few randomized trials have evaluated the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to increase tobacco smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults, and no trials have evaluated e-­cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons.”⁴

Hepatitis B infection screening

The Task Force reaffirmed a previous recommendation to screen for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection only in adults who are at high risk,⁵ rather than universal screening that it recommends for hepatitis C virus infection (HCV).⁷ (See: https://bit.ly/3tt064Q). The Task Force has a separate recommendation to screen all pregnant women for hepatitis B at the first prenatal visit.⁶

Those at high risk for hepatitis B who should be screened include individuals born in countries or regions of the world with a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence ≥ 2% and individuals born in the United States who have not received HBV vaccine and whose parents were born in regions with an HBsAg prevalence ≥ 8%.⁵ (A table listing countries with HBsAg ≥ 8%—as well as those in lower prevalence categories—is included with the recommendation.⁵)

Screening individuals at high risk for HBV infection is important because nearly two-thirds of those infected are unaware of their condition.

HBV screening should also be offered to other high-risk groups that have a prevalence of positive HBsAg ≥ 2%: those who have injected drugs in the past or are currently injecting drugs; men who have sex with men; individuals with HIV; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of people known to be HBsAg positive.⁵

Continue to: It is estimated that...

It is estimated that > 860,000 people in the United States have chronic HBV infection and that close to two-thirds of them are unaware of their infection.⁵ The screening test for HBV is highly accurate; sensitivity and specificity are both > 98%.⁵ While there is no direct evidence that screening, detecting, and treating asymptomatic HBV infection reduces morbidity and mortality, the Task Force felt that the evidence for improvement in multiple outcomes in those with HBV when treated with antiviral regimens was sufficient to support the recommendation.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy

While bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with a two-fold risk of preterm delivery, treating BV during pregnancy does not seem to reduce this risk, indicating that some other variable is involved.⁸ In addition, studies that looked at screening for, and treatment of, ­asymptomatic BV in pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (defined primarily as those with a previous preterm delivery) have shown inconsistent results. There is the potential for harm in treating BV in pregnancy, chiefly involving gastrointestinal upset caused by metronidazole or clindamycin.

Given that there are no benefits—and some harms—resulting from treatment, the Task Force recommends against screening for BV in non-high-risk pregnant women. A lack of sufficient information to assess any potential benefits to screening in high-risk pregnancies led the Task Force to an “I” statement on this question.⁸

Behavioral counseling on healthy diet, exercise for adults with CV risks

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death in the United States. The major risk factors for CVD, which can be modified, are high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, obesity or overweight, and lack of physical activity.

The Task Force has previously recommended intensive behavioral interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity in those who are overweight/obese and in those with abnormal blood glucose levels,⁹ and has addressed smoking prevention and cessation.⁴ This new recommendation applies to those with other CVD risks such as high blood pressure and/or hyperlipidemia and those with an estimated 10-year CVD risk of ≥ 7.5%.¹⁰

Continue to: Behavioral interventions...

Behavioral interventions included in the Task Force analysis employed a median of 12 contacts and an estimated 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months.¹⁰ Most interventions involved motivational interviewing and instruction on behavioral change methods. These interventions can be provided by primary care clinicians, as well as a wide range of other trained professionals. The Affordable Care Act dictates that all “A” and “B” recommendations must be provided by commercial health plans at no out-of-pocket expense for the patient.

Nutritional advice should include reductions in saturated fats, salt, and sugars and increases in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet are often recommended.¹⁰ Physical activity counseling should advocate for 90 to 180 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity.

This new recommendation, along with the previous ones pertaining to behavioral interventions for lifestyle changes, make it clear that intensive interventions are needed to achieve meaningful change. Simple advice from a clinician will have little to no effect.

Task Force reviews evidence on HTN, smoking cessation in young people

In 2020 the Task Force completed reviews of evidence relevant to screening for high blood pressure¹¹ and intervening for tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents.¹² The Task Force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to make a judgment on screening for high blood pressure and for providing smoking cessation interventions. It did, however, reaffirm a previous recommendation to provide interventions to children and adolescents to prevent tobacco and e-cigarette use.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is discouraged due to a lack of evidence for benefit in detection, and on evidence that false-positives lead to harm from procedures such as endarterectomy.

The 2 “I” statements are in disagreement with recommendations of other professional organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association recommend routine screening for high blood pressure starting at age 3 years. And the AAP recommends screening teenagers for tobacco use and offering tobacco dependence treatment, referral, or both (including pharmacotherapy) when indicated. E-cigarettes are not recommended as a treatment for tobacco dependence.²⁰

Continue to: The difference between...

The difference between the methods used by the Task Force and other guideline-­producing organizations becomes apparent when it comes to recommendations pertaining to children and adolescents, for whom long-term outcome-oriented studies on prevention issues are rare. The Task Force is unwilling to make recommendations when evidence does not exist. The AAP often makes recommendations based on expert opinion consensus in such situations. One notable part of each Task Force recommendation statement is a discussion of what other organizations recommend on the same topic so that these differences can be openly described.

Better Task Force funding could expand topic coverage

It is worth revisiting 2 issues that were pointed out in last year’s USPSTF summary in this column.¹ First, the Task Force methods are robust and evidence based, and recommendations therefore are rarely changed once they are made at an “A”, “B”, or “D” level. Second, Task Force resources are finite, and thus, the group is currently unable to update previous recommendations with greater frequency or to consider many new topics. In the past 2 years, the Task Force has developed recommendations on only 2 completely new topics. Hopefully, its budget can be expanded so that new topics can be added in the future.

Since the last Practice Alert update on recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force,¹ the Task Force has completed work on 12 topics (TABLE 1).^2-17 Five of these topics have been discussed in JFP audio recordings, and the links are provided in TABLE 1.

This latest Task Force endeavor resulted in 18 recommendations (TABLE 2), all of which reaffirm previous recommendations on these topics and expand the scope of 2. There were 2 “A” recommendations, 6 “B” recommendations, 2 “D” recommendations, and 8 “I” statements, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to assess effectiveness or harms. The willingness to make “I” statements when there is little or no evidence on the intervention being assessed distinguishes the USPSTF from other clinical guideline committees.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis

One of the “D” recommendations this past year reaffirms the prior recommendation against screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic adults—ie, those without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or neurologic signs or symptoms that might be caused by carotid artery stenosis.² The screening tests the Task Force researched included carotid duplex ultrasonography (DUS), magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography. The Task Force did not look at the value of auscultation for carotid bruits because it has been proven to be inaccurate and they do not consider it to be a useful screening tool. 

The Task Force based its “D” recommendation on a lack of evidence for any benefit in detecting asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and on evidence that screening can lead to harms through false-positive tests and potential complications from carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. In its clinical considerations, the Task Force emphasized the primary prevention of atherosclerotic disease by focusing on the following actions:

• screening for high blood pressure in adults
• encouraging tobacco smoking cessation in adults
• promoting a healthy diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors
• recommending aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer
• advising statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults ages 45 to 75 years who have 1 or more risk factors (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking) and those with a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or greater.

This “D” recommendation differs from recommendations made by other professional organizations, some of which recommend testing with DUS for asymptomatic patients with a carotid bruit, and others that recommend DUS screening in patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and in those with known peripheral artery disease or other cardiovascular disease.^18,19

Smoking cessation in adults

Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 480,000 deaths annually.³ Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications including miscarriage, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption.

The Task Force published recommendations earlier this year advising all clinicians to ask all adult patients about tobacco use; and, for those who smoke, to provide (or refer them to) smoking cessation behavioral therapy. The Task Force also recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults. (There is a lack of information to assess the harms and benefits of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.)

Continue to: FDA-approved medications...

The Task Force recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the FDA for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults.

FDA-approved medications for treating tobacco smoking dependence are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion hydrochloride, and varenicline.³ NRT is available in transdermal patches, lozenges, gum, inhalers, and nasal sprays.

In addition, the Task Force indicates that there is insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes when used as a method of achieving smoking cessation: “Few randomized trials have evaluated the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to increase tobacco smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults, and no trials have evaluated e-­cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons.”⁴

Hepatitis B infection screening

The Task Force reaffirmed a previous recommendation to screen for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection only in adults who are at high risk,⁵ rather than universal screening that it recommends for hepatitis C virus infection (HCV).⁷ (See: https://bit.ly/3tt064Q). The Task Force has a separate recommendation to screen all pregnant women for hepatitis B at the first prenatal visit.⁶

Those at high risk for hepatitis B who should be screened include individuals born in countries or regions of the world with a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence ≥ 2% and individuals born in the United States who have not received HBV vaccine and whose parents were born in regions with an HBsAg prevalence ≥ 8%.⁵ (A table listing countries with HBsAg ≥ 8%—as well as those in lower prevalence categories—is included with the recommendation.⁵)

Screening individuals at high risk for HBV infection is important because nearly two-thirds of those infected are unaware of their condition.

HBV screening should also be offered to other high-risk groups that have a prevalence of positive HBsAg ≥ 2%: those who have injected drugs in the past or are currently injecting drugs; men who have sex with men; individuals with HIV; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of people known to be HBsAg positive.⁵

Continue to: It is estimated that...

It is estimated that > 860,000 people in the United States have chronic HBV infection and that close to two-thirds of them are unaware of their infection.⁵ The screening test for HBV is highly accurate; sensitivity and specificity are both > 98%.⁵ While there is no direct evidence that screening, detecting, and treating asymptomatic HBV infection reduces morbidity and mortality, the Task Force felt that the evidence for improvement in multiple outcomes in those with HBV when treated with antiviral regimens was sufficient to support the recommendation.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy

While bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with a two-fold risk of preterm delivery, treating BV during pregnancy does not seem to reduce this risk, indicating that some other variable is involved.⁸ In addition, studies that looked at screening for, and treatment of, ­asymptomatic BV in pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (defined primarily as those with a previous preterm delivery) have shown inconsistent results. There is the potential for harm in treating BV in pregnancy, chiefly involving gastrointestinal upset caused by metronidazole or clindamycin.

Given that there are no benefits—and some harms—resulting from treatment, the Task Force recommends against screening for BV in non-high-risk pregnant women. A lack of sufficient information to assess any potential benefits to screening in high-risk pregnancies led the Task Force to an “I” statement on this question.⁸

Behavioral counseling on healthy diet, exercise for adults with CV risks

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death in the United States. The major risk factors for CVD, which can be modified, are high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, obesity or overweight, and lack of physical activity.

The Task Force has previously recommended intensive behavioral interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity in those who are overweight/obese and in those with abnormal blood glucose levels,⁹ and has addressed smoking prevention and cessation.⁴ This new recommendation applies to those with other CVD risks such as high blood pressure and/or hyperlipidemia and those with an estimated 10-year CVD risk of ≥ 7.5%.¹⁰

Continue to: Behavioral interventions...

Behavioral interventions included in the Task Force analysis employed a median of 12 contacts and an estimated 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months.¹⁰ Most interventions involved motivational interviewing and instruction on behavioral change methods. These interventions can be provided by primary care clinicians, as well as a wide range of other trained professionals. The Affordable Care Act dictates that all “A” and “B” recommendations must be provided by commercial health plans at no out-of-pocket expense for the patient.

Nutritional advice should include reductions in saturated fats, salt, and sugars and increases in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet are often recommended.¹⁰ Physical activity counseling should advocate for 90 to 180 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity.

This new recommendation, along with the previous ones pertaining to behavioral interventions for lifestyle changes, make it clear that intensive interventions are needed to achieve meaningful change. Simple advice from a clinician will have little to no effect.

Task Force reviews evidence on HTN, smoking cessation in young people

In 2020 the Task Force completed reviews of evidence relevant to screening for high blood pressure¹¹ and intervening for tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents.¹² The Task Force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to make a judgment on screening for high blood pressure and for providing smoking cessation interventions. It did, however, reaffirm a previous recommendation to provide interventions to children and adolescents to prevent tobacco and e-cigarette use.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is discouraged due to a lack of evidence for benefit in detection, and on evidence that false-positives lead to harm from procedures such as endarterectomy.

The 2 “I” statements are in disagreement with recommendations of other professional organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association recommend routine screening for high blood pressure starting at age 3 years. And the AAP recommends screening teenagers for tobacco use and offering tobacco dependence treatment, referral, or both (including pharmacotherapy) when indicated. E-cigarettes are not recommended as a treatment for tobacco dependence.²⁰

Continue to: The difference between...

The difference between the methods used by the Task Force and other guideline-­producing organizations becomes apparent when it comes to recommendations pertaining to children and adolescents, for whom long-term outcome-oriented studies on prevention issues are rare. The Task Force is unwilling to make recommendations when evidence does not exist. The AAP often makes recommendations based on expert opinion consensus in such situations. One notable part of each Task Force recommendation statement is a discussion of what other organizations recommend on the same topic so that these differences can be openly described.

Better Task Force funding could expand topic coverage

It is worth revisiting 2 issues that were pointed out in last year’s USPSTF summary in this column.¹ First, the Task Force methods are robust and evidence based, and recommendations therefore are rarely changed once they are made at an “A”, “B”, or “D” level. Second, Task Force resources are finite, and thus, the group is currently unable to update previous recommendations with greater frequency or to consider many new topics. In the past 2 years, the Task Force has developed recommendations on only 2 completely new topics. Hopefully, its budget can be expanded so that new topics can be added in the future.

Since the last Practice Alert update on recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force,¹ the Task Force has completed work on 12 topics (TABLE 1).^2-17 Five of these topics have been discussed in JFP audio recordings, and the links are provided in TABLE 1.

This latest Task Force endeavor resulted in 18 recommendations (TABLE 2), all of which reaffirm previous recommendations on these topics and expand the scope of 2. There were 2 “A” recommendations, 6 “B” recommendations, 2 “D” recommendations, and 8 “I” statements, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to assess effectiveness or harms. The willingness to make “I” statements when there is little or no evidence on the intervention being assessed distinguishes the USPSTF from other clinical guideline committees.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis

One of the “D” recommendations this past year reaffirms the prior recommendation against screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic adults—ie, those without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or neurologic signs or symptoms that might be caused by carotid artery stenosis.² The screening tests the Task Force researched included carotid duplex ultrasonography (DUS), magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography. The Task Force did not look at the value of auscultation for carotid bruits because it has been proven to be inaccurate and they do not consider it to be a useful screening tool. 

The Task Force based its “D” recommendation on a lack of evidence for any benefit in detecting asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and on evidence that screening can lead to harms through false-positive tests and potential complications from carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. In its clinical considerations, the Task Force emphasized the primary prevention of atherosclerotic disease by focusing on the following actions:

• screening for high blood pressure in adults
• encouraging tobacco smoking cessation in adults
• promoting a healthy diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors
• recommending aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer
• advising statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults ages 45 to 75 years who have 1 or more risk factors (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking) and those with a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or greater.

This “D” recommendation differs from recommendations made by other professional organizations, some of which recommend testing with DUS for asymptomatic patients with a carotid bruit, and others that recommend DUS screening in patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and in those with known peripheral artery disease or other cardiovascular disease.^18,19

Smoking cessation in adults

Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 480,000 deaths annually.³ Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications including miscarriage, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption.

The Task Force published recommendations earlier this year advising all clinicians to ask all adult patients about tobacco use; and, for those who smoke, to provide (or refer them to) smoking cessation behavioral therapy. The Task Force also recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults. (There is a lack of information to assess the harms and benefits of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.)

Continue to: FDA-approved medications...

The Task Force recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the FDA for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults.

FDA-approved medications for treating tobacco smoking dependence are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion hydrochloride, and varenicline.³ NRT is available in transdermal patches, lozenges, gum, inhalers, and nasal sprays.

In addition, the Task Force indicates that there is insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes when used as a method of achieving smoking cessation: “Few randomized trials have evaluated the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to increase tobacco smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults, and no trials have evaluated e-­cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons.”⁴

Hepatitis B infection screening

The Task Force reaffirmed a previous recommendation to screen for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection only in adults who are at high risk,⁵ rather than universal screening that it recommends for hepatitis C virus infection (HCV).⁷ (See: https://bit.ly/3tt064Q). The Task Force has a separate recommendation to screen all pregnant women for hepatitis B at the first prenatal visit.⁶

Those at high risk for hepatitis B who should be screened include individuals born in countries or regions of the world with a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence ≥ 2% and individuals born in the United States who have not received HBV vaccine and whose parents were born in regions with an HBsAg prevalence ≥ 8%.⁵ (A table listing countries with HBsAg ≥ 8%—as well as those in lower prevalence categories—is included with the recommendation.⁵)

Screening individuals at high risk for HBV infection is important because nearly two-thirds of those infected are unaware of their condition.

HBV screening should also be offered to other high-risk groups that have a prevalence of positive HBsAg ≥ 2%: those who have injected drugs in the past or are currently injecting drugs; men who have sex with men; individuals with HIV; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of people known to be HBsAg positive.⁵

Continue to: It is estimated that...

It is estimated that > 860,000 people in the United States have chronic HBV infection and that close to two-thirds of them are unaware of their infection.⁵ The screening test for HBV is highly accurate; sensitivity and specificity are both > 98%.⁵ While there is no direct evidence that screening, detecting, and treating asymptomatic HBV infection reduces morbidity and mortality, the Task Force felt that the evidence for improvement in multiple outcomes in those with HBV when treated with antiviral regimens was sufficient to support the recommendation.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy

While bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with a two-fold risk of preterm delivery, treating BV during pregnancy does not seem to reduce this risk, indicating that some other variable is involved.⁸ In addition, studies that looked at screening for, and treatment of, ­asymptomatic BV in pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (defined primarily as those with a previous preterm delivery) have shown inconsistent results. There is the potential for harm in treating BV in pregnancy, chiefly involving gastrointestinal upset caused by metronidazole or clindamycin.

Given that there are no benefits—and some harms—resulting from treatment, the Task Force recommends against screening for BV in non-high-risk pregnant women. A lack of sufficient information to assess any potential benefits to screening in high-risk pregnancies led the Task Force to an “I” statement on this question.⁸

Behavioral counseling on healthy diet, exercise for adults with CV risks

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death in the United States. The major risk factors for CVD, which can be modified, are high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, obesity or overweight, and lack of physical activity.

The Task Force has previously recommended intensive behavioral interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity in those who are overweight/obese and in those with abnormal blood glucose levels,⁹ and has addressed smoking prevention and cessation.⁴ This new recommendation applies to those with other CVD risks such as high blood pressure and/or hyperlipidemia and those with an estimated 10-year CVD risk of ≥ 7.5%.¹⁰

Continue to: Behavioral interventions...

Behavioral interventions included in the Task Force analysis employed a median of 12 contacts and an estimated 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months.¹⁰ Most interventions involved motivational interviewing and instruction on behavioral change methods. These interventions can be provided by primary care clinicians, as well as a wide range of other trained professionals. The Affordable Care Act dictates that all “A” and “B” recommendations must be provided by commercial health plans at no out-of-pocket expense for the patient.

Nutritional advice should include reductions in saturated fats, salt, and sugars and increases in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet are often recommended.¹⁰ Physical activity counseling should advocate for 90 to 180 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity.

This new recommendation, along with the previous ones pertaining to behavioral interventions for lifestyle changes, make it clear that intensive interventions are needed to achieve meaningful change. Simple advice from a clinician will have little to no effect.

Task Force reviews evidence on HTN, smoking cessation in young people

In 2020 the Task Force completed reviews of evidence relevant to screening for high blood pressure¹¹ and intervening for tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents.¹² The Task Force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to make a judgment on screening for high blood pressure and for providing smoking cessation interventions. It did, however, reaffirm a previous recommendation to provide interventions to children and adolescents to prevent tobacco and e-cigarette use.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is discouraged due to a lack of evidence for benefit in detection, and on evidence that false-positives lead to harm from procedures such as endarterectomy.

The 2 “I” statements are in disagreement with recommendations of other professional organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association recommend routine screening for high blood pressure starting at age 3 years. And the AAP recommends screening teenagers for tobacco use and offering tobacco dependence treatment, referral, or both (including pharmacotherapy) when indicated. E-cigarettes are not recommended as a treatment for tobacco dependence.²⁰

Continue to: The difference between...

The difference between the methods used by the Task Force and other guideline-­producing organizations becomes apparent when it comes to recommendations pertaining to children and adolescents, for whom long-term outcome-oriented studies on prevention issues are rare. The Task Force is unwilling to make recommendations when evidence does not exist. The AAP often makes recommendations based on expert opinion consensus in such situations. One notable part of each Task Force recommendation statement is a discussion of what other organizations recommend on the same topic so that these differences can be openly described.

Better Task Force funding could expand topic coverage

It is worth revisiting 2 issues that were pointed out in last year’s USPSTF summary in this column.¹ First, the Task Force methods are robust and evidence based, and recommendations therefore are rarely changed once they are made at an “A”, “B”, or “D” level. Second, Task Force resources are finite, and thus, the group is currently unable to update previous recommendations with greater frequency or to consider many new topics. In the past 2 years, the Task Force has developed recommendations on only 2 completely new topics. Hopefully, its budget can be expanded so that new topics can be added in the future.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, an emphasis on better pain management led health care professionals (HCPs) to increase prescribing of opioids to better manage patient’s pain. In 1991, 76 million prescriptions were written for opioids in the United States, and by 2011, the number had nearly tripled to 219 million.¹ Overdose rates increased as well, nearly tripling from 1999 to 2014.² Of the 52,404 US deaths from drug overdoses in the in 2015, 63% involved an opioid.²

Opioid Safety Initiative

In response to the growing opioid epidemic, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) created the Opioid Safety Initiative in 2014.³ This comprehensive, multifaceted initiative was designed to improve the care and safety of veterans managed with opioid therapy and promote rational opioid prescribing and monitoring. In 2016 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines for opioid prescriptions, and the following year the VA and the US Department of Defense (DoD) updated the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain (VA/DoD guidelines).^4,5 After the release of these guidelines, the use of opioid tapers expanded. However, due to public outcry of forced opioid tapering in 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration updated its opioid labeling requirements to provide clearer guidance on opioid tapers for tolerant patients.^6,7

As a result, HCPs began to develop various strategies to balance the safety and efficacy of opioid use in patients with chronic pain. The West Palm Beach VA Medical Center (WPBVAMC) in Florida has a Pain Clinic that includes 2 pain management clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) with specialized training in pain management, who are uniquely qualified to assess and evaluate medication therapy in complex pain patient cases. These CPSs were involved in the face-to-face management of patients requiring specialized pain care and participated in a pain pharmacy electronic consult (eConsult) service to document pain management consultative recommendations for patients appropriate for management at the primary care level. This formalized process increased specialty pain care access for veterans whose pain was managed by primary care providers (PCPs).

