Search

Background: Some countries allow physicians to prescribe pharmaceutical-grade diamorphine to dependent users who have previously undergone treatment but are still using street-sourced heroin; this is not allowed in the US. This study provides the first nationally representative US data concerning public support for prescribing diamorphine to dependent users. We also test the hypothesis that calling it "diamorphine" instead of "heroin" increases support for this approach.Methods: The RAND American Life Panel is a nationally representative, probability-based survey of US adults. Of the 3345 panel members invited to take the survey, 2530 (75.6%) provided a valid response to our question module. Respondents were randomly assigned to have the question refer to the prescribed drug as either "heroin" or "diamorphine." The groups did not significantly differ on sex, age, race/ethnicity, or education. We compare the distribution of responses for the two groups and conduct Pearson's chi-squared test with the Rao-Scott correction.Results: For those asked whether the US should try prescribing pharmaceutical-grade "heroin," the share answering "Yes" (20.8%) was 15 percentage points lower than those responding "No" (35.8%). When the question asked about "diamorphine," the results were nearly reversed: the share answering "Yes" (30.6%) was almost 12 percentage points higher than those responding "No" (18.9%). The distributions of responses were significantly different (p < 0.001).Conclusions: Support for prescribing diamorphine to dependent users is low in the US. While the results are consistent with the hypothesis that referring to heroin as diamorphine may reduce stigma associated with the substance and increase support for prescribing it, opinions may change as individuals learn they are different names for the same substance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The average amount of marijuana in a joint is unknown, yet this figure is a critical quantity for creating credible measures of marijuana consumption. It is essential for projecting tax revenues post-legalization, estimating the size of illicit marijuana markets, and learning about how much marijuana users are consuming in order to understand health and behavioral consequences.Methods: Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring data collected between 2000 and 2010 contain relevant information on 10,628 marijuana transactions, joints and loose marijuana purchases, including the city in which the purchase occurred and the price paid for the marijuana. Using the Brown-Silverman drug pricing model to link marijuana price and weight, we are able to infer the distribution of grams of marijuana in a joint and provide a Bayesian posterior distribution for the mean weight of marijuana in a joint.Results: We estimate that the mean weight of marijuana in a joint is 0.32g (95% Bayesian posterior interval: 0.30-0.35).Conclusions: Our estimate of the mean weight of marijuana in a joint is lower than figures commonly used to make estimates of marijuana consumption. These estimates can be incorporated into drug policy discussions to produce better understanding about illicit marijuana markets, the size of potential legalized marijuana markets, and health and behavior outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Marijuana contains multiple cannabinoids. Most attention is given to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which produces euphoria and in some cases anxiety and panic reactions. Research suggests that another cannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD), may offset some of these effects. Thus, there is growing interest in the health consequences of the THC to CBD ratio for marijuana. Methods: Using data from over 5000 marijuana samples in California from 1996 to 2008, we examine changes in the median THC-level, median CBD-level, and median THC:CBD-ratio. Results: The median THC-level