The pain pharmacy eConsult service was initiated at the WPBVAMC in June 2013 to assist PCPs in the management of outpatients with chronic pain. The eConsult service includes evaluation of a patient’s electronic health records (EHRs) by CPSs. The eConsult service also provided PCPs with the option to engage a pharmacist who could provide recommendations for opioid dosing conversion, opioid tapering, pain pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation, without the necessity for an additional patient visit.

Subsequent to the release of the 2016 CDC (and later the 2017 VA/DoD) guidelines recommending reducing morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) levels, the WPBVAMC had a large increase in pain eConsult requests for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy. A 3.4-fold increase in requests occurred in March, April, and May vs the following 9 months, and a nearly 4-fold increase in requests for opioid tapers during the same period. However, the impact of the completed eConsults was unclear. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of CPS services for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy by quantifying the number of recommendations accepted/implemented by PCPs. The secondary objectives included evaluating harms associated with the recommendations (eg, increase in visits to the emergency department [ED], hospitalizations, suicide attempts, or PCP visits) and provider satisfaction.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess data of patients from the WPBVAMC and its associated community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). The project was approved by the WPBVAMC Scientific Advisory Committee as part of the facility’s performance improvement efforts.

Included patients had a pain pharmacy eConsult placed between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. EHRs were reviewed and only eConsults for opioid pharmacotherapy recommendation or opioid tapers were evaluated. eConsults were excluded if the request was discontinued, completed by a HCP other than the pain CPS, or placed for an opioid dose conversion, nonopioid pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation.

Data for analyses were entered into Microsoft Excel 2016 and were securely saved and accessible to relevant researchers. Patient protected health information used during patient care remained confidential.

Demographic data were collected, including age, gender, race, pertinent medical comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea), and mental health comorbidities. Pain scores were collected at baseline and 6-months postconsult. Pain medications used by patients were noted at baseline and 6 months postconsult, including concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine use, MEDD, and other pain medication. The duration of time needed by pain CPS to complete each eConsult and total time from eConsult entered to HCP implementation of the initial recommendation was collected. The number of actionable recommendations (eg, changes in drug therapy, urine drug screens [UDSs], and referrals to other services also were recorded and reviewed 6 months postconsult to determine the number and percentage of recommendations implemented by the HCP. The EHR was examined to determine adverse events (AEs) (eg, any documentation of suicide attempt, calls to the Veterans Crisis Line, or death 6 month postconsult). Collected data also included new eConsults, the reason for opioid tapering either by HCP or patient, and assessment of economic harms (count of the number of visits to ED, hospitalizations, or unscheduled PCP visits with uncontrolled pain as chief reason within 6 months postconsult). Last, PCPs were sent a survey to assess their satisfaction with the pain eConsult service.

Results

Of 517 eConsults received from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, 285 (55.1%) met inclusion criteria (Figure). Using a random number generator, 100 eConsults were further reviewed for outcomes of interest.

In this cohort, the mean age was 61 years, 87% were male, and 80% were White individuals. Most patients (83%) had ≥ 1 mental health comorbidity, and 53% had ≥ 2, with depressive symptoms, tobacco use, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder the most common diagnoses (Table 1). Eighty-seven percent of eConsults were for opioid tapers and the remaining 13% were for opioid pharmacotherapy.

The median pain score at time of consult was 6 on a 10-point scale, with no change at 6 months postconsult. However, 41% of patients overall had a median 3.3-point drop in pain score, 17% had no change in pain score, and 42% had a median 2.6-point increase in pain score.

Electronic Consults

Table 2 describes the reasons eConsults were requested. The most common reason was to taper the dose to be in compliance with the CDC 2016 guideline recommendation of MEDD < 90 mg, which was later increased to 100 mg by the VA/DoD guideline.

On average, eConsults were completed within a mean of 11.5 days of the PCP request, including nights and weekends. The CPS spent a mean 66.8 minutes to complete each eConsult. Once the eConsult was completed, PCPs took a mean of 9 days to initiate the primary recommendation. This 9-day average does not include 11 eConsults with no accepted recommendations and 11 eConsults for which the PCP implemented the primary recommendation before the CPS completed the consult, most likely due to a phone call or direct contact with the CPS at the time the eConsult was ordered.

A mean 3.5 actionable recommendations were made by the CPS and a mean 1.6 recommendations were implemented within 6 months by the PCP. At least 1 recommendation was accepted/implemented for 89% of patients, with a mean 55% recommendations that were accepted/implemented. Eleven percent of the eConsult final recommendations were not accepted by PCPs and clear documentation of the reasons were not provided.

In the 6 months postconsult, 11 patients (7 men and 4 women) experienced 32 AEs (Table 3). Eight patients had 15 ED visits, with 3 of the visits resulting in hospitalizations, 8 patients had 9 unscheduled PCP visits, 1 patient reported suicidal ideation and 2 patients made a total of 4 calls to the Veterans Crisis Line. There were also 2 deaths; however, both were due to end-stage disease (cirrhosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and not believed to be related to eConsult recommendations.

Eight patients had a history of substance use disorders (SUDs) and 8 had a history of a mood disorder or psychosis. One patient had both SUD and a mood/psychosis-related mental health disorder, including a reported suicidal attempt/ideation at an ED visit and a subsequent hospitalization. A similar number of AEs occurred in patients with decreases in MEDD of 0 to 24% compared with those that received more aggressive tapers of 75 to 100% (Table 4).

Primary Care Providers

Nine patients were reconsulted, with only 1 secondary to the PCP not implementing recommendations from the initial consult. No factors were found that correlated with likelihood of a patient being reconsulted.

Surveys on PCP satisfaction with the eConsult service were completed by 29 of the 55 PCPs. PCP feedback was generally positive with nearly 90% of PCPs planning to use the service in the future as well as recommending use to other providers.

Discussion

Most (89%) PCPs accepted at least 1 recommendation from the completed eConsult, and MEDDs decreased by 60%, likely reducing the patient’s risk of overdose or other AEs from opioids. There also was a slight reduction in patient’s mean pain scores; however, 41% had a decrease and 42% had an increase in pain scores. There was no clear relationship when pain scores were compared with MEDDs, likely giving credence to the idea that pain scores are largely subjective and an unreliable surrogate marker for assessing effectiveness of analgesic regimens.

Eleven patients experienced AEs, including 1 patient for whom the recommendations were not implemented by the PCP. Eight of the 11 had multiple AEs. One interesting finding was that 7 of the 11 patients with an AE tested positive for unexpected substances on routine UDS or were arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, only 3 of the 7 had an active SUD diagnosis. With 25% of the AEs coming from patients with a history of SUD, it is important that any history of SUD be documented in the EHR. Maintaining this documentation can be especially difficult if patients switch VA medical centers or receive services outside the VA. Thorough and accurate history and chart review should ideally be completed before prescribing opioids.

Guidelines

While the PCPs were following VA/DoD and CDC recommendations for opioid tapering to < 100 or 90 mg MEDD, respectively, there is weak evidence in these guidelines to support specific MEDD cutoffs. The CDC guidelines even state, “a single dosage threshold for safe opioid use could not be identified.”⁵ One of the largest issues when using MEDD as a cutoff is the lack of agreement on its calculation. In 2014, Nuckols and colleagues al conducted a study to compare the existing guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain. While 13 guidelines were considered eligible, most recommendations were supported only by observational data or expert recommendations, and there was no consensus on what constitutes a “morphine equivalent.”⁸ Currently there is no universally accepted opioid-conversion method, resulting in a substantial problem when calculating a MEDD.⁹ A survey of 8 online opioid dose conversion tools found a -55% to +242% variation.¹⁰ As Fudin and colleagues concluded in response to the large variations found in these various analyses, the studies “unequivocally disqualify the validity of embracing MEDD to assess risk in any meaningful statistical way.”¹¹ Pharmacogenetics, drug tolerance, drug-drug interactions, body surface area, and organ function are patient- specific factors that are not taken into consideration when relying solely on a MEDD calculation. Tapering to lowest functional dose rather than a specific number or cutoff may be a more effective way to treat patients, and providers should use the guidelines as recommendations and not a hardline mandate.

At 6 months, 6 patients were receiving no pain medications from the VA, and 24 of the patients were tapered from their opiate to discontinuation. It is unclear whether patients are no longer taking opioids or switched their care to non-VA providers to receive medications, including opioids, privately. This is difficult to verify, though a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) could be used to assess patient adherence. As many of the patients that were tapered due to identification of aberrant behaviors, lack of continuity of care across health care systems may result in future patient harm.

The results of this analysis highlight the importance of checking PDMP databases and routine UDSs when prescribing opioids—there can be serious safety concerns if patients are taking other prescribed or illicit medications. However, care must be taken; there were 2 instances of patients’ chronic opioid prescriptions discontinued by their VA provider after a review of the PDMP showed they had received non-VA opioids. In both cases, the quantity and doses received were small (counts of ≤ 12) and were received more than 6 months prior to the check of the PDMP. While this constitutes a breach of the Informed Consent for long-term opioid use, if there are no other concerning behaviors, it may be more prudent to review the informed consent with the patient and discuss why the behavior is a breach to ensure that patients and PCPs continue to work as a team to manage chronic pain.

Limitations

The study population was one limitation of this project. While data suggest that chronic pain affects women more than men, this study’s population was only 13% female. Thirty percent of the women in this study had an AE compared with only 8% of the men. Additional limitations included use of problem list for comorbidities, as lists may be inaccurate or outdated, and limiting the monitoring of AE to only 6 months. As some tapers were not initiated immediately and some taper schedules can last several months to years; therefor, outcomes may have been higher if patients were followed longer. Many of the patients with AEs had increased ED visits or unscheduled primary care visits as the tapers went on and their pain worsened, but the visits were outside the 6-month time frame for data collection. An additional weakness of this review included assessing a pain score, but not functional status, which may be a better predictor of the effectiveness of a patient’s pain management regimen. This assessment is needed in future studies for more reliable data. Finally, PCP survey results also should be viewed with caution. The current survey had only 29 respondents, and the 2014 survey had only 10 respondents and did not include CBOC providers.

Conclusion

A pain eConsult service managed by CPSs specializing in pain management can assist patients and PCPs with opioid therapy recommendations in a safe and timely manner, reducing risk of overdose secondary to high dose opioid therapy and with limited harm to patients.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, an emphasis on better pain management led health care professionals (HCPs) to increase prescribing of opioids to better manage patient’s pain. In 1991, 76 million prescriptions were written for opioids in the United States, and by 2011, the number had nearly tripled to 219 million.¹ Overdose rates increased as well, nearly tripling from 1999 to 2014.² Of the 52,404 US deaths from drug overdoses in the in 2015, 63% involved an opioid.²

Opioid Safety Initiative

In response to the growing opioid epidemic, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) created the Opioid Safety Initiative in 2014.³ This comprehensive, multifaceted initiative was designed to improve the care and safety of veterans managed with opioid therapy and promote rational opioid prescribing and monitoring. In 2016 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines for opioid prescriptions, and the following year the VA and the US Department of Defense (DoD) updated the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain (VA/DoD guidelines).^4,5 After the release of these guidelines, the use of opioid tapers expanded. However, due to public outcry of forced opioid tapering in 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration updated its opioid labeling requirements to provide clearer guidance on opioid tapers for tolerant patients.^6,7

As a result, HCPs began to develop various strategies to balance the safety and efficacy of opioid use in patients with chronic pain. The West Palm Beach VA Medical Center (WPBVAMC) in Florida has a Pain Clinic that includes 2 pain management clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) with specialized training in pain management, who are uniquely qualified to assess and evaluate medication therapy in complex pain patient cases. These CPSs were involved in the face-to-face management of patients requiring specialized pain care and participated in a pain pharmacy electronic consult (eConsult) service to document pain management consultative recommendations for patients appropriate for management at the primary care level. This formalized process increased specialty pain care access for veterans whose pain was managed by primary care providers (PCPs).

The pain pharmacy eConsult service was initiated at the WPBVAMC in June 2013 to assist PCPs in the management of outpatients with chronic pain. The eConsult service includes evaluation of a patient’s electronic health records (EHRs) by CPSs. The eConsult service also provided PCPs with the option to engage a pharmacist who could provide recommendations for opioid dosing conversion, opioid tapering, pain pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation, without the necessity for an additional patient visit.

Subsequent to the release of the 2016 CDC (and later the 2017 VA/DoD) guidelines recommending reducing morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) levels, the WPBVAMC had a large increase in pain eConsult requests for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy. A 3.4-fold increase in requests occurred in March, April, and May vs the following 9 months, and a nearly 4-fold increase in requests for opioid tapers during the same period. However, the impact of the completed eConsults was unclear. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of CPS services for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy by quantifying the number of recommendations accepted/implemented by PCPs. The secondary objectives included evaluating harms associated with the recommendations (eg, increase in visits to the emergency department [ED], hospitalizations, suicide attempts, or PCP visits) and provider satisfaction.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess data of patients from the WPBVAMC and its associated community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). The project was approved by the WPBVAMC Scientific Advisory Committee as part of the facility’s performance improvement efforts.

Included patients had a pain pharmacy eConsult placed between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. EHRs were reviewed and only eConsults for opioid pharmacotherapy recommendation or opioid tapers were evaluated. eConsults were excluded if the request was discontinued, completed by a HCP other than the pain CPS, or placed for an opioid dose conversion, nonopioid pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation.

Data for analyses were entered into Microsoft Excel 2016 and were securely saved and accessible to relevant researchers. Patient protected health information used during patient care remained confidential.

Demographic data were collected, including age, gender, race, pertinent medical comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea), and mental health comorbidities. Pain scores were collected at baseline and 6-months postconsult. Pain medications used by patients were noted at baseline and 6 months postconsult, including concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine use, MEDD, and other pain medication. The duration of time needed by pain CPS to complete each eConsult and total time from eConsult entered to HCP implementation of the initial recommendation was collected. The number of actionable recommendations (eg, changes in drug therapy, urine drug screens [UDSs], and referrals to other services also were recorded and reviewed 6 months postconsult to determine the number and percentage of recommendations implemented by the HCP. The EHR was examined to determine adverse events (AEs) (eg, any documentation of suicide attempt, calls to the Veterans Crisis Line, or death 6 month postconsult). Collected data also included new eConsults, the reason for opioid tapering either by HCP or patient, and assessment of economic harms (count of the number of visits to ED, hospitalizations, or unscheduled PCP visits with uncontrolled pain as chief reason within 6 months postconsult). Last, PCPs were sent a survey to assess their satisfaction with the pain eConsult service.

Results

Of 517 eConsults received from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, 285 (55.1%) met inclusion criteria (Figure). Using a random number generator, 100 eConsults were further reviewed for outcomes of interest.

In this cohort, the mean age was 61 years, 87% were male, and 80% were White individuals. Most patients (83%) had ≥ 1 mental health comorbidity, and 53% had ≥ 2, with depressive symptoms, tobacco use, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder the most common diagnoses (Table 1). Eighty-seven percent of eConsults were for opioid tapers and the remaining 13% were for opioid pharmacotherapy.

The median pain score at time of consult was 6 on a 10-point scale, with no change at 6 months postconsult. However, 41% of patients overall had a median 3.3-point drop in pain score, 17% had no change in pain score, and 42% had a median 2.6-point increase in pain score.

Electronic Consults

Table 2 describes the reasons eConsults were requested. The most common reason was to taper the dose to be in compliance with the CDC 2016 guideline recommendation of MEDD < 90 mg, which was later increased to 100 mg by the VA/DoD guideline.

On average, eConsults were completed within a mean of 11.5 days of the PCP request, including nights and weekends. The CPS spent a mean 66.8 minutes to complete each eConsult. Once the eConsult was completed, PCPs took a mean of 9 days to initiate the primary recommendation. This 9-day average does not include 11 eConsults with no accepted recommendations and 11 eConsults for which the PCP implemented the primary recommendation before the CPS completed the consult, most likely due to a phone call or direct contact with the CPS at the time the eConsult was ordered.

A mean 3.5 actionable recommendations were made by the CPS and a mean 1.6 recommendations were implemented within 6 months by the PCP. At least 1 recommendation was accepted/implemented for 89% of patients, with a mean 55% recommendations that were accepted/implemented. Eleven percent of the eConsult final recommendations were not accepted by PCPs and clear documentation of the reasons were not provided.

In the 6 months postconsult, 11 patients (7 men and 4 women) experienced 32 AEs (Table 3). Eight patients had 15 ED visits, with 3 of the visits resulting in hospitalizations, 8 patients had 9 unscheduled PCP visits, 1 patient reported suicidal ideation and 2 patients made a total of 4 calls to the Veterans Crisis Line. There were also 2 deaths; however, both were due to end-stage disease (cirrhosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and not believed to be related to eConsult recommendations.

Eight patients had a history of substance use disorders (SUDs) and 8 had a history of a mood disorder or psychosis. One patient had both SUD and a mood/psychosis-related mental health disorder, including a reported suicidal attempt/ideation at an ED visit and a subsequent hospitalization. A similar number of AEs occurred in patients with decreases in MEDD of 0 to 24% compared with those that received more aggressive tapers of 75 to 100% (Table 4).

Primary Care Providers

Nine patients were reconsulted, with only 1 secondary to the PCP not implementing recommendations from the initial consult. No factors were found that correlated with likelihood of a patient being reconsulted.

Surveys on PCP satisfaction with the eConsult service were completed by 29 of the 55 PCPs. PCP feedback was generally positive with nearly 90% of PCPs planning to use the service in the future as well as recommending use to other providers.

Discussion

Most (89%) PCPs accepted at least 1 recommendation from the completed eConsult, and MEDDs decreased by 60%, likely reducing the patient’s risk of overdose or other AEs from opioids. There also was a slight reduction in patient’s mean pain scores; however, 41% had a decrease and 42% had an increase in pain scores. There was no clear relationship when pain scores were compared with MEDDs, likely giving credence to the idea that pain scores are largely subjective and an unreliable surrogate marker for assessing effectiveness of analgesic regimens.

Eleven patients experienced AEs, including 1 patient for whom the recommendations were not implemented by the PCP. Eight of the 11 had multiple AEs. One interesting finding was that 7 of the 11 patients with an AE tested positive for unexpected substances on routine UDS or were arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, only 3 of the 7 had an active SUD diagnosis. With 25% of the AEs coming from patients with a history of SUD, it is important that any history of SUD be documented in the EHR. Maintaining this documentation can be especially difficult if patients switch VA medical centers or receive services outside the VA. Thorough and accurate history and chart review should ideally be completed before prescribing opioids.

Guidelines

While the PCPs were following VA/DoD and CDC recommendations for opioid tapering to < 100 or 90 mg MEDD, respectively, there is weak evidence in these guidelines to support specific MEDD cutoffs. The CDC guidelines even state, “a single dosage threshold for safe opioid use could not be identified.”⁵ One of the largest issues when using MEDD as a cutoff is the lack of agreement on its calculation. In 2014, Nuckols and colleagues al conducted a study to compare the existing guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain. While 13 guidelines were considered eligible, most recommendations were supported only by observational data or expert recommendations, and there was no consensus on what constitutes a “morphine equivalent.”⁸ Currently there is no universally accepted opioid-conversion method, resulting in a substantial problem when calculating a MEDD.⁹ A survey of 8 online opioid dose conversion tools found a -55% to +242% variation.¹⁰ As Fudin and colleagues concluded in response to the large variations found in these various analyses, the studies “unequivocally disqualify the validity of embracing MEDD to assess risk in any meaningful statistical way.”¹¹ Pharmacogenetics, drug tolerance, drug-drug interactions, body surface area, and organ function are patient- specific factors that are not taken into consideration when relying solely on a MEDD calculation. Tapering to lowest functional dose rather than a specific number or cutoff may be a more effective way to treat patients, and providers should use the guidelines as recommendations and not a hardline mandate.

At 6 months, 6 patients were receiving no pain medications from the VA, and 24 of the patients were tapered from their opiate to discontinuation. It is unclear whether patients are no longer taking opioids or switched their care to non-VA providers to receive medications, including opioids, privately. This is difficult to verify, though a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) could be used to assess patient adherence. As many of the patients that were tapered due to identification of aberrant behaviors, lack of continuity of care across health care systems may result in future patient harm.

The results of this analysis highlight the importance of checking PDMP databases and routine UDSs when prescribing opioids—there can be serious safety concerns if patients are taking other prescribed or illicit medications. However, care must be taken; there were 2 instances of patients’ chronic opioid prescriptions discontinued by their VA provider after a review of the PDMP showed they had received non-VA opioids. In both cases, the quantity and doses received were small (counts of ≤ 12) and were received more than 6 months prior to the check of the PDMP. While this constitutes a breach of the Informed Consent for long-term opioid use, if there are no other concerning behaviors, it may be more prudent to review the informed consent with the patient and discuss why the behavior is a breach to ensure that patients and PCPs continue to work as a team to manage chronic pain.

Limitations

The study population was one limitation of this project. While data suggest that chronic pain affects women more than men, this study’s population was only 13% female. Thirty percent of the women in this study had an AE compared with only 8% of the men. Additional limitations included use of problem list for comorbidities, as lists may be inaccurate or outdated, and limiting the monitoring of AE to only 6 months. As some tapers were not initiated immediately and some taper schedules can last several months to years; therefor, outcomes may have been higher if patients were followed longer. Many of the patients with AEs had increased ED visits or unscheduled primary care visits as the tapers went on and their pain worsened, but the visits were outside the 6-month time frame for data collection. An additional weakness of this review included assessing a pain score, but not functional status, which may be a better predictor of the effectiveness of a patient’s pain management regimen. This assessment is needed in future studies for more reliable data. Finally, PCP survey results also should be viewed with caution. The current survey had only 29 respondents, and the 2014 survey had only 10 respondents and did not include CBOC providers.

Conclusion

A pain eConsult service managed by CPSs specializing in pain management can assist patients and PCPs with opioid therapy recommendations in a safe and timely manner, reducing risk of overdose secondary to high dose opioid therapy and with limited harm to patients.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, an emphasis on better pain management led health care professionals (HCPs) to increase prescribing of opioids to better manage patient’s pain. In 1991, 76 million prescriptions were written for opioids in the United States, and by 2011, the number had nearly tripled to 219 million.¹ Overdose rates increased as well, nearly tripling from 1999 to 2014.² Of the 52,404 US deaths from drug overdoses in the in 2015, 63% involved an opioid.²

Opioid Safety Initiative

In response to the growing opioid epidemic, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) created the Opioid Safety Initiative in 2014.³ This comprehensive, multifaceted initiative was designed to improve the care and safety of veterans managed with opioid therapy and promote rational opioid prescribing and monitoring. In 2016 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines for opioid prescriptions, and the following year the VA and the US Department of Defense (DoD) updated the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain (VA/DoD guidelines).^4,5 After the release of these guidelines, the use of opioid tapers expanded. However, due to public outcry of forced opioid tapering in 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration updated its opioid labeling requirements to provide clearer guidance on opioid tapers for tolerant patients.^6,7

As a result, HCPs began to develop various strategies to balance the safety and efficacy of opioid use in patients with chronic pain. The West Palm Beach VA Medical Center (WPBVAMC) in Florida has a Pain Clinic that includes 2 pain management clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) with specialized training in pain management, who are uniquely qualified to assess and evaluate medication therapy in complex pain patient cases. These CPSs were involved in the face-to-face management of patients requiring specialized pain care and participated in a pain pharmacy electronic consult (eConsult) service to document pain management consultative recommendations for patients appropriate for management at the primary care level. This formalized process increased specialty pain care access for veterans whose pain was managed by primary care providers (PCPs).

The pain pharmacy eConsult service was initiated at the WPBVAMC in June 2013 to assist PCPs in the management of outpatients with chronic pain. The eConsult service includes evaluation of a patient’s electronic health records (EHRs) by CPSs. The eConsult service also provided PCPs with the option to engage a pharmacist who could provide recommendations for opioid dosing conversion, opioid tapering, pain pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation, without the necessity for an additional patient visit.

Subsequent to the release of the 2016 CDC (and later the 2017 VA/DoD) guidelines recommending reducing morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) levels, the WPBVAMC had a large increase in pain eConsult requests for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy. A 3.4-fold increase in requests occurred in March, April, and May vs the following 9 months, and a nearly 4-fold increase in requests for opioid tapers during the same period. However, the impact of the completed eConsults was unclear. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of CPS services for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy by quantifying the number of recommendations accepted/implemented by PCPs. The secondary objectives included evaluating harms associated with the recommendations (eg, increase in visits to the emergency department [ED], hospitalizations, suicide attempts, or PCP visits) and provider satisfaction.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess data of patients from the WPBVAMC and its associated community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). The project was approved by the WPBVAMC Scientific Advisory Committee as part of the facility’s performance improvement efforts.

Included patients had a pain pharmacy eConsult placed between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. EHRs were reviewed and only eConsults for opioid pharmacotherapy recommendation or opioid tapers were evaluated. eConsults were excluded if the request was discontinued, completed by a HCP other than the pain CPS, or placed for an opioid dose conversion, nonopioid pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation.

Data for analyses were entered into Microsoft Excel 2016 and were securely saved and accessible to relevant researchers. Patient protected health information used during patient care remained confidential.

Demographic data were collected, including age, gender, race, pertinent medical comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea), and mental health comorbidities. Pain scores were collected at baseline and 6-months postconsult. Pain medications used by patients were noted at baseline and 6 months postconsult, including concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine use, MEDD, and other pain medication. The duration of time needed by pain CPS to complete each eConsult and total time from eConsult entered to HCP implementation of the initial recommendation was collected. The number of actionable recommendations (eg, changes in drug therapy, urine drug screens [UDSs], and referrals to other services also were recorded and reviewed 6 months postconsult to determine the number and percentage of recommendations implemented by the HCP. The EHR was examined to determine adverse events (AEs) (eg, any documentation of suicide attempt, calls to the Veterans Crisis Line, or death 6 month postconsult). Collected data also included new eConsults, the reason for opioid tapering either by HCP or patient, and assessment of economic harms (count of the number of visits to ED, hospitalizations, or unscheduled PCP visits with uncontrolled pain as chief reason within 6 months postconsult). Last, PCPs were sent a survey to assess their satisfaction with the pain eConsult service.

Results

Of 517 eConsults received from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, 285 (55.1%) met inclusion criteria (Figure). Using a random number generator, 100 eConsults were further reviewed for outcomes of interest.

In this cohort, the mean age was 61 years, 87% were male, and 80% were White individuals. Most patients (83%) had ≥ 1 mental health comorbidity, and 53% had ≥ 2, with depressive symptoms, tobacco use, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder the most common diagnoses (Table 1). Eighty-seven percent of eConsults were for opioid tapers and the remaining 13% were for opioid pharmacotherapy.

The median pain score at time of consult was 6 on a 10-point scale, with no change at 6 months postconsult. However, 41% of patients overall had a median 3.3-point drop in pain score, 17% had no change in pain score, and 42% had a median 2.6-point increase in pain score.

Electronic Consults

Table 2 describes the reasons eConsults were requested. The most common reason was to taper the dose to be in compliance with the CDC 2016 guideline recommendation of MEDD < 90 mg, which was later increased to 100 mg by the VA/DoD guideline.

On average, eConsults were completed within a mean of 11.5 days of the PCP request, including nights and weekends. The CPS spent a mean 66.8 minutes to complete each eConsult. Once the eConsult was completed, PCPs took a mean of 9 days to initiate the primary recommendation. This 9-day average does not include 11 eConsults with no accepted recommendations and 11 eConsults for which the PCP implemented the primary recommendation before the CPS completed the consult, most likely due to a phone call or direct contact with the CPS at the time the eConsult was ordered.

A mean 3.5 actionable recommendations were made by the CPS and a mean 1.6 recommendations were implemented within 6 months by the PCP. At least 1 recommendation was accepted/implemented for 89% of patients, with a mean 55% recommendations that were accepted/implemented. Eleven percent of the eConsult final recommendations were not accepted by PCPs and clear documentation of the reasons were not provided.

In the 6 months postconsult, 11 patients (7 men and 4 women) experienced 32 AEs (Table 3). Eight patients had 15 ED visits, with 3 of the visits resulting in hospitalizations, 8 patients had 9 unscheduled PCP visits, 1 patient reported suicidal ideation and 2 patients made a total of 4 calls to the Veterans Crisis Line. There were also 2 deaths; however, both were due to end-stage disease (cirrhosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and not believed to be related to eConsult recommendations.

Eight patients had a history of substance use disorders (SUDs) and 8 had a history of a mood disorder or psychosis. One patient had both SUD and a mood/psychosis-related mental health disorder, including a reported suicidal attempt/ideation at an ED visit and a subsequent hospitalization. A similar number of AEs occurred in patients with decreases in MEDD of 0 to 24% compared with those that received more aggressive tapers of 75 to 100% (Table 4).

Primary Care Providers

Nine patients were reconsulted, with only 1 secondary to the PCP not implementing recommendations from the initial consult. No factors were found that correlated with likelihood of a patient being reconsulted.

Surveys on PCP satisfaction with the eConsult service were completed by 29 of the 55 PCPs. PCP feedback was generally positive with nearly 90% of PCPs planning to use the service in the future as well as recommending use to other providers.

Discussion

Most (89%) PCPs accepted at least 1 recommendation from the completed eConsult, and MEDDs decreased by 60%, likely reducing the patient’s risk of overdose or other AEs from opioids. There also was a slight reduction in patient’s mean pain scores; however, 41% had a decrease and 42% had an increase in pain scores. There was no clear relationship when pain scores were compared with MEDDs, likely giving credence to the idea that pain scores are largely subjective and an unreliable surrogate marker for assessing effectiveness of analgesic regimens.

Eleven patients experienced AEs, including 1 patient for whom the recommendations were not implemented by the PCP. Eight of the 11 had multiple AEs. One interesting finding was that 7 of the 11 patients with an AE tested positive for unexpected substances on routine UDS or were arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, only 3 of the 7 had an active SUD diagnosis. With 25% of the AEs coming from patients with a history of SUD, it is important that any history of SUD be documented in the EHR. Maintaining this documentation can be especially difficult if patients switch VA medical centers or receive services outside the VA. Thorough and accurate history and chart review should ideally be completed before prescribing opioids.

Guidelines

While the PCPs were following VA/DoD and CDC recommendations for opioid tapering to < 100 or 90 mg MEDD, respectively, there is weak evidence in these guidelines to support specific MEDD cutoffs. The CDC guidelines even state, “a single dosage threshold for safe opioid use could not be identified.”⁵ One of the largest issues when using MEDD as a cutoff is the lack of agreement on its calculation. In 2014, Nuckols and colleagues al conducted a study to compare the existing guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain. While 13 guidelines were considered eligible, most recommendations were supported only by observational data or expert recommendations, and there was no consensus on what constitutes a “morphine equivalent.”⁸ Currently there is no universally accepted opioid-conversion method, resulting in a substantial problem when calculating a MEDD.⁹ A survey of 8 online opioid dose conversion tools found a -55% to +242% variation.¹⁰ As Fudin and colleagues concluded in response to the large variations found in these various analyses, the studies “unequivocally disqualify the validity of embracing MEDD to assess risk in any meaningful statistical way.”¹¹ Pharmacogenetics, drug tolerance, drug-drug interactions, body surface area, and organ function are patient- specific factors that are not taken into consideration when relying solely on a MEDD calculation. Tapering to lowest functional dose rather than a specific number or cutoff may be a more effective way to treat patients, and providers should use the guidelines as recommendations and not a hardline mandate.

At 6 months, 6 patients were receiving no pain medications from the VA, and 24 of the patients were tapered from their opiate to discontinuation. It is unclear whether patients are no longer taking opioids or switched their care to non-VA providers to receive medications, including opioids, privately. This is difficult to verify, though a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) could be used to assess patient adherence. As many of the patients that were tapered due to identification of aberrant behaviors, lack of continuity of care across health care systems may result in future patient harm.

The results of this analysis highlight the importance of checking PDMP databases and routine UDSs when prescribing opioids—there can be serious safety concerns if patients are taking other prescribed or illicit medications. However, care must be taken; there were 2 instances of patients’ chronic opioid prescriptions discontinued by their VA provider after a review of the PDMP showed they had received non-VA opioids. In both cases, the quantity and doses received were small (counts of ≤ 12) and were received more than 6 months prior to the check of the PDMP. While this constitutes a breach of the Informed Consent for long-term opioid use, if there are no other concerning behaviors, it may be more prudent to review the informed consent with the patient and discuss why the behavior is a breach to ensure that patients and PCPs continue to work as a team to manage chronic pain.

Limitations

The study population was one limitation of this project. While data suggest that chronic pain affects women more than men, this study’s population was only 13% female. Thirty percent of the women in this study had an AE compared with only 8% of the men. Additional limitations included use of problem list for comorbidities, as lists may be inaccurate or outdated, and limiting the monitoring of AE to only 6 months. As some tapers were not initiated immediately and some taper schedules can last several months to years; therefor, outcomes may have been higher if patients were followed longer. Many of the patients with AEs had increased ED visits or unscheduled primary care visits as the tapers went on and their pain worsened, but the visits were outside the 6-month time frame for data collection. An additional weakness of this review included assessing a pain score, but not functional status, which may be a better predictor of the effectiveness of a patient’s pain management regimen. This assessment is needed in future studies for more reliable data. Finally, PCP survey results also should be viewed with caution. The current survey had only 29 respondents, and the 2014 survey had only 10 respondents and did not include CBOC providers.

Conclusion

A pain eConsult service managed by CPSs specializing in pain management can assist patients and PCPs with opioid therapy recommendations in a safe and timely manner, reducing risk of overdose secondary to high dose opioid therapy and with limited harm to patients.

The composition of street drugs like heroin and cocaine are changing. According to a new analysis, almost all contain at least one toxic adulterant, and many contain a plethora. Most adulterants have pharmacologic activities and toxicities. Their presence has added impact in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, since some may cause a drastic drop in white blood cells that could leave drug users more vulnerable to infection.

“It’s remarkable that we just forgot to notice, in the horrendous transition from prescription opioid epidemic to the illicit opioid and psychostimulant epidemics, that we would have to pay special attention to what the medications are in the drugs that the person was exposed to – and for how long,” said Mark S. Gold, MD, a coauthor of the review.

The analysis showed that adulterants include new psychoactive substances, industrial compounds, fungicides, veterinary medications, and various impurities. In addition, other various medications are being found in street drugs, such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, antihistamines, anthelmintics, anesthetics, anti-inflammatory agents, antipyretics, analgesics, antispasmodics, antiarrhythmics, antimalarials, bronchodilators, decongestants, expectorants, muscle relaxers, natural/synthetic hallucinogens, and sedatives.

Illicit drugs are by nature manufactured without Food and Drug Administration oversight, and it is becoming increasingly common that substances like leftover medicines and other active drugs are added to illicit drug batches to add weight, said Dr. Gold, a professor at Washington University,St. Louis. The study appeared in Current Psychopharmacology.
 

Effects of adulterants ‘terrifying’

The findings of adulterants and their consequences are concerning, according to Jean Lud Cadet, MD, who was asked to comment on the findings. “The blood dysplasia, the pulmonary problems that some of those adulterants can cause – it’s actually terrifying, to put it bluntly,” said Dr. Cadet, who is a senior investigator and chief of the Molecular Neuropsychiatry Research Branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Before 2000, street drugs were generally diluted with comparatively benign substances such as caffeine, sugars, or lidocaine. Drugs like phenacetin, levamisole, acetaminophen, and diltiazem began to appear in heroin and cocaine in the late 1990s, and by 2010, more powerful adulterants like fentanyl, ketamine, and quetiapine became common. Adulterants can lead to a range of clinical effects, including renal and liver problems, blood disorders, infections, respiratory depression, and cardiac arrest.

In 2015, the U.S. Department of State partnered with the Colombo Plan, an international organization based in Sri Lanka, to use field spectroscopy to detect toxins directly in cocaine and heroin samples found in Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Colombia, and South Africa. They found a range of adulterants such as aminopyrine, diltiazem, metamizole, levamisole, and phenacetin.

A similar project with 431 heroin and cocaine samples from Vermont and Kentucky found that 69% of samples had five or more controlled drugs, toxic adulterants, or impurities. About 15% had nine or more, and 95% of samples had at least one toxic adulterant.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, these adulterants take on even greater significance. Individuals with substance use disorders often have other health conditions that can make them more vulnerable to viral infections, and this could be exacerbated by the effects of adulterants on white blood cells or other systems. The pandemic has also had an indirect effect by causing a shortage of street drugs. During production shortages, traffickers might boost potency by adding more cutting agents and adulterants. As a result, COVID-19 and opioid addiction tend to reinforce each other.

“The clinical message would be that our [substance use] patients will contract infectious disease and need to be prioritized for [COVID-19] vaccination,” said Dr. Gold.

The findings came as a surprise to Dr. Cadet, and that illustrates a need to publicize the presence of adulterants in street drugs.

“If I wasn’t aware of many of these, then the general public is also not going to be aware of them,” Dr. Cadet said. “Scientists, including myself, and government agencies need to do a better job [of communicating this issue].”

The study references individuals with substance use disorder, but Dr. Cadet cautioned that anyone who uses street drugs, even once or twice, could be a victim of adulterants. “You don’t need to have met criteria for diagnosis in order to suffer the consequences.”

The study had no funding. Dr. Gold and Dr. Cadet have no relevant financial disclosures.

The composition of street drugs like heroin and cocaine are changing. According to a new analysis, almost all contain at least one toxic adulterant, and many contain a plethora. Most adulterants have pharmacologic activities and toxicities. Their presence has added impact in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, since some may cause a drastic drop in white blood cells that could leave drug users more vulnerable to infection.

“It’s remarkable that we just forgot to notice, in the horrendous transition from prescription opioid epidemic to the illicit opioid and psychostimulant epidemics, that we would have to pay special attention to what the medications are in the drugs that the person was exposed to – and for how long,” said Mark S. Gold, MD, a coauthor of the review.

The analysis showed that adulterants include new psychoactive substances, industrial compounds, fungicides, veterinary medications, and various impurities. In addition, other various medications are being found in street drugs, such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, antihistamines, anthelmintics, anesthetics, anti-inflammatory agents, antipyretics, analgesics, antispasmodics, antiarrhythmics, antimalarials, bronchodilators, decongestants, expectorants, muscle relaxers, natural/synthetic hallucinogens, and sedatives.

Illicit drugs are by nature manufactured without Food and Drug Administration oversight, and it is becoming increasingly common that substances like leftover medicines and other active drugs are added to illicit drug batches to add weight, said Dr. Gold, a professor at Washington University,St. Louis. The study appeared in Current Psychopharmacology.
 

Effects of adulterants ‘terrifying’

The findings of adulterants and their consequences are concerning, according to Jean Lud Cadet, MD, who was asked to comment on the findings. “The blood dysplasia, the pulmonary problems that some of those adulterants can cause – it’s actually terrifying, to put it bluntly,” said Dr. Cadet, who is a senior investigator and chief of the Molecular Neuropsychiatry Research Branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Before 2000, street drugs were generally diluted with comparatively benign substances such as caffeine, sugars, or lidocaine. Drugs like phenacetin, levamisole, acetaminophen, and diltiazem began to appear in heroin and cocaine in the late 1990s, and by 2010, more powerful adulterants like fentanyl, ketamine, and quetiapine became common. Adulterants can lead to a range of clinical effects, including renal and liver problems, blood disorders, infections, respiratory depression, and cardiac arrest.

In 2015, the U.S. Department of State partnered with the Colombo Plan, an international organization based in Sri Lanka, to use field spectroscopy to detect toxins directly in cocaine and heroin samples found in Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Colombia, and South Africa. They found a range of adulterants such as aminopyrine, diltiazem, metamizole, levamisole, and phenacetin.

A similar project with 431 heroin and cocaine samples from Vermont and Kentucky found that 69% of samples had five or more controlled drugs, toxic adulterants, or impurities. About 15% had nine or more, and 95% of samples had at least one toxic adulterant.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, these adulterants take on even greater significance. Individuals with substance use disorders often have other health conditions that can make them more vulnerable to viral infections, and this could be exacerbated by the effects of adulterants on white blood cells or other systems. The pandemic has also had an indirect effect by causing a shortage of street drugs. During production shortages, traffickers might boost potency by adding more cutting agents and adulterants. As a result, COVID-19 and opioid addiction tend to reinforce each other.

“The clinical message would be that our [substance use] patients will contract infectious disease and need to be prioritized for [COVID-19] vaccination,” said Dr. Gold.

The findings came as a surprise to Dr. Cadet, and that illustrates a need to publicize the presence of adulterants in street drugs.

“If I wasn’t aware of many of these, then the general public is also not going to be aware of them,” Dr. Cadet said. “Scientists, including myself, and government agencies need to do a better job [of communicating this issue].”

The study references individuals with substance use disorder, but Dr. Cadet cautioned that anyone who uses street drugs, even once or twice, could be a victim of adulterants. “You don’t need to have met criteria for diagnosis in order to suffer the consequences.”

The study had no funding. Dr. Gold and Dr. Cadet have no relevant financial disclosures.

The composition of street drugs like heroin and cocaine are changing. According to a new analysis, almost all contain at least one toxic adulterant, and many contain a plethora. Most adulterants have pharmacologic activities and toxicities. Their presence has added impact in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, since some may cause a drastic drop in white blood cells that could leave drug users more vulnerable to infection.

“It’s remarkable that we just forgot to notice, in the horrendous transition from prescription opioid epidemic to the illicit opioid and psychostimulant epidemics, that we would have to pay special attention to what the medications are in the drugs that the person was exposed to – and for how long,” said Mark S. Gold, MD, a coauthor of the review.

The analysis showed that adulterants include new psychoactive substances, industrial compounds, fungicides, veterinary medications, and various impurities. In addition, other various medications are being found in street drugs, such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, antihistamines, anthelmintics, anesthetics, anti-inflammatory agents, antipyretics, analgesics, antispasmodics, antiarrhythmics, antimalarials, bronchodilators, decongestants, expectorants, muscle relaxers, natural/synthetic hallucinogens, and sedatives.

Illicit drugs are by nature manufactured without Food and Drug Administration oversight, and it is becoming increasingly common that substances like leftover medicines and other active drugs are added to illicit drug batches to add weight, said Dr. Gold, a professor at Washington University,St. Louis. The study appeared in Current Psychopharmacology.
 

Effects of adulterants ‘terrifying’

The findings of adulterants and their consequences are concerning, according to Jean Lud Cadet, MD, who was asked to comment on the findings. “The blood dysplasia, the pulmonary problems that some of those adulterants can cause – it’s actually terrifying, to put it bluntly,” said Dr. Cadet, who is a senior investigator and chief of the Molecular Neuropsychiatry Research Branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Before 2000, street drugs were generally diluted with comparatively benign substances such as caffeine, sugars, or lidocaine. Drugs like phenacetin, levamisole, acetaminophen, and diltiazem began to appear in heroin and cocaine in the late 1990s, and by 2010, more powerful adulterants like fentanyl, ketamine, and quetiapine became common. Adulterants can lead to a range of clinical effects, including renal and liver problems, blood disorders, infections, respiratory depression, and cardiac arrest.

In 2015, the U.S. Department of State partnered with the Colombo Plan, an international organization based in Sri Lanka, to use field spectroscopy to detect toxins directly in cocaine and heroin samples found in Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Colombia, and South Africa. They found a range of adulterants such as aminopyrine, diltiazem, metamizole, levamisole, and phenacetin.

A similar project with 431 heroin and cocaine samples from Vermont and Kentucky found that 69% of samples had five or more controlled drugs, toxic adulterants, or impurities. About 15% had nine or more, and 95% of samples had at least one toxic adulterant.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, these adulterants take on even greater significance. Individuals with substance use disorders often have other health conditions that can make them more vulnerable to viral infections, and this could be exacerbated by the effects of adulterants on white blood cells or other systems. The pandemic has also had an indirect effect by causing a shortage of street drugs. During production shortages, traffickers might boost potency by adding more cutting agents and adulterants. As a result, COVID-19 and opioid addiction tend to reinforce each other.

“The clinical message would be that our [substance use] patients will contract infectious disease and need to be prioritized for [COVID-19] vaccination,” said Dr. Gold.

The findings came as a surprise to Dr. Cadet, and that illustrates a need to publicize the presence of adulterants in street drugs.

“If I wasn’t aware of many of these, then the general public is also not going to be aware of them,” Dr. Cadet said. “Scientists, including myself, and government agencies need to do a better job [of communicating this issue].”

The study references individuals with substance use disorder, but Dr. Cadet cautioned that anyone who uses street drugs, even once or twice, could be a victim of adulterants. “You don’t need to have met criteria for diagnosis in order to suffer the consequences.”

The study had no funding. Dr. Gold and Dr. Cadet have no relevant financial disclosures.

Operational changes are linked to improvements in smoking and blood pressure outcomes in primary care practice settings, new research indicates.

The qualitative analysis, published in Annals of Family Medicine , included smoking and blood pressure as separate outcome measures.

The outcomes were calculated using Clinical Quality Measure improvements, with targets of at least 10-point absolute improvements in the proportion of patients with smoking screening, if relevant, counseling, and in the proportion of hypertensive patients with adequately controlled BP. The results were obtained from practices participating in Evidence-NOW, a multisite cardiovascular disease prevention initiative. Configurational Comparative Methods were used to evaluate the joint effects of multiple factors on outcomes.

The majority of practices in the analysis were clinician owned, small (fewer than six clinicians), and/or in an urban location. The researchers sampled and interviewed practice staff from a subset of 104 primary care practices across 7 Cooperatives and 12 states, ranging from small to medium in size, having 10 or fewer clinicians. The interview data were analyzed to identify operational changes, then transformed into numeric data.
 

Operational changes led to improvements in specific contexts

In clinician-owned practices, process improvement, documentation, and referral to resources, combined with a moderate level of facilitation support, led to an improvement of at least 10 points in smoking outcomes.

However, the researchers found that these patterns were not observed in system–owned practices or Federally Qualified Health Centers.

In solo practices, training medical assistants to take an accurate blood pressure led to an improvement of at least 10 points in blood pressure outcomes.

Among larger, clinician-owned practices, measurement of blood pressure a second time when the first was elevated, and documentation of this reading in the electronic heath record, also led to a 10-point or greater improvement in BP outcome when combined with a large amount (50 hours or more) of facilitation.

“There was no magic bullet for improving smoking cessation counseling and blood pressure outcomes across the diverse primary care practices studied,” lead author Deborah J. Cohen, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. “Combinations of operational changes among practice sizes and types led to improvements.”
 

Smaller practices more nimble, experts say

Results of the qualitative data analysis suggest that smaller and clinician-owned practices are more likely to have the capacity for change and improvement compared with larger, hospital/health system–owned practices.

Commenting on the study, Noel Deep, MD, regional medical director at Aspirus Clinics, Ironwood, Mich., said solo or small private practices have a distinct advantage over larger hospital or system-owned practices when implementing new operational changes to improve clinical outcomes.

“A smaller independent practice is nimble, with the physician [or physicians] able to make a quick decision at analyzing the scientific data, planning the changes, implementing them quickly, and doing a rapid cycle review of the results and tweaking the program to attain the targets,” said Dr. Deep, a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Kate Rowland, MD, MS, assistant professor in the department of family medicine at Rush Medical College, Chicago, also noted that smaller practices have unique advantages over larger health organizations.

“Larger organizations should replicate the benefits of the smaller office, providing as much local decision-making and autonomy as possible to the site where the changes are happening,” Dr. Rowland explained in an interview.

“The clinicians at these sites are mostly likely to know what is going to be successful for achieving measurable change in the patients they care for,” she added.

The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors and other experts interviewed for this piece reported having no conflicts of interest.

Operational changes are linked to improvements in smoking and blood pressure outcomes in primary care practice settings, new research indicates.

The qualitative analysis, published in Annals of Family Medicine , included smoking and blood pressure as separate outcome measures.

The outcomes were calculated using Clinical Quality Measure improvements, with targets of at least 10-point absolute improvements in the proportion of patients with smoking screening, if relevant, counseling, and in the proportion of hypertensive patients with adequately controlled BP. The results were obtained from practices participating in Evidence-NOW, a multisite cardiovascular disease prevention initiative. Configurational Comparative Methods were used to evaluate the joint effects of multiple factors on outcomes.

The majority of practices in the analysis were clinician owned, small (fewer than six clinicians), and/or in an urban location. The researchers sampled and interviewed practice staff from a subset of 104 primary care practices across 7 Cooperatives and 12 states, ranging from small to medium in size, having 10 or fewer clinicians. The interview data were analyzed to identify operational changes, then transformed into numeric data.
 

Operational changes led to improvements in specific contexts

In clinician-owned practices, process improvement, documentation, and referral to resources, combined with a moderate level of facilitation support, led to an improvement of at least 10 points in smoking outcomes.

However, the researchers found that these patterns were not observed in system–owned practices or Federally Qualified Health Centers.

In solo practices, training medical assistants to take an accurate blood pressure led to an improvement of at least 10 points in blood pressure outcomes.

Among larger, clinician-owned practices, measurement of blood pressure a second time when the first was elevated, and documentation of this reading in the electronic heath record, also led to a 10-point or greater improvement in BP outcome when combined with a large amount (50 hours or more) of facilitation.

“There was no magic bullet for improving smoking cessation counseling and blood pressure outcomes across the diverse primary care practices studied,” lead author Deborah J. Cohen, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. “Combinations of operational changes among practice sizes and types led to improvements.”
 

Smaller practices more nimble, experts say

Results of the qualitative data analysis suggest that smaller and clinician-owned practices are more likely to have the capacity for change and improvement compared with larger, hospital/health system–owned practices.

Commenting on the study, Noel Deep, MD, regional medical director at Aspirus Clinics, Ironwood, Mich., said solo or small private practices have a distinct advantage over larger hospital or system-owned practices when implementing new operational changes to improve clinical outcomes.

“A smaller independent practice is nimble, with the physician [or physicians] able to make a quick decision at analyzing the scientific data, planning the changes, implementing them quickly, and doing a rapid cycle review of the results and tweaking the program to attain the targets,” said Dr. Deep, a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Kate Rowland, MD, MS, assistant professor in the department of family medicine at Rush Medical College, Chicago, also noted that smaller practices have unique advantages over larger health organizations.

“Larger organizations should replicate the benefits of the smaller office, providing as much local decision-making and autonomy as possible to the site where the changes are happening,” Dr. Rowland explained in an interview.

“The clinicians at these sites are mostly likely to know what is going to be successful for achieving measurable change in the patients they care for,” she added.

The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors and other experts interviewed for this piece reported having no conflicts of interest.

Operational changes are linked to improvements in smoking and blood pressure outcomes in primary care practice settings, new research indicates.

The qualitative analysis, published in Annals of Family Medicine , included smoking and blood pressure as separate outcome measures.

The outcomes were calculated using Clinical Quality Measure improvements, with targets of at least 10-point absolute improvements in the proportion of patients with smoking screening, if relevant, counseling, and in the proportion of hypertensive patients with adequately controlled BP. The results were obtained from practices participating in Evidence-NOW, a multisite cardiovascular disease prevention initiative. Configurational Comparative Methods were used to evaluate the joint effects of multiple factors on outcomes.

The majority of practices in the analysis were clinician owned, small (fewer than six clinicians), and/or in an urban location. The researchers sampled and interviewed practice staff from a subset of 104 primary care practices across 7 Cooperatives and 12 states, ranging from small to medium in size, having 10 or fewer clinicians. The interview data were analyzed to identify operational changes, then transformed into numeric data.
 

Operational changes led to improvements in specific contexts

In clinician-owned practices, process improvement, documentation, and referral to resources, combined with a moderate level of facilitation support, led to an improvement of at least 10 points in smoking outcomes.

However, the researchers found that these patterns were not observed in system–owned practices or Federally Qualified Health Centers.

In solo practices, training medical assistants to take an accurate blood pressure led to an improvement of at least 10 points in blood pressure outcomes.

Among larger, clinician-owned practices, measurement of blood pressure a second time when the first was elevated, and documentation of this reading in the electronic heath record, also led to a 10-point or greater improvement in BP outcome when combined with a large amount (50 hours or more) of facilitation.

“There was no magic bullet for improving smoking cessation counseling and blood pressure outcomes across the diverse primary care practices studied,” lead author Deborah J. Cohen, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. “Combinations of operational changes among practice sizes and types led to improvements.”
 

Smaller practices more nimble, experts say

Results of the qualitative data analysis suggest that smaller and clinician-owned practices are more likely to have the capacity for change and improvement compared with larger, hospital/health system–owned practices.

Commenting on the study, Noel Deep, MD, regional medical director at Aspirus Clinics, Ironwood, Mich., said solo or small private practices have a distinct advantage over larger hospital or system-owned practices when implementing new operational changes to improve clinical outcomes.

“A smaller independent practice is nimble, with the physician [or physicians] able to make a quick decision at analyzing the scientific data, planning the changes, implementing them quickly, and doing a rapid cycle review of the results and tweaking the program to attain the targets,” said Dr. Deep, a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Kate Rowland, MD, MS, assistant professor in the department of family medicine at Rush Medical College, Chicago, also noted that smaller practices have unique advantages over larger health organizations.

“Larger organizations should replicate the benefits of the smaller office, providing as much local decision-making and autonomy as possible to the site where the changes are happening,” Dr. Rowland explained in an interview.

“The clinicians at these sites are mostly likely to know what is going to be successful for achieving measurable change in the patients they care for,” she added.

The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors and other experts interviewed for this piece reported having no conflicts of interest.

Concern and anxiety around COVID-19 remains high among Americans, with more people reporting mental health effects from the pandemic this year than last, and parents concerned about the mental health of their children, results of a new poll by the American Psychiatric Association show. Although the overall level of anxiety has decreased from last year’s APA poll, “the degree to which anxiety still reigns is concerning,” APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

The results of the latest poll were presented at the American Psychiatric Association 2021 annual meeting and based on an online survey conducted March 26 to April 5 among a sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 years or older.

Serious mental health hit

In the new poll, about 4 in 10 Americans (41%) report they are more anxious than last year, down from just over 60%.

Young adults aged 18-29 years (49%) and Hispanic/Latinos (50%) are more likely to report being more anxious now than a year ago. Those 65 or older (30%) are less apt to say they feel more anxious than last year.

The latest poll also shows that Americans are more anxious about family and loved ones getting COVID-19 (64%) than about catching the virus themselves (49%). 

Concern about family and loved ones contracting COVID-19 has increased since last year’s poll (conducted September 2020), rising from 56% then to 64% now. Hispanic/Latinx individuals (73%) and African American/Black individuals (76%) are more anxious about COVID-19 than White people (59%).

In the new poll, 43% of adults report the pandemic has had a serious impact on their mental health, up from 37% in 2020. Younger adults are more apt than older adults to report serious mental health effects.

Slightly fewer Americans report the pandemic is affecting their day-to-day life now as compared to a year ago, in ways such as problems sleeping (19% down from 22%), difficulty concentrating (18% down from 20%), and fighting more with loved ones (16% down from 17%).

The percentage of adults consuming more alcohol or other substances/drugs than normal increased slightly since last year (14%-17%). Additionally, 33% of adults (40% of women) report gaining weight during the pandemic.

Call to action

More than half of adults (53%) with children report they are concerned about the mental state of their children and almost half (48%) report the pandemic has caused mental health problems for one or more of their children, including minor problems for 29% and major problems for 19%.

More than a quarter (26%) of parents have sought professional mental health help for their children because of the pandemic.

Nearly half (49%) of parents of children younger than 18 years say their child received help from a mental health professional since the start of the pandemic; 23% received help from a primary care professional, 18% from a psychiatrist, 15% from a psychologist, 13% from a therapist, 10% from a social worker, and 10% from a school counselor or school psychologist.

More than 1 in 5 parents reported difficulty scheduling appointments for their child with a mental health professional.

“This poll shows that, even as vaccines become more widespread, Americans are still worried about the mental state of their children,” Dr. Geller said in a news release.

“This is a call to action for policymakers, who need to remember that, in our COVID-19 recovery, there’s no health without mental health,” he added.

Just over three-quarters (76%) of those surveyed say they have been or intend to get vaccinated; 22% say they don’t intend to get vaccinated; and 2% didn’t know.

For those who do not intend to get vaccinated, the primary concern (53%) is about side effects of the vaccine. Other reasons for not getting vaccinated include believing the vaccine is not effective (31%), believing the makers of the vaccine aren’t being honest about what’s in it (27%), and fear/anxiety about needles (12%).

Resiliency a finite resource

Reached for comment, Samoon Ahmad, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry, New York University, said it’s not surprising that Americans are still suffering more anxiety than normal.

“The Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey has shown that anxiety and depression levels have remained higher than normal since the pandemic began. That 43% of adults now say that the pandemic has had a serious impact on their mental health seems in line with what that survey has been reporting for over a year,” Dr. Ahmad, who serves as unit chief of inpatient psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York, said in an interview.

He believes there are several reasons why anxiety levels remain high. One reason is something he’s noticed among his patients for years. “Most people struggle with anxiety especially at night when the noise and distractions of contemporary life fade away. This is the time of introspection,” he explained.

“Quarantine has been kind of like a protracted night because the distractions that are common in the so-called ‘rat race’ have been relatively muted for the past 14 months. I believe this has caused what you might call ‘forced introspection,’ and that this is giving rise to feelings of anxiety as people use their time alone to reassess their careers and their social lives and really begin to fret about some of the decisions that have led them to this point in their lives,” said Dr. Ahmad.

The other finding in the APA survey – that people are more concerned about their loved ones catching the virus than they were a year ago – is also not surprising, Dr. Ahmad said.

“Even though we seem to have turned a corner in the United States and the worst of the pandemic is behind us, the surge that went from roughly November through March of this year was more wide-reaching geographically than previous waves, and I think this made the severity of the virus far more real to people who lived in communities that had been spared severe outbreaks during the surges that we saw in the spring and summer of 2020,” Dr. Ahmad told this news organization.

“There’s also heightened concern over variants and the efficacy of the vaccine in treating these variants. Those who have families in other countries where the virus is surging, such as India or parts of Latin America, are likely experiencing additional stress and anxiety too,” he noted.

While the new APA poll findings are not surprising, they still are “deeply concerning,” Dr. Ahmad said.

“Resiliency is a finite resource, and people can only take so much stress before their mental health begins to suffer. For most people, this is not going to lead to some kind of overdramatic nervous breakdown. Instead, one may notice that they are more irritable than they once were, that they’re not sleeping particularly well, or that they have a nagging sense of discomfort and stress when doing activities that they used to think of as normal,” like taking a trip to the grocery store, meeting up with friends, or going to work, Dr. Ahmad said.

“Overcoming this kind of anxiety and reacclimating ourselves to social situations is going to take more time for some people than others, and that is perfectly natural,” said Dr. Ahmad, founder of the Integrative Center for Wellness in New York.

“I don’t think it’s wise to try to put a limit on what constitutes a normal amount of time to readjust, and I think everyone in the field of mental health needs to avoid pathologizing any lingering sense of unease. No one needs to be medicated or diagnosed with a mental illness because they are nervous about going into public spaces in the immediate aftermath of a pandemic. We need to show a lot of patience and encourage people to readjust at their own pace for the foreseeable future,” Dr. Ahmad said.

Dr. Geller and Dr. Ahmad have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Concern and anxiety around COVID-19 remains high among Americans, with more people reporting mental health effects from the pandemic this year than last, and parents concerned about the mental health of their children, results of a new poll by the American Psychiatric Association show. Although the overall level of anxiety has decreased from last year’s APA poll, “the degree to which anxiety still reigns is concerning,” APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

The results of the latest poll were presented at the American Psychiatric Association 2021 annual meeting and based on an online survey conducted March 26 to April 5 among a sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 years or older.

Serious mental health hit

In the new poll, about 4 in 10 Americans (41%) report they are more anxious than last year, down from just over 60%.

Young adults aged 18-29 years (49%) and Hispanic/Latinos (50%) are more likely to report being more anxious now than a year ago. Those 65 or older (30%) are less apt to say they feel more anxious than last year.

The latest poll also shows that Americans are more anxious about family and loved ones getting COVID-19 (64%) than about catching the virus themselves (49%). 

Concern about family and loved ones contracting COVID-19 has increased since last year’s poll (conducted September 2020), rising from 56% then to 64% now. Hispanic/Latinx individuals (73%) and African American/Black individuals (76%) are more anxious about COVID-19 than White people (59%).

In the new poll, 43% of adults report the pandemic has had a serious impact on their mental health, up from 37% in 2020. Younger adults are more apt than older adults to report serious mental health effects.

Slightly fewer Americans report the pandemic is affecting their day-to-day life now as compared to a year ago, in ways such as problems sleeping (19% down from 22%), difficulty concentrating (18% down from 20%), and fighting more with loved ones (16% down from 17%).

The percentage of adults consuming more alcohol or other substances/drugs than normal increased slightly since last year (14%-17%). Additionally, 33% of adults (40% of women) report gaining weight during the pandemic.

Call to action

More than half of adults (53%) with children report they are concerned about the mental state of their children and almost half (48%) report the pandemic has caused mental health problems for one or more of their children, including minor problems for 29% and major problems for 19%.

More than a quarter (26%) of parents have sought professional mental health help for their children because of the pandemic.

Nearly half (49%) of parents of children younger than 18 years say their child received help from a mental health professional since the start of the pandemic; 23% received help from a primary care professional, 18% from a psychiatrist, 15% from a psychologist, 13% from a therapist, 10% from a social worker, and 10% from a school counselor or school psychologist.

More than 1 in 5 parents reported difficulty scheduling appointments for their child with a mental health professional.

“This poll shows that, even as vaccines become more widespread, Americans are still worried about the mental state of their children,” Dr. Geller said in a news release.

“This is a call to action for policymakers, who need to remember that, in our COVID-19 recovery, there’s no health without mental health,” he added.

Just over three-quarters (76%) of those surveyed say they have been or intend to get vaccinated; 22% say they don’t intend to get vaccinated; and 2% didn’t know.

For those who do not intend to get vaccinated, the primary concern (53%) is about side effects of the vaccine. Other reasons for not getting vaccinated include believing the vaccine is not effective (31%), believing the makers of the vaccine aren’t being honest about what’s in it (27%), and fear/anxiety about needles (12%).

Resiliency a finite resource

Reached for comment, Samoon Ahmad, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry, New York University, said it’s not surprising that Americans are still suffering more anxiety than normal.

“The Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey has shown that anxiety and depression levels have remained higher than normal since the pandemic began. That 43% of adults now say that the pandemic has had a serious impact on their mental health seems in line with what that survey has been reporting for over a year,” Dr. Ahmad, who serves as unit chief of inpatient psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York, said in an interview.

He believes there are several reasons why anxiety levels remain high. One reason is something he’s noticed among his patients for years. “Most people struggle with anxiety especially at night when the noise and distractions of contemporary life fade away. This is the time of introspection,” he explained.

“Quarantine has been kind of like a protracted night because the distractions that are common in the so-called ‘rat race’ have been relatively muted for the past 14 months. I believe this has caused what you might call ‘forced introspection,’ and that this is giving rise to feelings of anxiety as people use their time alone to reassess their careers and their social lives and really begin to fret about some of the decisions that have led them to this point in their lives,” said Dr. Ahmad.

The other finding in the APA survey – that people are more concerned about their loved ones catching the virus than they were a year ago – is also not surprising, Dr. Ahmad said.

“Even though we seem to have turned a corner in the United States and the worst of the pandemic is behind us, the surge that went from roughly November through March of this year was more wide-reaching geographically than previous waves, and I think this made the severity of the virus far more real to people who lived in communities that had been spared severe outbreaks during the surges that we saw in the spring and summer of 2020,” Dr. Ahmad told this news organization.

“There’s also heightened concern over variants and the efficacy of the vaccine in treating these variants. Those who have families in other countries where the virus is surging, such as India or parts of Latin America, are likely experiencing additional stress and anxiety too,” he noted.

While the new APA poll findings are not surprising, they still are “deeply concerning,” Dr. Ahmad said.

“Resiliency is a finite resource, and people can only take so much stress before their mental health begins to suffer. For most people, this is not going to lead to some kind of overdramatic nervous breakdown. Instead, one may notice that they are more irritable than they once were, that they’re not sleeping particularly well, or that they have a nagging sense of discomfort and stress when doing activities that they used to think of as normal,” like taking a trip to the grocery store, meeting up with friends, or going to work, Dr. Ahmad said.

“Overcoming this kind of anxiety and reacclimating ourselves to social situations is going to take more time for some people than others, and that is perfectly natural,” said Dr. Ahmad, founder of the Integrative Center for Wellness in New York.

“I don’t think it’s wise to try to put a limit on what constitutes a normal amount of time to readjust, and I think everyone in the field of mental health needs to avoid pathologizing any lingering sense of unease. No one needs to be medicated or diagnosed with a mental illness because they are nervous about going into public spaces in the immediate aftermath of a pandemic. We need to show a lot of patience and encourage people to readjust at their own pace for the foreseeable future,” Dr. Ahmad said.

Dr. Geller and Dr. Ahmad have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Concern and anxiety around COVID-19 remains high among Americans, with more people reporting mental health effects from the pandemic this year than last, and parents concerned about the mental health of their children, results of a new poll by the American Psychiatric Association show. Although the overall level of anxiety has decreased from last year’s APA poll, “the degree to which anxiety still reigns is concerning,” APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

The results of the latest poll were presented at the American Psychiatric Association 2021 annual meeting and based on an online survey conducted March 26 to April 5 among a sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 years or older.

Serious mental health hit

In the new poll, about 4 in 10 Americans (41%) report they are more anxious than last year, down from just over 60%.

Young adults aged 18-29 years (49%) and Hispanic/Latinos (50%) are more likely to report being more anxious now than a year ago. Those 65 or older (30%) are less apt to say they feel more anxious than last year.

The latest poll also shows that Americans are more anxious about family and loved ones getting COVID-19 (64%) than about catching the virus themselves (49%). 

Concern about family and loved ones contracting COVID-19 has increased since last year’s poll (conducted September 2020), rising from 56% then to 64% now. Hispanic/Latinx individuals (73%) and African American/Black individuals (76%) are more anxious about COVID-19 than White people (59%).

In the new poll, 43% of adults report the pandemic has had a serious impact on their mental health, up from 37% in 2020. Younger adults are more apt than older adults to report serious mental health effects.

Slightly fewer Americans report the pandemic is affecting their day-to-day life now as compared to a year ago, in ways such as problems sleeping (19% down from 22%), difficulty concentrating (18% down from 20%), and fighting more with loved ones (16% down from 17%).

The percentage of adults consuming more alcohol or other substances/drugs than normal increased slightly since last year (14%-17%). Additionally, 33% of adults (40% of women) report gaining weight during the pandemic.

Call to action

More than half of adults (53%) with children report they are concerned about the mental state of their children and almost half (48%) report the pandemic has caused mental health problems for one or more of their children, including minor problems for 29% and major problems for 19%.

More than a quarter (26%) of parents have sought professional mental health help for their children because of the pandemic.

Nearly half (49%) of parents of children younger than 18 years say their child received help from a mental health professional since the start of the pandemic; 23% received help from a primary care professional, 18% from a psychiatrist, 15% from a psychologist, 13% from a therapist, 10% from a social worker, and 10% from a school counselor or school psychologist.

More than 1 in 5 parents reported difficulty scheduling appointments for their child with a mental health professional.

“This poll shows that, even as vaccines become more widespread, Americans are still worried about the mental state of their children,” Dr. Geller said in a news release.

“This is a call to action for policymakers, who need to remember that, in our COVID-19 recovery, there’s no health without mental health,” he added.

Just over three-quarters (76%) of those surveyed say they have been or intend to get vaccinated; 22% say they don’t intend to get vaccinated; and 2% didn’t know.

For those who do not intend to get vaccinated, the primary concern (53%) is about side effects of the vaccine. Other reasons for not getting vaccinated include believing the vaccine is not effective (31%), believing the makers of the vaccine aren’t being honest about what’s in it (27%), and fear/anxiety about needles (12%).

Resiliency a finite resource

Reached for comment, Samoon Ahmad, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry, New York University, said it’s not surprising that Americans are still suffering more anxiety than normal.

“The Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey has shown that anxiety and depression levels have remained higher than normal since the pandemic began. That 43% of adults now say that the pandemic has had a serious impact on their mental health seems in line with what that survey has been reporting for over a year,” Dr. Ahmad, who serves as unit chief of inpatient psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York, said in an interview.

He believes there are several reasons why anxiety levels remain high. One reason is something he’s noticed among his patients for years. “Most people struggle with anxiety especially at night when the noise and distractions of contemporary life fade away. This is the time of introspection,” he explained.

“Quarantine has been kind of like a protracted night because the distractions that are common in the so-called ‘rat race’ have been relatively muted for the past 14 months. I believe this has caused what you might call ‘forced introspection,’ and that this is giving rise to feelings of anxiety as people use their time alone to reassess their careers and their social lives and really begin to fret about some of the decisions that have led them to this point in their lives,” said Dr. Ahmad.

The other finding in the APA survey – that people are more concerned about their loved ones catching the virus than they were a year ago – is also not surprising, Dr. Ahmad said.

“Even though we seem to have turned a corner in the United States and the worst of the pandemic is behind us, the surge that went from roughly November through March of this year was more wide-reaching geographically than previous waves, and I think this made the severity of the virus far more real to people who lived in communities that had been spared severe outbreaks during the surges that we saw in the spring and summer of 2020,” Dr. Ahmad told this news organization.

“There’s also heightened concern over variants and the efficacy of the vaccine in treating these variants. Those who have families in other countries where the virus is surging, such as India or parts of Latin America, are likely experiencing additional stress and anxiety too,” he noted.

While the new APA poll findings are not surprising, they still are “deeply concerning,” Dr. Ahmad said.

“Resiliency is a finite resource, and people can only take so much stress before their mental health begins to suffer. For most people, this is not going to lead to some kind of overdramatic nervous breakdown. Instead, one may notice that they are more irritable than they once were, that they’re not sleeping particularly well, or that they have a nagging sense of discomfort and stress when doing activities that they used to think of as normal,” like taking a trip to the grocery store, meeting up with friends, or going to work, Dr. Ahmad said.

“Overcoming this kind of anxiety and reacclimating ourselves to social situations is going to take more time for some people than others, and that is perfectly natural,” said Dr. Ahmad, founder of the Integrative Center for Wellness in New York.

“I don’t think it’s wise to try to put a limit on what constitutes a normal amount of time to readjust, and I think everyone in the field of mental health needs to avoid pathologizing any lingering sense of unease. No one needs to be medicated or diagnosed with a mental illness because they are nervous about going into public spaces in the immediate aftermath of a pandemic. We need to show a lot of patience and encourage people to readjust at their own pace for the foreseeable future,” Dr. Ahmad said.

Dr. Geller and Dr. Ahmad have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.

“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.

In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.

A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.

“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.

The company expects Kloxxado to available in the second half of 2021.

The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.

“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.

In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.

A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.

“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.

The company expects Kloxxado to available in the second half of 2021.

The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.

“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.

In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.

A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.

“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.

The company expects Kloxxado to available in the second half of 2021.

The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

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

Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.

LPETTET/Getty Images

At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.

Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
 

The many forms of medical cannabis

Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.

The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.

Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.

Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.

Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
 

Promising treatment for pain

Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.

“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”

In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.

The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance. Data indicate that patients with chronic pain who undergo treatment with medical cannabis can reduce their intake of opioids by more than 60%.

Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.

“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.

Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.

“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.

In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.

“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
 

A mixed bag for neurologic indications

There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”

These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.

Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.

Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”

Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).

NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.

Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
 

Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders

Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.

The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”

Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.

Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.

The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.

Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.

Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.

“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”

Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.

“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.

She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.

When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
 

The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine

That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.

“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.

Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.

Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.

Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.

“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.

In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.

Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.

“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”

Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.

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

Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.

LPETTET/Getty Images

At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.

Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
 

The many forms of medical cannabis

Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.

The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.

Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.

Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.

Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
 

Promising treatment for pain

Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.

“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”

In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.

The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance. Data indicate that patients with chronic pain who undergo treatment with medical cannabis can reduce their intake of opioids by more than 60%.

Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.

“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.

Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.

“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.

In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.

“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
 

A mixed bag for neurologic indications

There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”

These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.

Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.

Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”

Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).

NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.

Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
 

Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders

Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.

The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”

Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.

Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.

The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.

Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.

Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.

“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”

Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.

“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.

She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.

When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
 

The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine

That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.

“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.

Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.

Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.

Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.

“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.

In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.

Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.

“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”

Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.

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

Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.

LPETTET/Getty Images

At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.

Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
 

The many forms of medical cannabis

Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.

The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.

Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.

Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.

Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
 

Promising treatment for pain

Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.

“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”

In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.

The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance. Data indicate that patients with chronic pain who undergo treatment with medical cannabis can reduce their intake of opioids by more than 60%.

Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.

“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.

Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.

“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.

In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.

“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
 

A mixed bag for neurologic indications

There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”

These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.

Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.

Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”

Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).

NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.

Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
 

Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders

Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.

The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”

Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.

Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.

The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.

Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.

Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.

“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”

Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.

“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.

She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.

When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
 

The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine

That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.

“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.

Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.

Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.

Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.

“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.

In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.

Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.

“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”

Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.

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

Cigarette smoking is common among patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety disorders,^1-3 substance use disorders (SUDs),⁴ and other psychiatric disorders. Research suggests that compared with the general population, patients with SUDs consume more nicotine products and are more vulnerable to the effects of smoking.⁵ Despite the availability of effective treatments, many mental health professionals are reluctant to identify and treat tobacco use disorder,^6-8 or they prioritize other disorders over tobacco use. Early detection and treatment of tobacco use disorder can improve patients’ health and reduce the incidence of acute and chronic illness.

Cotinine is a biomarker that can be used to detect tobacco use. It can be measured in routine clinical practice by collecting urinary, serum, or salivary specimens, and used to monitor psychiatric patients’ tobacco use. Monitoring cotinine levels is similar to using other biomarkers to assess medication adherence or identify illicit substance use. A growing body of evidence supports the utility of cotinine screening as a part of a comprehensive substance use disorder treatment plan,^5,9,10 especially for:

• patients who have comorbid conditions that can be exacerbated by tobacco use, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• patients who are pregnant^11,12
• patients who are less reliable in self-report or who require objective testing for validation.

Routine clinical screening of tobacco use is recommended for all patients and early detection may facilitate earlier treatment. Several FDA-approved medications are available for smoking cessation¹³; however, discussion of treatment options is beyond the scope of this review. In this article, we describe how cotinine is measured and analyzed, 3 case vignettes that illustrate its potential clinical utility, and limitations to its use as a biomarker of tobacco use.

Methods of measuring cotinine

Cigarette smoking is associated with the absorption of nicotine, which is mainly metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2A6 to 6 primary metabolites: cotinine, hydroxycotinine, norcotinine, nornicotine, cotinine oxide, and nicotine oxide.^14,15 Cotinine is the biomarker of choice for detecting use of tobacco/nicotine products due to its stability (it is not influenced by dietary or environmental factors), extended half-life (16 to 19 hours, compared with 2 hours for nicotine), and stable concentration throughout the day. Samples from saliva, urine, or blood can be analyzed through radioimmunoassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and gas/liquid chromatography.¹⁶ The specificity of cotinine for tobacco use is excellent, except for persons who are taking medications that contain nicotine.¹⁷

An advantage of cotinine over other biomarkers for smoking (such as carbon monoxide in expired air) is that the optimal cut-off points for cotinine are relatively uninfluenced by the prevalence of smoking in the population. The optimal cut-off levels used to detect current tobacco use may vary based on the sample or test used (saliva, urine, or plasma) and certain patient-specific factors (Box 1^11,16,18-21). However, for plasma or saliva cotinine, 16 ng/mL is the generally accepted cut-off level for detecting current tobacco use. A urinary cotinine cut-off level of 50 ng/mL is likely appropriate for most circumstances.¹⁷ Users of electronic nicotine delivery systems (electronic cigarettes) have been found to have cotinine levels similar to those of cigarette smokers.²²

Box 1

Assessment of cotinine levels in saliva may be considered for outpatient monitoring due to its noninvasive nature, tolerability, and the ability to collect multiple samples over a limited period.²³ Saliva cotinine levels correlate closely with blood concentrations. Urine cotinine levels offer some advantage because concentrations are 6 times higher in urine than in blood or saliva. For this reason, urine cotinine is the most widely used biomarker in individuals who use tobacco due to its high sensitivity, specificity, reliability, and noninvasive collection.²³ By using a lower urinary cut-off of ≥2.47 ng/mL, ELISA kits detect the highest sensitivity and specificity, which is useful for monitoring daily tobacco use.²⁴ This cut-off value was associated with 100% sensitivity and specificity, and these numbers declined with increases in the cut-off threshold.²³

Impact of cigarette smoking

The following 3 clinical vignettes illustrate the impact of tobacco use disorder on patients, and how cotinine might help with their treatment.

Continue to: Vignette 1

Mr. D, age 44, has a history of schizophrenia and has smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for the last 15 years. He was recently discharged from an inpatient psychiatric facility after his symptoms were stabilized. During his hospitalization, Mr. D used a nicotine-replacement product to comply with the hospital’s smoke-free policy. Unfortunately, since discharge, Mr. D reports worsening auditory hallucinations despite adherence with his antipsychotic medication, clozapine, 600 mg at bedtime. Collateral information gathered from Mr. D’s mother confirms that he has been adherent with the discharge medication regimen; however, Mr. D has resumed smoking 1 pack of cigarettes daily. The treatment team suspects that his worsening psychosis is related to the decrease of blood clozapine level due to CYP induction by cigarette smoke.

Cotinine and smoking-related drug interactions

Vignette 1 illustrates the significant impact tobacco smoke can have on the effectiveness of a psychotropic medication. This is caused by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons induction of hepatic CYP1A2 isoenzymes. Clinicians should routinely screen patients for smoking status due to the potential for drug interactions. Common major CYP1A2 substrates include clozapine, olanzapine, duloxetine, and mirtazapine. Common minor CYP1A2 substrates include asenapine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, perphenazine, ziprasidone, and zolpidem.²⁵ This case also highlights the potential advantage of collecting collateral information, and the utility of objective laboratory testing (such as cotinine monitoring) for optimal treatment because patient self-report can be unreliable and incomplete.^12,26

Vignette 2

Mr. B, age 34, has a history of cocaine use disorder and tobacco use disorder. He is referred to a treatment program and participates in a contingency management program for his substance use disorders. Biomarkers, including salivary cotinine, are used to assess Mr. B’s exposure to tobacco use. Mr. B and other participants in his program are eligible for prize draws if they are found to have samples that are negative for tobacco and other substances. There are other incentives in place for patients who show a reduced cotinine concentration.

Cotinine monitoring and contingency management

Clinicians can incorporate cotinine monitoring into existing SUD treatment. This is similar to the utilization of other biomarkers that are commonly used to identify recent illicit substance use or monitor adherence to treatment medications. For example, benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, is frequently used to monitor abstinence from cocaine.²⁷ In addition, buprenorphine metabolites are used to monitor medication adherence and the possibility of diversion among patients being treated for opioid use disorder.²⁸ Smoking cessation may be associated with a decreased risk of relapse to illicit substances.²⁹

Treatments based on contingency management principles involve giving patients tangible rewards to reinforce desired (positive) behaviors. Smoking cessation can be confirmed by monitoring cotinine levels. Gayman et al⁹ found twice-weekly salivary testing was compatible with monitoring and promoting abstinence in a prize-based contingency management smoking cessation program. Most prior studies used urine cotinine measures to verify abstinence. Although highly reliable, urine samples require close monitoring to ensure sample validity, which can be a burden on staff and unpleasant for patients.⁹ It is also important to note that the rate of elimination of cotinine from saliva and urine are comparable. The half-life of cotinine is approximately 18 hours, and therefore the specificity of salivary test strips may be impacted during the first 4 to 5 days of abstinence. In the first few days of smoking cessation, a more intensive approach, such as quantifying urine cotinine levels and monitoring decline, may be appropriate.²³

Continue to: Vignette 3

Vignette 3

Ms. C, age 34 and pregnant, is admitted to an outpatient treatment program for alcohol use disorder. She also has generalized anxiety disorder and tobacco use disorder. In addition to attending group therapy sessions and self-reporting any recent alcohol consumption, Ms. C also undergoes alcohol breathalyzer tests and urine studies of alcohol metabolites to monitor abstinence from alcohol. She says that the regular laboratory screening for alcohol use gives her a sense of accountability and tangible evidence of change that positively impacts her treatment. When the treating psychiatrist recommends that Ms. C also consider addressing her tobacco use disorder, she asks if there is some way to include laboratory testing to monitor her smoking cessation.

Cotinine as a predictor of smoking status

Smoking abstinence rates during pregnancy are lower than that for other substances, and pregnant women may not be aware of the impact of smoking on fetal development.³⁰ Cotinine can be used to verify self-report of smoking status and severity.^10,31,32

Salivary cotinine tests are commercially available, relatively economical, and convenient to use when frequent monitoring is required.³² In general, based on established cut-off values that are unique to the specimen collected, the overall high specificity and sensitivity of salivary testing allows clinicians to predict smoker vs nonsmoker status with confidence. For example, a 2008 study reported a salivary cotinine cut-off level of 12 ng/mL for smokers.²¹ The sensitivity and specificity of this cut-off value for distinguishing cigarette smokers from never smokers were 96.7% and 96.9%, respectively.²¹

Additionally, some studies suggest that cotinine levels may be predictive of treatment outcomes and retention in SUD treatment programs.^33,34 One study of smoking cessation using nicotine replacement products found that compared with patients with lower baseline cotinine levels prior to treatment, patients with higher baseline cotinine plasma levels had lower smoking cessation success rates.³⁴

A few caveats

There are several limitations to quantitative measures of cotinine (Box 2^21,23). These include (but are not limited to) potential errors related to sample collection, storage, shipping, and analysis.²³ Compared with other methods, point-of-care cotinine measurement in saliva is noninvasive, simple, and requires less training to properly use.²³

Box 2

Continue to: Confirmation of smoking cessation...

Confirmation of smoking cessation can be monitored reliably within the clinical setting using cotinine monitoring. However, this is not a routine test, and there are no guidelines or consensus on how or when it should be used. The clinical feasibility of cotinine monitoring for psychiatric patients will depend on the cost of testing, methods used, amount of reimbursement for performing the tests, and how clinicians value such testing.³⁵

Bottom Line

Cotinine is a biomarker that can be used to detect tobacco use. Cotinine measurement can be used to monitor tobacco use and smoking cessation in psychiatric patients. Early detection and treatment of tobacco use disorder can improve patients’ health and reduce the incidence of acute and chronic illnesses. However, cotinine measurement is not a routine test, and there are no guidelines on how or when this test should be used.

Related Resources

• Peckham E, Brabyn S, Cook L, et al. Smoking cessation in severe mental ill health: what works? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):252.
• Tidey JW, Miller ME. Smoking cessation and reduction in people with chronic mental illness. BMJ. 2015;351:h4065. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4065

Drug Brand Names

Asenapine • Saphris
Buprenorphine • Sublocade
Clozapine • Clozaril
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Haloperidol • Haldol
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Ziprasidone • Geodon
Zolpidem • Ambien

Cigarette smoking is common among patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety disorders,^1-3 substance use disorders (SUDs),⁴ and other psychiatric disorders. Research suggests that compared with the general population, patients with SUDs consume more nicotine products and are more vulnerable to the effects of smoking.⁵ Despite the availability of effective treatments, many mental health professionals are reluctant to identify and treat tobacco use disorder,^6-8 or they prioritize other disorders over tobacco use. Early detection and treatment of tobacco use disorder can improve patients’ health and reduce the incidence of acute and chronic illness.

Cotinine is a biomarker that can be used to detect tobacco use. It can be measured in routine clinical practice by collecting urinary, serum, or salivary specimens, and used to monitor psychiatric patients’ tobacco use. Monitoring cotinine levels is similar to using other biomarkers to assess medication adherence or identify illicit substance use. A growing body of evidence supports the utility of cotinine screening as a part of a comprehensive substance use disorder treatment plan,^5,9,10 especially for:

• patients who have comorbid conditions that can be exacerbated by tobacco use, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• patients who are pregnant^11,12
• patients who are less reliable in self-report or who require objective testing for validation.

Routine clinical screening of tobacco use is recommended for all patients and early detection may facilitate earlier treatment. Several FDA-approved medications are available for smoking cessation¹³; however, discussion of treatment options is beyond the scope of this review. In this article, we describe how cotinine is measured and analyzed, 3 case vignettes that illustrate its potential clinical utility, and limitations to its use as a biomarker of tobacco use.

Methods of measuring cotinine

Cigarette smoking is associated with the absorption of nicotine, which is mainly metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2A6 to 6 primary metabolites: cotinine, hydroxycotinine, norcotinine, nornicotine, cotinine oxide, and nicotine oxide.^14,15 Cotinine is the biomarker of choice for detecting use of tobacco/nicotine products due to its stability (it is not influenced by dietary or environmental factors), extended half-life (16 to 19 hours, compared with 2 hours for nicotine), and stable concentration throughout the day. Samples from saliva, urine, or blood can be analyzed through radioimmunoassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and gas/liquid chromatography.¹⁶ The specificity of cotinine for tobacco use is excellent, except for persons who are taking medications that contain nicotine.¹⁷

An advantage of cotinine over other biomarkers for smoking (such as carbon monoxide in expired air) is that the optimal cut-off points for cotinine are relatively uninfluenced by the prevalence of smoking in the population. The optimal cut-off levels used to detect current tobacco use may vary based on the sample or test used (saliva, urine, or plasma) and certain patient-specific factors (Box 1^11,16,18-21). However, for plasma or saliva cotinine, 16 ng/mL is the generally accepted cut-off level for detecting current tobacco use. A urinary cotinine cut-off level of 50 ng/mL is likely appropriate for most circumstances.¹⁷ Users of electronic nicotine delivery systems (electronic cigarettes) have been found to have cotinine levels similar to those of cigarette smokers.²²

Box 1

Assessment of cotinine levels in saliva may be considered for outpatient monitoring due to its noninvasive nature, tolerability, and the ability to collect multiple samples over a limited period.²³ Saliva cotinine levels correlate closely with blood concentrations. Urine cotinine levels offer some advantage because concentrations are 6 times higher in urine than in blood or saliva. For this reason, urine cotinine is the most widely used biomarker in individuals who use tobacco due to its high sensitivity, specificity, reliability, and noninvasive collection.²³ By using a lower urinary cut-off of ≥2.47 ng/mL, ELISA kits detect the highest sensitivity and specificity, which is useful for monitoring daily tobacco use.²⁴ This cut-off value was associated with 100% sensitivity and specificity, and these numbers declined with increases in the cut-off threshold.²³

Impact of cigarette smoking

The following 3 clinical vignettes illustrate the impact of tobacco use disorder on patients, and how cotinine might help with their treatment.

Continue to: Vignette 1

Mr. D, age 44, has a history of schizophrenia and has smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for the last 15 years. He was recently discharged from an inpatient psychiatric facility after his symptoms were stabilized. During his hospitalization, Mr. D used a nicotine-replacement product to comply with the hospital’s smoke-free policy. Unfortunately, since discharge, Mr. D reports worsening auditory hallucinations despite adherence with his antipsychotic medication, clozapine, 600 mg at bedtime. Collateral information gathered from Mr. D’s mother confirms that he has been adherent with the discharge medication regimen; however, Mr. D has resumed smoking 1 pack of cigarettes daily. The treatment team suspects that his worsening psychosis is related to the decrease of blood clozapine level due to CYP induction by cigarette smoke.

Cotinine and smoking-related drug interactions

Vignette 1 illustrates the significant impact tobacco smoke can have on the effectiveness of a psychotropic medication. This is caused by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons induction of hepatic CYP1A2 isoenzymes. Clinicians should routinely screen patients for smoking status due to the potential for drug interactions. Common major CYP1A2 substrates include clozapine, olanzapine, duloxetine, and mirtazapine. Common minor CYP1A2 substrates include asenapine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, perphenazine, ziprasidone, and zolpidem.²⁵ This case also highlights the potential advantage of collecting collateral information, and the utility of objective laboratory testing (such as cotinine monitoring) for optimal treatment because patient self-report can be unreliable and incomplete.^12,26

Vignette 2

Mr. B, age 34, has a history of cocaine use disorder and tobacco use disorder. He is referred to a treatment program and participates in a contingency management program for his substance use disorders. Biomarkers, including salivary cotinine, are used to assess Mr. B’s exposure to tobacco use. Mr. B and other participants in his program are eligible for prize draws if they are found to have samples that are negative for tobacco and other substances. There are other incentives in place for patients who show a reduced cotinine concentration.

Cotinine monitoring and contingency management

Clinicians can incorporate cotinine monitoring into existing SUD treatment. This is similar to the utilization of other biomarkers that are commonly used to identify recent illicit substance use or monitor adherence to treatment medications. For example, benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, is frequently used to monitor abstinence from cocaine.²⁷ In addition, buprenorphine metabolites are used to monitor medication adherence and the possibility of diversion among patients being treated for opioid use disorder.²⁸ Smoking cessation may be associated with a decreased risk of relapse to illicit substances.²⁹

Treatments based on contingency management principles involve giving patients tangible rewards to reinforce desired (positive) behaviors. Smoking cessation can be confirmed by monitoring cotinine levels. Gayman et al⁹ found twice-weekly salivary testing was compatible with monitoring and promoting abstinence in a prize-based contingency management smoking cessation program. Most prior studies used urine cotinine measures to verify abstinence. Although highly reliable, urine samples require close monitoring to ensure sample validity, which can be a burden on staff and unpleasant for patients.⁹ It is also important to note that the rate of elimination of cotinine from saliva and urine are comparable. The half-life of cotinine is approximately 18 hours, and therefore the specificity of salivary test strips may be impacted during the first 4 to 5 days of abstinence. In the first few days of smoking cessation, a more intensive approach, such as quantifying urine cotinine levels and monitoring decline, may be appropriate.²³

Continue to: Vignette 3

Vignette 3

Ms. C, age 34 and pregnant, is admitted to an outpatient treatment program for alcohol use disorder. She also has generalized anxiety disorder and tobacco use disorder. In addition to attending group therapy sessions and self-reporting any recent alcohol consumption, Ms. C also undergoes alcohol breathalyzer tests and urine studies of alcohol metabolites to monitor abstinence from alcohol. She says that the regular laboratory screening for alcohol use gives her a sense of accountability and tangible evidence of change that positively impacts her treatment. When the treating psychiatrist recommends that Ms. C also consider addressing her tobacco use disorder, she asks if there is some way to include laboratory testing to monitor her smoking cessation.

Cotinine as a predictor of smoking status

Smoking abstinence rates during pregnancy are lower than that for other substances, and pregnant women may not be aware of the impact of smoking on fetal development.³⁰ Cotinine can be used to verify self-report of smoking status and severity.^10,31,32

Salivary cotinine tests are commercially available, relatively economical, and convenient to use when frequent monitoring is required.³² In general, based on established cut-off values that are unique to the specimen collected, the overall high specificity and sensitivity of salivary testing allows clinicians to predict smoker vs nonsmoker status with confidence. For example, a 2008 study reported a salivary cotinine cut-off level of 12 ng/mL for smokers.²¹ The sensitivity and specificity of this cut-off value for distinguishing cigarette smokers from never smokers were 96.7% and 96.9%, respectively.²¹

Additionally, some studies suggest that cotinine levels may be predictive of treatment outcomes and retention in SUD treatment programs.^33,34 One study of smoking cessation using nicotine replacement products found that compared with patients with lower baseline cotinine levels prior to treatment, patients with higher baseline cotinine plasma levels had lower smoking cessation success rates.³⁴

A few caveats

There are several limitations to quantitative measures of cotinine (Box 2^21,23). These include (but are not limited to) potential errors related to sample collection, storage, shipping, and analysis.²³ Compared with other methods, point-of-care cotinine measurement in saliva is noninvasive, simple, and requires less training to properly use.²³

Box 2

Continue to: Confirmation of smoking cessation...

Confirmation of smoking cessation can be monitored reliably within the clinical setting using cotinine monitoring. However, this is not a routine test, and there are no guidelines or consensus on how or when it should be used. The clinical feasibility of cotinine monitoring for psychiatric patients will depend on the cost of testing, methods used, amount of reimbursement for performing the tests, and how clinicians value such testing.³⁵

Bottom Line

Cotinine is a biomarker that can be used to detect tobacco use. Cotinine measurement can be used to monitor tobacco use and smoking cessation in psychiatric patients. Early detection and treatment of tobacco use disorder can improve patients’ health and reduce the incidence of acute and chronic illnesses. However, cotinine measurement is not a routine test, and there are no guidelines on how or when this test should be used.

Related Resources

• Peckham E, Brabyn S, Cook L, et al. Smoking cessation in severe mental ill health: what works? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):252.
• Tidey JW, Miller ME. Smoking cessation and reduction in people with chronic mental illness. BMJ. 2015;351:h4065. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4065

Drug Brand Names

Asenapine • Saphris
Buprenorphine • Sublocade
Clozapine • Clozaril
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Haloperidol • Haldol
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Ziprasidone • Geodon
Zolpidem • Ambien

Cigarette smoking is common among patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety disorders,^1-3 substance use disorders (SUDs),⁴ and other psychiatric disorders. Research suggests that compared with the general population, patients with SUDs consume more nicotine products and are more vulnerable to the effects of smoking.⁵ Despite the availability of effective treatments, many mental health professionals are reluctant to identify and treat tobacco use disorder,^6-8 or they prioritize other disorders over tobacco use. Early detection and treatment of tobacco use disorder can improve patients’ health and reduce the incidence of acute and chronic illness.

Cotinine is a biomarker that can be used to detect tobacco use. It can be measured in routine clinical practice by collecting urinary, serum, or salivary specimens, and used to monitor psychiatric patients’ tobacco use. Monitoring cotinine levels is similar to using other biomarkers to assess medication adherence or identify illicit substance use. A growing body of evidence supports the utility of cotinine screening as a part of a comprehensive substance use disorder treatment plan,^5,9,10 especially for:

• patients who have comorbid conditions that can be exacerbated by tobacco use, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• patients who are pregnant^11,12
• patients who are less reliable in self-report or who require objective testing for validation.

Routine clinical screening of tobacco use is recommended for all patients and early detection may facilitate earlier treatment. Several FDA-approved medications are available for smoking cessation¹³; however, discussion of treatment options is beyond the scope of this review. In this article, we describe how cotinine is measured and analyzed, 3 case vignettes that illustrate its potential clinical utility, and limitations to its use as a biomarker of tobacco use.

Methods of measuring cotinine

Cigarette smoking is associated with the absorption of nicotine, which is mainly metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2A6 to 6 primary metabolites: cotinine, hydroxycotinine, norcotinine, nornicotine, cotinine oxide, and nicotine oxide.^14,15 Cotinine is the biomarker of choice for detecting use of tobacco/nicotine products due to its stability (it is not influenced by dietary or environmental factors), extended half-life (16 to 19 hours, compared with 2 hours for nicotine), and stable concentration throughout the day. Samples from saliva, urine, or blood can be analyzed through radioimmunoassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and gas/liquid chromatography.¹⁶ The specificity of cotinine for tobacco use is excellent, except for persons who are taking medications that contain nicotine.¹⁷

An advantage of cotinine over other biomarkers for smoking (such as carbon monoxide in expired air) is that the optimal cut-off points for cotinine are relatively uninfluenced by the prevalence of smoking in the population. The optimal cut-off levels used to detect current tobacco use may vary based on the sample or test used (saliva, urine, or plasma) and certain patient-specific factors (Box 1^11,16,18-21). However, for plasma or saliva cotinine, 16 ng/mL is the generally accepted cut-off level for detecting current tobacco use. A urinary cotinine cut-off level of 50 ng/mL is likely appropriate for most circumstances.¹⁷ Users of electronic nicotine delivery systems (electronic cigarettes) have been found to have cotinine levels similar to those of cigarette smokers.²²

Box 1

Assessment of cotinine levels in saliva may be considered for outpatient monitoring due to its noninvasive nature, tolerability, and the ability to collect multiple samples over a limited period.²³ Saliva cotinine levels correlate closely with blood concentrations. Urine cotinine levels offer some advantage because concentrations are 6 times higher in urine than in blood or saliva. For this reason, urine cotinine is the most widely used biomarker in individuals who use tobacco due to its high sensitivity, specificity, reliability, and noninvasive collection.²³ By using a lower urinary cut-off of ≥2.47 ng/mL, ELISA kits detect the highest sensitivity and specificity, which is useful for monitoring daily tobacco use.²⁴ This cut-off value was associated with 100% sensitivity and specificity, and these numbers declined with increases in the cut-off threshold.²³

Impact of cigarette smoking

The following 3 clinical vignettes illustrate the impact of tobacco use disorder on patients, and how cotinine might help with their treatment.

Continue to: Vignette 1

Mr. D, age 44, has a history of schizophrenia and has smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for the last 15 years. He was recently discharged from an inpatient psychiatric facility after his symptoms were stabilized. During his hospitalization, Mr. D used a nicotine-replacement product to comply with the hospital’s smoke-free policy. Unfortunately, since discharge, Mr. D reports worsening auditory hallucinations despite adherence with his antipsychotic medication, clozapine, 600 mg at bedtime. Collateral information gathered from Mr. D’s mother confirms that he has been adherent with the discharge medication regimen; however, Mr. D has resumed smoking 1 pack of cigarettes daily. The treatment team suspects that his worsening psychosis is related to the decrease of blood clozapine level due to CYP induction by cigarette smoke.

Cotinine and smoking-related drug interactions

Vignette 1 illustrates the significant impact tobacco smoke can have on the effectiveness of a psychotropic medication. This is caused by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons induction of hepatic CYP1A2 isoenzymes. Clinicians should routinely screen patients for smoking status due to the potential for drug interactions. Common major CYP1A2 substrates include clozapine, olanzapine, duloxetine, and mirtazapine. Common minor CYP1A2 substrates include asenapine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, perphenazine, ziprasidone, and zolpidem.²⁵ This case also highlights the potential advantage of collecting collateral information, and the utility of objective laboratory testing (such as cotinine monitoring) for optimal treatment because patient self-report can be unreliable and incomplete.^12,26

Vignette 2

Mr. B, age 34, has a history of cocaine use disorder and tobacco use disorder. He is referred to a treatment program and participates in a contingency management program for his substance use disorders. Biomarkers, including salivary cotinine, are used to assess Mr. B’s exposure to tobacco use. Mr. B and other participants in his program are eligible for prize draws if they are found to have samples that are negative for tobacco and other substances. There are other incentives in place for patients who show a reduced cotinine concentration.

Cotinine monitoring and contingency management

Clinicians can incorporate cotinine monitoring into existing SUD treatment. This is similar to the utilization of other biomarkers that are commonly used to identify recent illicit substance use or monitor adherence to treatment medications. For example, benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, is frequently used to monitor abstinence from cocaine.²⁷ In addition, buprenorphine metabolites are used to monitor medication adherence and the possibility of diversion among patients being treated for opioid use disorder.²⁸ Smoking cessation may be associated with a decreased risk of relapse to illicit substances.²⁹

Treatments based on contingency management principles involve giving patients tangible rewards to reinforce desired (positive) behaviors. Smoking cessation can be confirmed by monitoring cotinine levels. Gayman et al⁹ found twice-weekly salivary testing was compatible with monitoring and promoting abstinence in a prize-based contingency management smoking cessation program. Most prior studies used urine cotinine measures to verify abstinence. Although highly reliable, urine samples require close monitoring to ensure sample validity, which can be a burden on staff and unpleasant for patients.⁹ It is also important to note that the rate of elimination of cotinine from saliva and urine are comparable. The half-life of cotinine is approximately 18 hours, and therefore the specificity of salivary test strips may be impacted during the first 4 to 5 days of abstinence. In the first few days of smoking cessation, a more intensive approach, such as quantifying urine cotinine levels and monitoring decline, may be appropriate.²³

Continue to: Vignette 3

Vignette 3

Ms. C, age 34 and pregnant, is admitted to an outpatient treatment program for alcohol use disorder. She also has generalized anxiety disorder and tobacco use disorder. In addition to attending group therapy sessions and self-reporting any recent alcohol consumption, Ms. C also undergoes alcohol breathalyzer tests and urine studies of alcohol metabolites to monitor abstinence from alcohol. She says that the regular laboratory screening for alcohol use gives her a sense of accountability and tangible evidence of change that positively impacts her treatment. When the treating psychiatrist recommends that Ms. C also consider addressing her tobacco use disorder, she asks if there is some way to include laboratory testing to monitor her smoking cessation.

Cotinine as a predictor of smoking status

Smoking abstinence rates during pregnancy are lower than that for other substances, and pregnant women may not be aware of the impact of smoking on fetal development.³⁰ Cotinine can be used to verify self-report of smoking status and severity.^10,31,32

Salivary cotinine tests are commercially available, relatively economical, and convenient to use when frequent monitoring is required.³² In general, based on established cut-off values that are unique to the specimen collected, the overall high specificity and sensitivity of salivary testing allows clinicians to predict smoker vs nonsmoker status with confidence. For example, a 2008 study reported a salivary cotinine cut-off level of 12 ng/mL for smokers.²¹ The sensitivity and specificity of this cut-off value for distinguishing cigarette smokers from never smokers were 96.7% and 96.9%, respectively.²¹

Additionally, some studies suggest that cotinine levels may be predictive of treatment outcomes and retention in SUD treatment programs.^33,34 One study of smoking cessation using nicotine replacement products found that compared with patients with lower baseline cotinine levels prior to treatment, patients with higher baseline cotinine plasma levels had lower smoking cessation success rates.³⁴

A few caveats

There are several limitations to quantitative measures of cotinine (Box 2^21,23). These include (but are not limited to) potential errors related to sample collection, storage, shipping, and analysis.²³ Compared with other methods, point-of-care cotinine measurement in saliva is noninvasive, simple, and requires less training to properly use.²³

Box 2

Continue to: Confirmation of smoking cessation...

Confirmation of smoking cessation can be monitored reliably within the clinical setting using cotinine monitoring. However, this is not a routine test, and there are no guidelines or consensus on how or when it should be used. The clinical feasibility of cotinine monitoring for psychiatric patients will depend on the cost of testing, methods used, amount of reimbursement for performing the tests, and how clinicians value such testing.³⁵

Bottom Line

Cotinine is a biomarker that can be used to detect tobacco use. Cotinine measurement can be used to monitor tobacco use and smoking cessation in psychiatric patients. Early detection and treatment of tobacco use disorder can improve patients’ health and reduce the incidence of acute and chronic illnesses. However, cotinine measurement is not a routine test, and there are no guidelines on how or when this test should be used.

Related Resources

• Peckham E, Brabyn S, Cook L, et al. Smoking cessation in severe mental ill health: what works? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):252.
• Tidey JW, Miller ME. Smoking cessation and reduction in people with chronic mental illness. BMJ. 2015;351:h4065. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4065

Drug Brand Names

Asenapine • Saphris
Buprenorphine • Sublocade
Clozapine • Clozaril
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Haloperidol • Haldol
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Ziprasidone • Geodon
Zolpidem • Ambien

Against the backdrop of an increasing opioid use epidemic and a marked acceleration of prescription opioid–related deaths,^1,2 there has been an impetus to explore the usefulness of alternative and co-analgesic agents to assist patients with chronic pain. Preclinical studies employing animal-based models of human pain syndromes have demonstrated that cannabis and chemicals derived from cannabis extracts may mitigate several pain conditions.³

Because there are significant comorbidities between psychiatric disorders and chronic pain, psychiatrists are likely to care for patients with chronic pain. As the availability of and interest in cannabinoid-based medications (CBM) increases, psychiatrists will need to be apprised of the utility, adverse effects, and potential drug interactions of these agents.

The endocannabinoid system and cannabis receptors

The endogenous cannabinoid (endocannabinoid) system is abundantly present within the peripheral and central nervous systems. The first identified, and best studied, endocannabinoids are N-arachidonoyl-ethanolamine (AEA; anandamide) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG).⁴ Unlike typical neurotransmitters, AEA and 2-AG are not stored within vesicles within presynaptic neuron axons. Instead, they are lipophilic molecules produced on demand, synthesized from phospholipids (ie, arachidonic acid derivatives) at the membranes of post-synaptic neurons, and released into the synapse directly.⁵

Acting as retrograde messengers, the endocannabinoids traverse the synapse, binding to receptors located on the axons of the presynaptic neuron. Two receptors—CB1 and CB2—have been most extensively studied and characterized.^6,7 These receptors couple to Gi/o-proteins to inhibit adenylate cyclase, decreasing Ca2+ conductance and increasing K+ conductance.⁸ Once activated, cannabinoid receptors modulate neurotransmitter release from presynaptic axon terminals. Evidence points to a similar retrograde signaling between neurons and glial cells. Shortly after receptor activation, the endocannabinoids are deactivated by the actions of a transporter mechanism and enzyme degradation.^9,10

The endocannabinoid system and pain transmission

Cannabinoid receptors are present in pain transmission circuits spanning from the peripheral sensory nerve endings (from which pain signals originate) to the spinal cord and supraspinal regions within the brain.^11-14 CB1 receptors are abundantly present within the CNS, including regions involved in pain transmission. Binding to CB1 receptors, endocannabinoids modulate neurotransmission that impacts pain transmission centrally. Endocannabinoids can also indirectly modulate opiate and N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors involved in pain relay and transmission.¹⁵

By contrast, CB2 receptors are predominantly localized to peripheral tissues and immune cells, although there has been some discovery of their presence within the CNS (eg, on microglia). Endocannabinoid activation of CB2 receptors is thought to modulate the activity of peripheral afferent pain fibers and immune-mediated neuro­inflammatory processes—such as inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis and mast cell degranulation—that can precipitate and maintain chronic pain states.^16-18

Evidence garnered from preclinical (animal) studies points to the role of the endocannabinoid system in modulating normal pain transmission (see Manzanares et al³ for details). These studies offer a putative basis for understanding how exogenous cannabinoid congeners might serve to ameliorate pain transmission in pathophysiologic states, including chronic pain.

Continue to: Cannabinoid-based medications

Marijuana contains multiple components (cannabinoids). The most extensively studied are delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Because it predominantly binds CB1 receptors centrally, THC is the major psychoactive component of cannabis; it promotes sleep and appetite, influences anxiety, and produces the “high” associated with cannabis use. By contrast, CBD weakly binds CB1 and thus exerts minimal or no psycho­active effects.¹⁹

Cannabinoid absorption, metabolism, bioavailability, and clinical effects vary depending on the formulation and method of administration (Table 1).^20-22 THC and CBD content and potency in inhaled cannabis can vary significantly depending on the strains of the cannabis plant and manner of cultivation.²³ To standardize approaches for administering cannabinoids in clinical trials and for clinical use, researchers have developed pharmaceutical analogs that contain extracted chemicals or synthetic chemicals similar to THC and/or CBD.

In this article, CBM refers to smoked/vaporized herbal cannabis as well as pharmaceutical cannabis analogs. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of CBM commonly used in studies investigating their use for managing pain conditions.

CBM for chronic pain

The literature base examining the role of CBM for managing chronic nonmalignant and malignant pain of varying etiologies is rapidly expanding. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have focused on inhaled/smoked products and related cannabinoid medications, some of which are FDA-approved (Table 2).

A multitude of other cannabinoid-based products are currently commercially available to consumers, including tincture and oil-based products; over-the-counter CBD products; and several other formulations of CBM (eg, edible and suppository products). Because such products are not standardized or quality-controlled,²⁴ RCTs have not assessed their efficacy for mitigating pain. Consequently, the findings summarized in this article do not address the utility of these agents.

Continue to: CBM for non-cancer pain

Neuropathic pain. Randomized controlled trials have assessed the pain-mitigating effects of various CBM, including inhaled cannabis, synthetic THC, plant-extracted CBD, and a THC/CBD spray. Studies have shown that inhaled/vaporized cannabis can produce short-term pain reduction in patients with chronic neuropathic pain of diverse etiologies, including diabetes mellitus-, HIV-, trauma-, and medication-induced neuropathies.^22,25,26 Similar beneficial effects have been observed with the use of cannabis analogues (eg, nabiximols).^25,26-29

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have determined that most of these RCTs were of low-to-moderate quality.^26,30 Meta-analyses have revealed divergent and conflicting results because of differences in the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select RCTs for analysis and differences in the standards with which the quality of evidence were determined.^25,30

Overall, the benefit of CBM for mitigating neuropathic pain is promising, but the effectiveness may not be robust.^30,31 Several noteworthy caveats limit the interpretation of the results of these RCTs:

• due to the small sample sizes and brief durations of study, questions remain regarding the extent to which effects are generalizable, whether the benefits are sustained, and whether adverse effects emerge over time with continued use
• most RCTs evaluated inhaled (herbal) cannabis and nabiximols; there is little data on the effectiveness of other CBM formulations^25,26,30
• the pain-mitigating effects of CBM were usually compared with those of placebo; the comparative efficacy against agents commonly used to treat neuropathic pain remains largely unexamined 

• these RCTs typically compared mean pain severity score differences between cannabis-treated and placebo groups using standard subjective rating scales of pain intensity, such as the Numerical Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale. Customarily, the pain literature has used a 30% or 50% reduction in pain severity from baseline as an indicator of significant clinical improvement.^32,33 The RCTs of CBM for neuropathic pain rarely used this standard, which makes it unclear whether CBM results in clinically significant pain reductions³⁰
• indirect measures of effectiveness (ie, whether using CBM reduces the need for opioids or other analgesics to manage pain) were seldom reported in these RCTs.

Due to these limitations, clinical guidelines and systematic reviews consider CBM as a third- or fourth-line therapy for patients experiencing chronic neuropathic pain for whom conventional agents such as anticonvulsants and antidepressants have failed.^34,35

Spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS). Several RCTs have assessed the use of CBM for MS-related spasticity, although few were deemed to be high quality. Nabiximols and synthetic THC were effective in managing spasticity and reducing pain severity associated with muscle spasms.³⁶ Generally, investigations revealed that CBM were associated with improvements in subjective measures of spasticity, but these were not born out in clinical, objective measures.^26,37 The efficacy of smoked cannabis was uncertain.³⁷ The existing literature on CBM for MS-related spasticity does not address dosing, duration of effects, tolerability, or comparative effectiveness against conventional anti-spasm medications.^36,37

Continue to: Other chronic pain conditions

Other chronic pain conditions. CBM have also been studied for their usefulness in several other noncancer chronic conditions, including Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, and other rheumatologic pain conditions.^22,31,38-40 However, a solid foundation of empirical work to inform their utility for managing pain in these conditions is lacking.

CBM for cancer pain

Anecdotal evidence suggests that inhaled cannabis has promising pain-mitigating effects in patients with advanced cancer.^41-43 There is a dearth of high-quality RCTs assessing the utility of CBM in patients with cancer pain.^43-45 The types of CBM used and dosing strategies varied across RCTs, which makes it difficult to infer how best to treat patients with cancer pain. The agents studied included nabiximols, THC spray, and synthetic THC capsules.^43-45 Although some studies have demonstrated that synthetic THC and nabiximols have potential for reducing subjective pain ratings compared with placebo,^46,47 these results were inconsistent.^46,48 Oromucosal nabiximols did not appear to confer any additional analgesic benefit in patients who were already prescribed opioids.^31,45

The benefit of CBM for mitigating cancer pain is promising, but it remains difficult to know how to position the use of CBM in managing cancer pain. Limitations in the cancer literature include:

• the RCTs addressing CBM use for cancer pain were often brief, which raises questions about the long-term effectiveness and adverse effects of these agents
• tolerability and dosing limits encountered due to adverse effects were seldom reported^43,45
• the types of cancer pain that patients had were often quite diverse. The small sample sizes and the heterogeneity of conditions included in these RCTs limit the ability to determine whether pain-mitigating effects might vary according to type of cancer-related pain.^31,45

Despite these limitations, some clinical guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that CBM have some role in addressing refractory malignant pain conditions.⁴⁹

Psychiatric considerations related to CBM

As of November 2020, 36 states had legalized the use of cannabis for medical purposes, typically for painful conditions, despite the fact that empirical evidence to support their efficacy is mixed.⁵⁰ In light of recent changes in both the legal and popular attitudes regarding cannabis, the implications of legalizing CBM remains to be seen. For example, some research suggests that adults with pain are vulnerable to frequent nonmedical cannabis use and/or cannabis use disorder.⁵¹ Although well-intended, the legalization of CBM use might represent society’s next misstep in the quest to address the suffering of patients with chronic pain. Some evidence shows that cannabis use and cannabis use disorders increase in states that have legalized medical marijuana.^52,53 Psychiatrists will be on the front lines of addressing any potential consequences arising from the use of CBM for treating pain.

Continue to: Psychiatric disorders and CBM

Psychiatric disorders and CBM. The psychological impact of CBM use among patients enduring chronic pain can include sedation, cognitive/attention disturbance, and fatigue. These adverse effects can limit the utility of such agents.^22,29,45

Contraindications for CBM use, and conditions for which CBM ought to be used with caution, are listed in Table 3^54,55.The safety of CBM, particularly in patients with chronic pain and psychiatric disorders, has not been examined. Patients with psychiatric disorders may be poor candidates for medical cannabis. Epidemiologic data suggest that recreational cannabis use is positively associated both cross-sectionally and prospectively with psychotic spectrum disorders, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms, including panic disorder.⁵⁶ Psychotic reactions have also been associated with CBM (dronabinol and nabilone).⁵⁷ Cannabis use also has been associated with an earlier onset of, and lower remission rates of, symptoms associated with bipolar disorder.^58,59 Consequently, patients who have been diagnosed with or are at risk for developing any of the aforementioned conditions may not be suitable candidates for CBM. If CBM are used, patients should be closely monitored for the emergence/exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms. The frequency and extent of follow-up is not clear, however. Because of its reduced propensity to produce psychoactive effects, CBD may be safer than THC for managing pain in individuals who have or are vulnerable to developing psychiatric disorders.

There is a lack of evidence to support the use of CBM for treating primary depressive disorders, general anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, or psychosis.^60,61 Very low-quality evidence suggests that CBM could lead to a small improvement in anxiety among individuals with noncancer pain and MS.⁶⁰ However, interpreting causality is complicated. It is plausible that, for some patients, subjective improvement in pain severity may be related to reduced anxiety.⁶² Conversely, it is equally plausible that reductions in emotional distress may reduce the propensity to attend to, and thus magnify, pain severity. In the latter case, the indirect impact of reducing pain by modifying emotional distress can be impacted by the type and dose of CBM used. For example, low concentrations of THC produce anxiolytic effects, but high concentrations may be anxiety-provoking.^63,64

Several potential pharmacokinetic drug interactions may arise between herbal cannabis or CBM and other medications (Table 4^65,66). THC and CBD are both metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 and 3A4.^65,66 In addition, THC is also metabolized by CYP2C9. Medications that inhibit or induce these enzymes can increase or decrease the bioavailability of THC and CBD.⁶⁷

Simultaneously, cannabinoids can impact the bioavailability of co-prescribed medications (Table 5^66,68). Although such CYP enzyme interactions remain a theoretical possibility, it is uncertain whether significant perturbations in plasma concentrations (and clinical effects) have been encountered with prescription medications when co-administered with CBM.⁶⁹ Nonetheless, patients receiving CBM should be closely monitored for their response to prescribed medications.⁷⁰

Continue to: Potential CYP enzyme interactions...

Potential CYP enzyme interactions aside, clinicians need to consider the additive effects that may occur when CBM are combined with sympathomimetic agents (eg, tachycardia, hypertension); CNS depressants such as alcohol, benzodiazepines, and opioids (eg, drowsiness, ataxia); or anticholinergics (eg, tachycardia, confusion).⁷¹ Inhaled herbal cannabis contains mutagens and can result in lung damage, exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, and certain types of cancer.^54,72 Co-prescribing benzodiazepines may be contraindicated in light of their effects on respiratory rate and effort.

The THC contained in CBM produces hormonal effects (ie, significantly increases plasma levels of ghrelin and leptin and decreases peptide YY levels)⁷³ that affect appetite and can produce weight gain. This may be problematic for patients receiving psychoactive medications associated with increased risk of weight gain and dyslipidemia. Because of the association between cannabis use and motor vehicle accidents, patients whose jobs require them to drive or operate industrial equipment may not be ideal candidates for CBM, especially if such patients also consume alcohol or are prescribed benzodiazepines and/or sedative hypnotics.⁷⁴ Lastly, due to their lipophilicity, cannabinoids cross the placental barrier and can be found in breast milk⁷⁵ and therefore can affect pregnancy outcomes and neurodevelopment.

Bottom Line

The popularity of cannabinoid-based medications (CBM) for the treatment of chronic pain conditions is growing, but the interest in their use may be outpacing the evidence supporting their analgesic benefits. High-quality, well-controlled randomized controlled trials are needed to decipher whether, and to what extent, these agents can be positioned in chronic pain management. Because psychiatrists are likely to encounter patients considering, or receiving, CBM, they must be aware of the potential benefits, risks, and adverse effects of such treatments.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG. Cannabis-derived compounds: what you need to know. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(10):64-65. doi:10.12788/ cp.0050
• Gupta S, Phalen T, Gupta S. Medical marijuana: do the benefits outweigh the risks? Current Psychiatry. 2018; 17(1):34-41.

Drug Brand Names

Ajulemic acid • Anabasum
Alprazolam • Xanax
Amitriptyline • Elavil
Aripiprazole • Abilify, Abilify Maintena
Buspirone • BuSpar
Cannabidiol • Epidiolex
Carbamazepine • Tegretol, Equetro
Cimetidine • Tagamet HB
Citalopram • Celexa
Clopidogrel • Plavix
Clozapine • Clozaril
Cyclosporine • Neoral, Sandimmune
Dronabinol • Marinol, Syndros
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Haloperidol • Haldol
Imipramine • Tofranil
Ketoconazole • Nizoral AD
Losartan • Cozaar
Midazolam • Versed
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Nabilone • Cesamet
Nabiximols • Sativex
Nefazodone • Serzone
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Phenobarbital • Solfoton
Phenytoin • Dilantin
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Rifampin • Rifadin
Risperidone • Risperdal
Sertraline • Zoloft
Tamoxifen • Nolvadex
Topiramate • Topamax
Valproic acid • Depakote, Depakene
Venlafaxine • Effexor
Verapamil • Verelan
Zolpidem • Ambien

Against the backdrop of an increasing opioid use epidemic and a marked acceleration of prescription opioid–related deaths,^1,2 there has been an impetus to explore the usefulness of alternative and co-analgesic agents to assist patients with chronic pain. Preclinical studies employing animal-based models of human pain syndromes have demonstrated that cannabis and chemicals derived from cannabis extracts may mitigate several pain conditions.³

Because there are significant comorbidities between psychiatric disorders and chronic pain, psychiatrists are likely to care for patients with chronic pain. As the availability of and interest in cannabinoid-based medications (CBM) increases, psychiatrists will need to be apprised of the utility, adverse effects, and potential drug interactions of these agents.

The endocannabinoid system and cannabis receptors

The endogenous cannabinoid (endocannabinoid) system is abundantly present within the peripheral and central nervous systems. The first identified, and best studied, endocannabinoids are N-arachidonoyl-ethanolamine (AEA; anandamide) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG).⁴ Unlike typical neurotransmitters, AEA and 2-AG are not stored within vesicles within presynaptic neuron axons. Instead, they are lipophilic molecules produced on demand, synthesized from phospholipids (ie, arachidonic acid derivatives) at the membranes of post-synaptic neurons, and released into the synapse directly.⁵

Acting as retrograde messengers, the endocannabinoids traverse the synapse, binding to receptors located on the axons of the presynaptic neuron. Two receptors—CB1 and CB2—have been most extensively studied and characterized.^6,7 These receptors couple to Gi/o-proteins to inhibit adenylate cyclase, decreasing Ca2+ conductance and increasing K+ conductance.⁸ Once activated, cannabinoid receptors modulate neurotransmitter release from presynaptic axon terminals. Evidence points to a similar retrograde signaling between neurons and glial cells. Shortly after receptor activation, the endocannabinoids are deactivated by the actions of a transporter mechanism and enzyme degradation.^9,10

The endocannabinoid system and pain transmission

Cannabinoid receptors are present in pain transmission circuits spanning from the peripheral sensory nerve endings (from which pain signals originate) to the spinal cord and supraspinal regions within the brain.^11-14 CB1 receptors are abundantly present within the CNS, including regions involved in pain transmission. Binding to CB1 receptors, endocannabinoids modulate neurotransmission that impacts pain transmission centrally. Endocannabinoids can also indirectly modulate opiate and N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors involved in pain relay and transmission.¹⁵

By contrast, CB2 receptors are predominantly localized to peripheral tissues and immune cells, although there has been some discovery of their presence within the CNS (eg, on microglia). Endocannabinoid activation of CB2 receptors is thought to modulate the activity of peripheral afferent pain fibers and immune-mediated neuro­inflammatory processes—such as inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis and mast cell degranulation—that can precipitate and maintain chronic pain states.^16-18

Evidence garnered from preclinical (animal) studies points to the role of the endocannabinoid system in modulating normal pain transmission (see Manzanares et al³ for details). These studies offer a putative basis for understanding how exogenous cannabinoid congeners might serve to ameliorate pain transmission in pathophysiologic states, including chronic pain.

Continue to: Cannabinoid-based medications

Marijuana contains multiple components (cannabinoids). The most extensively studied are delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Because it predominantly binds CB1 receptors centrally, THC is the major psychoactive component of cannabis; it promotes sleep and appetite, influences anxiety, and produces the “high” associated with cannabis use. By contrast, CBD weakly binds CB1 and thus exerts minimal or no psycho­active effects.¹⁹

Cannabinoid absorption, metabolism, bioavailability, and clinical effects vary depending on the formulation and method of administration (Table 1).^20-22 THC and CBD content and potency in inhaled cannabis can vary significantly depending on the strains of the cannabis plant and manner of cultivation.²³ To standardize approaches for administering cannabinoids in clinical trials and for clinical use, researchers have developed pharmaceutical analogs that contain extracted chemicals or synthetic chemicals similar to THC and/or CBD.

In this article, CBM refers to smoked/vaporized herbal cannabis as well as pharmaceutical cannabis analogs. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of CBM commonly used in studies investigating their use for managing pain conditions.

CBM for chronic pain

The literature base examining the role of CBM for managing chronic nonmalignant and malignant pain of varying etiologies is rapidly expanding. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have focused on inhaled/smoked products and related cannabinoid medications, some of which are FDA-approved (Table 2).

A multitude of other cannabinoid-based products are currently commercially available to consumers, including tincture and oil-based products; over-the-counter CBD products; and several other formulations of CBM (eg, edible and suppository products). Because such products are not standardized or quality-controlled,²⁴ RCTs have not assessed their efficacy for mitigating pain. Consequently, the findings summarized in this article do not address the utility of these agents.

Continue to: CBM for non-cancer pain

Neuropathic pain. Randomized controlled trials have assessed the pain-mitigating effects of various CBM, including inhaled cannabis, synthetic THC, plant-extracted CBD, and a THC/CBD spray. Studies have shown that inhaled/vaporized cannabis can produce short-term pain reduction in patients with chronic neuropathic pain of diverse etiologies, including diabetes mellitus-, HIV-, trauma-, and medication-induced neuropathies.^22,25,26 Similar beneficial effects have been observed with the use of cannabis analogues (eg, nabiximols).^25,26-29

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have determined that most of these RCTs were of low-to-moderate quality.^26,30 Meta-analyses have revealed divergent and conflicting results because of differences in the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select RCTs for analysis and differences in the standards with which the quality of evidence were determined.^25,30

Overall, the benefit of CBM for mitigating neuropathic pain is promising, but the effectiveness may not be robust.^30,31 Several noteworthy caveats limit the interpretation of the results of these RCTs:

• due to the small sample sizes and brief durations of study, questions remain regarding the extent to which effects are generalizable, whether the benefits are sustained, and whether adverse effects emerge over time with continued use
• most RCTs evaluated inhaled (herbal) cannabis and nabiximols; there is little data on the effectiveness of other CBM formulations^25,26,30
• the pain-mitigating effects of CBM were usually compared with those of placebo; the comparative efficacy against agents commonly used to treat neuropathic pain remains largely unexamined 

• these RCTs typically compared mean pain severity score differences between cannabis-treated and placebo groups using standard subjective rating scales of pain intensity, such as the Numerical Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale. Customarily, the pain literature has used a 30% or 50% reduction in pain severity from baseline as an indicator of significant clinical improvement.^32,33 The RCTs of CBM for neuropathic pain rarely used this standard, which makes it unclear whether CBM results in clinically significant pain reductions³⁰
• indirect measures of effectiveness (ie, whether using CBM reduces the need for opioids or other analgesics to manage pain) were seldom reported in these RCTs.

Due to these limitations, clinical guidelines and systematic reviews consider CBM as a third- or fourth-line therapy for patients experiencing chronic neuropathic pain for whom conventional agents such as anticonvulsants and antidepressants have failed.^34,35

Spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS). Several RCTs have assessed the use of CBM for MS-related spasticity, although few were deemed to be high quality. Nabiximols and synthetic THC were effective in managing spasticity and reducing pain severity associated with muscle spasms.³⁶ Generally, investigations revealed that CBM were associated with improvements in subjective measures of spasticity, but these were not born out in clinical, objective measures.^26,37 The efficacy of smoked cannabis was uncertain.³⁷ The existing literature on CBM for MS-related spasticity does not address dosing, duration of effects, tolerability, or comparative effectiveness against conventional anti-spasm medications.^36,37

Continue to: Other chronic pain conditions

Other chronic pain conditions. CBM have also been studied for their usefulness in several other noncancer chronic conditions, including Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, and other rheumatologic pain conditions.^22,31,38-40 However, a solid foundation of empirical work to inform their utility for managing pain in these conditions is lacking.

CBM for cancer pain

Anecdotal evidence suggests that inhaled cannabis has promising pain-mitigating effects in patients with advanced cancer.^41-43 There is a dearth of high-quality RCTs assessing the utility of CBM in patients with cancer pain.^43-45 The types of CBM used and dosing strategies varied across RCTs, which makes it difficult to infer how best to treat patients with cancer pain. The agents studied included nabiximols, THC spray, and synthetic THC capsules.^43-45 Although some studies have demonstrated that synthetic THC and nabiximols have potential for reducing subjective pain ratings compared with placebo,^46,47 these results were inconsistent.^46,48 Oromucosal nabiximols did not appear to confer any additional analgesic benefit in patients who were already prescribed opioids.^31,45

The benefit of CBM for mitigating cancer pain is promising, but it remains difficult to know how to position the use of CBM in managing cancer pain. Limitations in the cancer literature include:

• the RCTs addressing CBM use for cancer pain were often brief, which raises questions about the long-term effectiveness and adverse effects of these agents
• tolerability and dosing limits encountered due to adverse effects were seldom reported^43,45
• the types of cancer pain that patients had were often quite diverse. The small sample sizes and the heterogeneity of conditions included in these RCTs limit the ability to determine whether pain-mitigating effects might vary according to type of cancer-related pain.^31,45

Despite these limitations, some clinical guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that CBM have some role in addressing refractory malignant pain conditions.⁴⁹

Psychiatric considerations related to CBM

As of November 2020, 36 states had legalized the use of cannabis for medical purposes, typically for painful conditions, despite the fact that empirical evidence to support their efficacy is mixed.⁵⁰ In light of recent changes in both the legal and popular attitudes regarding cannabis, the implications of legalizing CBM remains to be seen. For example, some research suggests that adults with pain are vulnerable to frequent nonmedical cannabis use and/or cannabis use disorder.⁵¹ Although well-intended, the legalization of CBM use might represent society’s next misstep in the quest to address the suffering of patients with chronic pain. Some evidence shows that cannabis use and cannabis use disorders increase in states that have legalized medical marijuana.^52,53 Psychiatrists will be on the front lines of addressing any potential consequences arising from the use of CBM for treating pain.

Continue to: Psychiatric disorders and CBM

Psychiatric disorders and CBM. The psychological impact of CBM use among patients enduring chronic pain can include sedation, cognitive/attention disturbance, and fatigue. These adverse effects can limit the utility of such agents.^22,29,45

Contraindications for CBM use, and conditions for which CBM ought to be used with caution, are listed in Table 3^54,55.The safety of CBM, particularly in patients with chronic pain and psychiatric disorders, has not been examined. Patients with psychiatric disorders may be poor candidates for medical cannabis. Epidemiologic data suggest that recreational cannabis use is positively associated both cross-sectionally and prospectively with psychotic spectrum disorders, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms, including panic disorder.⁵⁶ Psychotic reactions have also been associated with CBM (dronabinol and nabilone).⁵⁷ Cannabis use also has been associated with an earlier onset of, and lower remission rates of, symptoms associated with bipolar disorder.^58,59 Consequently, patients who have been diagnosed with or are at risk for developing any of the aforementioned conditions may not be suitable candidates for CBM. If CBM are used, patients should be closely monitored for the emergence/exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms. The frequency and extent of follow-up is not clear, however. Because of its reduced propensity to produce psychoactive effects, CBD may be safer than THC for managing pain in individuals who have or are vulnerable to developing psychiatric disorders.

There is a lack of evidence to support the use of CBM for treating primary depressive disorders, general anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, or psychosis.^60,61 Very low-quality evidence suggests that CBM could lead to a small improvement in anxiety among individuals with noncancer pain and MS.⁶⁰ However, interpreting causality is complicated. It is plausible that, for some patients, subjective improvement in pain severity may be related to reduced anxiety.⁶² Conversely, it is equally plausible that reductions in emotional distress may reduce the propensity to attend to, and thus magnify, pain severity. In the latter case, the indirect impact of reducing pain by modifying emotional distress can be impacted by the type and dose of CBM used. For example, low concentrations of THC produce anxiolytic effects, but high concentrations may be anxiety-provoking.^63,64

Several potential pharmacokinetic drug interactions may arise between herbal cannabis or CBM and other medications (Table 4^65,66). THC and CBD are both metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 and 3A4.^65,66 In addition, THC is also metabolized by CYP2C9. Medications that inhibit or induce these enzymes can increase or decrease the bioavailability of THC and CBD.⁶⁷

Simultaneously, cannabinoids can impact the bioavailability of co-prescribed medications (Table 5^66,68). Although such CYP enzyme interactions remain a theoretical possibility, it is uncertain whether significant perturbations in plasma concentrations (and clinical effects) have been encountered with prescription medications when co-administered with CBM.⁶⁹ Nonetheless, patients receiving CBM should be closely monitored for their response to prescribed medications.⁷⁰

Continue to: Potential CYP enzyme interactions...

Potential CYP enzyme interactions aside, clinicians need to consider the additive effects that may occur when CBM are combined with sympathomimetic agents (eg, tachycardia, hypertension); CNS depressants such as alcohol, benzodiazepines, and opioids (eg, drowsiness, ataxia); or anticholinergics (eg, tachycardia, confusion).⁷¹ Inhaled herbal cannabis contains mutagens and can result in lung damage, exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, and certain types of cancer.^54,72 Co-prescribing benzodiazepines may be contraindicated in light of their effects on respiratory rate and effort.

The THC contained in CBM produces hormonal effects (ie, significantly increases plasma levels of ghrelin and leptin and decreases peptide YY levels)⁷³ that affect appetite and can produce weight gain. This may be problematic for patients receiving psychoactive medications associated with increased risk of weight gain and dyslipidemia. Because of the association between cannabis use and motor vehicle accidents, patients whose jobs require them to drive or operate industrial equipment may not be ideal candidates for CBM, especially if such patients also consume alcohol or are prescribed benzodiazepines and/or sedative hypnotics.⁷⁴ Lastly, due to their lipophilicity, cannabinoids cross the placental barrier and can be found in breast milk⁷⁵ and therefore can affect pregnancy outcomes and neurodevelopment.

Bottom Line

The popularity of cannabinoid-based medications (CBM) for the treatment of chronic pain conditions is growing, but the interest in their use may be outpacing the evidence supporting their analgesic benefits. High-quality, well-controlled randomized controlled trials are needed to decipher whether, and to what extent, these agents can be positioned in chronic pain management. Because psychiatrists are likely to encounter patients considering, or receiving, CBM, they must be aware of the potential benefits, risks, and adverse effects of such treatments.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG. Cannabis-derived compounds: what you need to know. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(10):64-65. doi:10.12788/ cp.0050
• Gupta S, Phalen T, Gupta S. Medical marijuana: do the benefits outweigh the risks? Current Psychiatry. 2018; 17(1):34-41.

Drug Brand Names

Ajulemic acid • Anabasum
Alprazolam • Xanax
Amitriptyline • Elavil
Aripiprazole • Abilify, Abilify Maintena
Buspirone • BuSpar
Cannabidiol • Epidiolex
Carbamazepine • Tegretol, Equetro
Cimetidine • Tagamet HB
Citalopram • Celexa
Clopidogrel • Plavix
Clozapine • Clozaril
Cyclosporine • Neoral, Sandimmune
Dronabinol • Marinol, Syndros
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Haloperidol • Haldol
Imipramine • Tofranil
Ketoconazole • Nizoral AD
Losartan • Cozaar
Midazolam • Versed
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Nabilone • Cesamet
Nabiximols • Sativex
Nefazodone • Serzone
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Phenobarbital • Solfoton
Phenytoin • Dilantin
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Rifampin • Rifadin
Risperidone • Risperdal
Sertraline • Zoloft
Tamoxifen • Nolvadex
Topiramate • Topamax
Valproic acid • Depakote, Depakene
Venlafaxine • Effexor
Verapamil • Verelan
Zolpidem • Ambien

Against the backdrop of an increasing opioid use epidemic and a marked acceleration of prescription opioid–related deaths,^1,2 there has been an impetus to explore the usefulness of alternative and co-analgesic agents to assist patients with chronic pain. Preclinical studies employing animal-based models of human pain syndromes have demonstrated that cannabis and chemicals derived from cannabis extracts may mitigate several pain conditions.³

Because there are significant comorbidities between psychiatric disorders and chronic pain, psychiatrists are likely to care for patients with chronic pain. As the availability of and interest in cannabinoid-based medications (CBM) increases, psychiatrists will need to be apprised of the utility, adverse effects, and potential drug interactions of these agents.

The endocannabinoid system and cannabis receptors

The endogenous cannabinoid (endocannabinoid) system is abundantly present within the peripheral and central nervous systems. The first identified, and best studied, endocannabinoids are N-arachidonoyl-ethanolamine (AEA; anandamide) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG).⁴ Unlike typical neurotransmitters, AEA and 2-AG are not stored within vesicles within presynaptic neuron axons. Instead, they are lipophilic molecules produced on demand, synthesized from phospholipids (ie, arachidonic acid derivatives) at the membranes of post-synaptic neurons, and released into the synapse directly.⁵

Acting as retrograde messengers, the endocannabinoids traverse the synapse, binding to receptors located on the axons of the presynaptic neuron. Two receptors—CB1 and CB2—have been most extensively studied and characterized.^6,7 These receptors couple to Gi/o-proteins to inhibit adenylate cyclase, decreasing Ca2+ conductance and increasing K+ conductance.⁸ Once activated, cannabinoid receptors modulate neurotransmitter release from presynaptic axon terminals. Evidence points to a similar retrograde signaling between neurons and glial cells. Shortly after receptor activation, the endocannabinoids are deactivated by the actions of a transporter mechanism and enzyme degradation.^9,10

The endocannabinoid system and pain transmission

Cannabinoid receptors are present in pain transmission circuits spanning from the peripheral sensory nerve endings (from which pain signals originate) to the spinal cord and supraspinal regions within the brain.^11-14 CB1 receptors are abundantly present within the CNS, including regions involved in pain transmission. Binding to CB1 receptors, endocannabinoids modulate neurotransmission that impacts pain transmission centrally. Endocannabinoids can also indirectly modulate opiate and N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors involved in pain relay and transmission.¹⁵

By contrast, CB2 receptors are predominantly localized to peripheral tissues and immune cells, although there has been some discovery of their presence within the CNS (eg, on microglia). Endocannabinoid activation of CB2 receptors is thought to modulate the activity of peripheral afferent pain fibers and immune-mediated neuro­inflammatory processes—such as inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis and mast cell degranulation—that can precipitate and maintain chronic pain states.^16-18

Evidence garnered from preclinical (animal) studies points to the role of the endocannabinoid system in modulating normal pain transmission (see Manzanares et al³ for details). These studies offer a putative basis for understanding how exogenous cannabinoid congeners might serve to ameliorate pain transmission in pathophysiologic states, including chronic pain.

Continue to: Cannabinoid-based medications

Marijuana contains multiple components (cannabinoids). The most extensively studied are delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Because it predominantly binds CB1 receptors centrally, THC is the major psychoactive component of cannabis; it promotes sleep and appetite, influences anxiety, and produces the “high” associated with cannabis use. By contrast, CBD weakly binds CB1 and thus exerts minimal or no psycho­active effects.¹⁹

Cannabinoid absorption, metabolism, bioavailability, and clinical effects vary depending on the formulation and method of administration (Table 1).^20-22 THC and CBD content and potency in inhaled cannabis can vary significantly depending on the strains of the cannabis plant and manner of cultivation.²³ To standardize approaches for administering cannabinoids in clinical trials and for clinical use, researchers have developed pharmaceutical analogs that contain extracted chemicals or synthetic chemicals similar to THC and/or CBD.

In this article, CBM refers to smoked/vaporized herbal cannabis as well as pharmaceutical cannabis analogs. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of CBM commonly used in studies investigating their use for managing pain conditions.

CBM for chronic pain

The literature base examining the role of CBM for managing chronic nonmalignant and malignant pain of varying etiologies is rapidly expanding. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have focused on inhaled/smoked products and related cannabinoid medications, some of which are FDA-approved (Table 2).

A multitude of other cannabinoid-based products are currently commercially available to consumers, including tincture and oil-based products; over-the-counter CBD products; and several other formulations of CBM (eg, edible and suppository products). Because such products are not standardized or quality-controlled,²⁴ RCTs have not assessed their efficacy for mitigating pain. Consequently, the findings summarized in this article do not address the utility of these agents.

Continue to: CBM for non-cancer pain

Neuropathic pain. Randomized controlled trials have assessed the pain-mitigating effects of various CBM, including inhaled cannabis, synthetic THC, plant-extracted CBD, and a THC/CBD spray. Studies have shown that inhaled/vaporized cannabis can produce short-term pain reduction in patients with chronic neuropathic pain of diverse etiologies, including diabetes mellitus-, HIV-, trauma-, and medication-induced neuropathies.^22,25,26 Similar beneficial effects have been observed with the use of cannabis analogues (eg, nabiximols).^25,26-29

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have determined that most of these RCTs were of low-to-moderate quality.^26,30 Meta-analyses have revealed divergent and conflicting results because of differences in the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select RCTs for analysis and differences in the standards with which the quality of evidence were determined.^25,30

Overall, the benefit of CBM for mitigating neuropathic pain is promising, but the effectiveness may not be robust.^30,31 Several noteworthy caveats limit the interpretation of the results of these RCTs:

• due to the small sample sizes and brief durations of study, questions remain regarding the extent to which effects are generalizable, whether the benefits are sustained, and whether adverse effects emerge over time with continued use
• most RCTs evaluated inhaled (herbal) cannabis and nabiximols; there is little data on the effectiveness of other CBM formulations^25,26,30
• the pain-mitigating effects of CBM were usually compared with those of placebo; the comparative efficacy against agents commonly used to treat neuropathic pain remains largely unexamined 

• these RCTs typically compared mean pain severity score differences between cannabis-treated and placebo groups using standard subjective rating scales of pain intensity, such as the Numerical Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale. Customarily, the pain literature has used a 30% or 50% reduction in pain severity from baseline as an indicator of significant clinical improvement.^32,33 The RCTs of CBM for neuropathic pain rarely used this standard, which makes it unclear whether CBM results in clinically significant pain reductions³⁰
• indirect measures of effectiveness (ie, whether using CBM reduces the need for opioids or other analgesics to manage pain) were seldom reported in these RCTs.

Due to these limitations, clinical guidelines and systematic reviews consider CBM as a third- or fourth-line therapy for patients experiencing chronic neuropathic pain for whom conventional agents such as anticonvulsants and antidepressants have failed.^34,35

Spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS). Several RCTs have assessed the use of CBM for MS-related spasticity, although few were deemed to be high quality. Nabiximols and synthetic THC were effective in managing spasticity and reducing pain severity associated with muscle spasms.³⁶ Generally, investigations revealed that CBM were associated with improvements in subjective measures of spasticity, but these were not born out in clinical, objective measures.^26,37 The efficacy of smoked cannabis was uncertain.³⁷ The existing literature on CBM for MS-related spasticity does not address dosing, duration of effects, tolerability, or comparative effectiveness against conventional anti-spasm medications.^36,37

Continue to: Other chronic pain conditions

Other chronic pain conditions. CBM have also been studied for their usefulness in several other noncancer chronic conditions, including Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, and other rheumatologic pain conditions.^22,31,38-40 However, a solid foundation of empirical work to inform their utility for managing pain in these conditions is lacking.

CBM for cancer pain

Anecdotal evidence suggests that inhaled cannabis has promising pain-mitigating effects in patients with advanced cancer.^41-43 There is a dearth of high-quality RCTs assessing the utility of CBM in patients with cancer pain.^43-45 The types of CBM used and dosing strategies varied across RCTs, which makes it difficult to infer how best to treat patients with cancer pain. The agents studied included nabiximols, THC spray, and synthetic THC capsules.^43-45 Although some studies have demonstrated that synthetic THC and nabiximols have potential for reducing subjective pain ratings compared with placebo,^46,47 these results were inconsistent.^46,48 Oromucosal nabiximols did not appear to confer any additional analgesic benefit in patients who were already prescribed opioids.^31,45

The benefit of CBM for mitigating cancer pain is promising, but it remains difficult to know how to position the use of CBM in managing cancer pain. Limitations in the cancer literature include:

• the RCTs addressing CBM use for cancer pain were often brief, which raises questions about the long-term effectiveness and adverse effects of these agents
• tolerability and dosing limits encountered due to adverse effects were seldom reported^43,45
• the types of cancer pain that patients had were often quite diverse. The small sample sizes and the heterogeneity of conditions included in these RCTs limit the ability to determine whether pain-mitigating effects might vary according to type of cancer-related pain.^31,45

Despite these limitations, some clinical guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that CBM have some role in addressing refractory malignant pain conditions.⁴⁹

Psychiatric considerations related to CBM

As of November 2020, 36 states had legalized the use of cannabis for medical purposes, typically for painful conditions, despite the fact that empirical evidence to support their efficacy is mixed.⁵⁰ In light of recent changes in both the legal and popular attitudes regarding cannabis, the implications of legalizing CBM remains to be seen. For example, some research suggests that adults with pain are vulnerable to frequent nonmedical cannabis use and/or cannabis use disorder.⁵¹ Although well-intended, the legalization of CBM use might represent society’s next misstep in the quest to address the suffering of patients with chronic pain. Some evidence shows that cannabis use and cannabis use disorders increase in states that have legalized medical marijuana.^52,53 Psychiatrists will be on the front lines of addressing any potential consequences arising from the use of CBM for treating pain.

Continue to: Psychiatric disorders and CBM

Psychiatric disorders and CBM. The psychological impact of CBM use among patients enduring chronic pain can include sedation, cognitive/attention disturbance, and fatigue. These adverse effects can limit the utility of such agents.^22,29,45

Contraindications for CBM use, and conditions for which CBM ought to be used with caution, are listed in Table 3^54,55.The safety of CBM, particularly in patients with chronic pain and psychiatric disorders, has not been examined. Patients with psychiatric disorders may be poor candidates for medical cannabis. Epidemiologic data suggest that recreational cannabis use is positively associated both cross-sectionally and prospectively with psychotic spectrum disorders, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms, including panic disorder.⁵⁶ Psychotic reactions have also been associated with CBM (dronabinol and nabilone).⁵⁷ Cannabis use also has been associated with an earlier onset of, and lower remission rates of, symptoms associated with bipolar disorder.^58,59 Consequently, patients who have been diagnosed with or are at risk for developing any of the aforementioned conditions may not be suitable candidates for CBM. If CBM are used, patients should be closely monitored for the emergence/exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms. The frequency and extent of follow-up is not clear, however. Because of its reduced propensity to produce psychoactive effects, CBD may be safer than THC for managing pain in individuals who have or are vulnerable to developing psychiatric disorders.

There is a lack of evidence to support the use of CBM for treating primary depressive disorders, general anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, or psychosis.^60,61 Very low-quality evidence suggests that CBM could lead to a small improvement in anxiety among individuals with noncancer pain and MS.⁶⁰ However, interpreting causality is complicated. It is plausible that, for some patients, subjective improvement in pain severity may be related to reduced anxiety.⁶² Conversely, it is equally plausible that reductions in emotional distress may reduce the propensity to attend to, and thus magnify, pain severity. In the latter case, the indirect impact of reducing pain by modifying emotional distress can be impacted by the type and dose of CBM used. For example, low concentrations of THC produce anxiolytic effects, but high concentrations may be anxiety-provoking.^63,64

Several potential pharmacokinetic drug interactions may arise between herbal cannabis or CBM and other medications (Table 4^65,66). THC and CBD are both metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 and 3A4.^65,66 In addition, THC is also metabolized by CYP2C9. Medications that inhibit or induce these enzymes can increase or decrease the bioavailability of THC and CBD.⁶⁷

Simultaneously, cannabinoids can impact the bioavailability of co-prescribed medications (Table 5^66,68). Although such CYP enzyme interactions remain a theoretical possibility, it is uncertain whether significant perturbations in plasma concentrations (and clinical effects) have been encountered with prescription medications when co-administered with CBM.⁶⁹ Nonetheless, patients receiving CBM should be closely monitored for their response to prescribed medications.⁷⁰

Continue to: Potential CYP enzyme interactions...

Potential CYP enzyme interactions aside, clinicians need to consider the additive effects that may occur when CBM are combined with sympathomimetic agents (eg, tachycardia, hypertension); CNS depressants such as alcohol, benzodiazepines, and opioids (eg, drowsiness, ataxia); or anticholinergics (eg, tachycardia, confusion).⁷¹ Inhaled herbal cannabis contains mutagens and can result in lung damage, exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, and certain types of cancer.^54,72 Co-prescribing benzodiazepines may be contraindicated in light of their effects on respiratory rate and effort.

The THC contained in CBM produces hormonal effects (ie, significantly increases plasma levels of ghrelin and leptin and decreases peptide YY levels)⁷³ that affect appetite and can produce weight gain. This may be problematic for patients receiving psychoactive medications associated with increased risk of weight gain and dyslipidemia. Because of the association between cannabis use and motor vehicle accidents, patients whose jobs require them to drive or operate industrial equipment may not be ideal candidates for CBM, especially if such patients also consume alcohol or are prescribed benzodiazepines and/or sedative hypnotics.⁷⁴ Lastly, due to their lipophilicity, cannabinoids cross the placental barrier and can be found in breast milk⁷⁵ and therefore can affect pregnancy outcomes and neurodevelopment.

Bottom Line

The popularity of cannabinoid-based medications (CBM) for the treatment of chronic pain conditions is growing, but the interest in their use may be outpacing the evidence supporting their analgesic benefits. High-quality, well-controlled randomized controlled trials are needed to decipher whether, and to what extent, these agents can be positioned in chronic pain management. Because psychiatrists are likely to encounter patients considering, or receiving, CBM, they must be aware of the potential benefits, risks, and adverse effects of such treatments.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG. Cannabis-derived compounds: what you need to know. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(10):64-65. doi:10.12788/ cp.0050
• Gupta S, Phalen T, Gupta S. Medical marijuana: do the benefits outweigh the risks? Current Psychiatry. 2018; 17(1):34-41.

Drug Brand Names

Ajulemic acid • Anabasum
Alprazolam • Xanax
Amitriptyline • Elavil
Aripiprazole • Abilify, Abilify Maintena
Buspirone • BuSpar
Cannabidiol • Epidiolex
Carbamazepine • Tegretol, Equetro
Cimetidine • Tagamet HB
Citalopram • Celexa
Clopidogrel • Plavix
Clozapine • Clozaril
Cyclosporine • Neoral, Sandimmune
Dronabinol • Marinol, Syndros
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Haloperidol • Haldol
Imipramine • Tofranil
Ketoconazole • Nizoral AD
Losartan • Cozaar
Midazolam • Versed
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Nabilone • Cesamet
Nabiximols • Sativex
Nefazodone • Serzone
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Phenobarbital • Solfoton
Phenytoin • Dilantin
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Rifampin • Rifadin
Risperidone • Risperdal
Sertraline • Zoloft
Tamoxifen • Nolvadex
Topiramate • Topamax
Valproic acid • Depakote, Depakene
Venlafaxine • Effexor
Verapamil • Verelan
Zolpidem • Ambien

Hispanic adolescents were more likely to use e-cigarettes to vape marijuana than were their Black and White counterparts in 2020, according to a recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers found that 25.6% of Hispanic students reported vaping marijuana, compared to 19.4% of Black students and 18.2% of White students. The study, which is an analysis of 2017, 2018, and 2020 results from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, also revealed that increases in this recreational practice occurred among all racial and ethnic groups within those 3 years, with Hispanic students having the largest percent increase, 11.6%, followed by Black students at 8.8% and White students at 7.4%.

“The initial motivation [to do this study] was to gain a better understanding of the prevalence of use of marijuana in e-cigarettes among youth, particularly given the context of the 2019 outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI),” study author Christina Vaughan Watson, DrPH, health scientist at the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, said in an interview.

The findings could help clinicians and physicians understand demographic variations among marijuana vapers and help inform targeted interventions for specific populations.

“Understanding demographic variations among those who are using marijuana in e-cigarettes can help inform evidenced-based interventions that may resonate with specific populations,” Dr. Watson explained.

Margaret Thew, DNP, medical director of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the findings were “eye opening” and revealed a pattern she hasn’t seen before in her adolescent clinic.

“I would have thought African-American or non-Hispanic Blacks would’ve been a higher group of use, because when we screen kids that’s what we tend to get from the population we see here,” Ms. Thew said.

Ms. Thew said the findings also had made her reconsider her clinic’s approach to screening adolescents for marijuana use as well as address possible language barriers.

“We are probably missing access to some of the kids that we may need to seek out,” she explained. “I also thought it sends a good message that we need to direct some of our education probably a little differently, especially if it’s a Hispanic population and English may not be the primary language.”

Dr. Watson said more research is needed to assess why differences in marijuana use in e-cigarettes exist among youth.

Marijuana use in e-cigarettes has become increasingly popular among U.S. teens, with one in five students in grades 10 and 12 reporting vaping marijuana within the past year in a 2019 study conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. Watson and colleagues also found statistically significant increases in vaping marijuana, with 19.5% of students reporting smoking marijuana via e-cigarettes in 2020, compared to 11.1% of them vaping the drug in 2017. They believe the rise in marijuana vaping among youth may be attributed to states increasingly legalizing adult marijuana sales, which could impact ease of access and social acceptance.

Ms. Thew believes the rise in marijuana vaping among youth can be attributed to the legalization of marijuana, which may send “a message to adolescents that it must be safe for them to use,” as well as the increasing popularity of e-cigarettes.

In fact, as of April 2021, marijuana is legal for adults in 16 states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, medical marijuana is legal in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“I mean, there’s just definitely been a lot more use of [e-cigarettes]. Vaping and things like that definitely took off between 2019 and 2020,” Ms. Thew explained. “And I think marijuana use in itself is going up tremendously, I think more kids who would have used alcohol in the past use weed.”

Although public attitudes toward marijuana have relaxed, previous studies have linked it to memory dysfunction, as well as long-term cognitive effects that can interfere with perception of time and motor function. However, studies also have shown that cannabis use can combat age-related cognitive decline and help with pain reduction.

However, when it comes to adolescents, Dr. Watson and colleagues said e-cigarette use among youth and young adults is unsafe, regardless of the substances used in these products, including marijuana. Furthermore, they said marijuana use can lead to higher risks of more problematic use later in life, adding that evidence-based strategies to reduce marijuana use in e-cigarettes are important for protecting young people.

The study author and experts disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Hispanic adolescents were more likely to use e-cigarettes to vape marijuana than were their Black and White counterparts in 2020, according to a recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers found that 25.6% of Hispanic students reported vaping marijuana, compared to 19.4% of Black students and 18.2% of White students. The study, which is an analysis of 2017, 2018, and 2020 results from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, also revealed that increases in this recreational practice occurred among all racial and ethnic groups within those 3 years, with Hispanic students having the largest percent increase, 11.6%, followed by Black students at 8.8% and White students at 7.4%.

“The initial motivation [to do this study] was to gain a better understanding of the prevalence of use of marijuana in e-cigarettes among youth, particularly given the context of the 2019 outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI),” study author Christina Vaughan Watson, DrPH, health scientist at the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, said in an interview.

The findings could help clinicians and physicians understand demographic variations among marijuana vapers and help inform targeted interventions for specific populations.

“Understanding demographic variations among those who are using marijuana in e-cigarettes can help inform evidenced-based interventions that may resonate with specific populations,” Dr. Watson explained.

Margaret Thew, DNP, medical director of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the findings were “eye opening” and revealed a pattern she hasn’t seen before in her adolescent clinic.

“I would have thought African-American or non-Hispanic Blacks would’ve been a higher group of use, because when we screen kids that’s what we tend to get from the population we see here,” Ms. Thew said.

Ms. Thew said the findings also had made her reconsider her clinic’s approach to screening adolescents for marijuana use as well as address possible language barriers.

“We are probably missing access to some of the kids that we may need to seek out,” she explained. “I also thought it sends a good message that we need to direct some of our education probably a little differently, especially if it’s a Hispanic population and English may not be the primary language.”

Dr. Watson said more research is needed to assess why differences in marijuana use in e-cigarettes exist among youth.

Marijuana use in e-cigarettes has become increasingly popular among U.S. teens, with one in five students in grades 10 and 12 reporting vaping marijuana within the past year in a 2019 study conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. Watson and colleagues also found statistically significant increases in vaping marijuana, with 19.5% of students reporting smoking marijuana via e-cigarettes in 2020, compared to 11.1% of them vaping the drug in 2017. They believe the rise in marijuana vaping among youth may be attributed to states increasingly legalizing adult marijuana sales, which could impact ease of access and social acceptance.

Ms. Thew believes the rise in marijuana vaping among youth can be attributed to the legalization of marijuana, which may send “a message to adolescents that it must be safe for them to use,” as well as the increasing popularity of e-cigarettes.

In fact, as of April 2021, marijuana is legal for adults in 16 states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, medical marijuana is legal in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“I mean, there’s just definitely been a lot more use of [e-cigarettes]. Vaping and things like that definitely took off between 2019 and 2020,” Ms. Thew explained. “And I think marijuana use in itself is going up tremendously, I think more kids who would have used alcohol in the past use weed.”

Although public attitudes toward marijuana have relaxed, previous studies have linked it to memory dysfunction, as well as long-term cognitive effects that can interfere with perception of time and motor function. However, studies also have shown that cannabis use can combat age-related cognitive decline and help with pain reduction.

However, when it comes to adolescents, Dr. Watson and colleagues said e-cigarette use among youth and young adults is unsafe, regardless of the substances used in these products, including marijuana. Furthermore, they said marijuana use can lead to higher risks of more problematic use later in life, adding that evidence-based strategies to reduce marijuana use in e-cigarettes are important for protecting young people.

The study author and experts disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Hispanic adolescents were more likely to use e-cigarettes to vape marijuana than were their Black and White counterparts in 2020, according to a recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers found that 25.6% of Hispanic students reported vaping marijuana, compared to 19.4% of Black students and 18.2% of White students. The study, which is an analysis of 2017, 2018, and 2020 results from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, also revealed that increases in this recreational practice occurred among all racial and ethnic groups within those 3 years, with Hispanic students having the largest percent increase, 11.6%, followed by Black students at 8.8% and White students at 7.4%.

“The initial motivation [to do this study] was to gain a better understanding of the prevalence of use of marijuana in e-cigarettes among youth, particularly given the context of the 2019 outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI),” study author Christina Vaughan Watson, DrPH, health scientist at the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, said in an interview.

The findings could help clinicians and physicians understand demographic variations among marijuana vapers and help inform targeted interventions for specific populations.

“Understanding demographic variations among those who are using marijuana in e-cigarettes can help inform evidenced-based interventions that may resonate with specific populations,” Dr. Watson explained.

Margaret Thew, DNP, medical director of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the findings were “eye opening” and revealed a pattern she hasn’t seen before in her adolescent clinic.

“I would have thought African-American or non-Hispanic Blacks would’ve been a higher group of use, because when we screen kids that’s what we tend to get from the population we see here,” Ms. Thew said.

Ms. Thew said the findings also had made her reconsider her clinic’s approach to screening adolescents for marijuana use as well as address possible language barriers.

“We are probably missing access to some of the kids that we may need to seek out,” she explained. “I also thought it sends a good message that we need to direct some of our education probably a little differently, especially if it’s a Hispanic population and English may not be the primary language.”

Dr. Watson said more research is needed to assess why differences in marijuana use in e-cigarettes exist among youth.

Marijuana use in e-cigarettes has become increasingly popular among U.S. teens, with one in five students in grades 10 and 12 reporting vaping marijuana within the past year in a 2019 study conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. Watson and colleagues also found statistically significant increases in vaping marijuana, with 19.5% of students reporting smoking marijuana via e-cigarettes in 2020, compared to 11.1% of them vaping the drug in 2017. They believe the rise in marijuana vaping among youth may be attributed to states increasingly legalizing adult marijuana sales, which could impact ease of access and social acceptance.

Ms. Thew believes the rise in marijuana vaping among youth can be attributed to the legalization of marijuana, which may send “a message to adolescents that it must be safe for them to use,” as well as the increasing popularity of e-cigarettes.

In fact, as of April 2021, marijuana is legal for adults in 16 states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, medical marijuana is legal in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“I mean, there’s just definitely been a lot more use of [e-cigarettes]. Vaping and things like that definitely took off between 2019 and 2020,” Ms. Thew explained. “And I think marijuana use in itself is going up tremendously, I think more kids who would have used alcohol in the past use weed.”

Although public attitudes toward marijuana have relaxed, previous studies have linked it to memory dysfunction, as well as long-term cognitive effects that can interfere with perception of time and motor function. However, studies also have shown that cannabis use can combat age-related cognitive decline and help with pain reduction.

However, when it comes to adolescents, Dr. Watson and colleagues said e-cigarette use among youth and young adults is unsafe, regardless of the substances used in these products, including marijuana. Furthermore, they said marijuana use can lead to higher risks of more problematic use later in life, adding that evidence-based strategies to reduce marijuana use in e-cigarettes are important for protecting young people.

The study author and experts disclosed no relevant financial relationships.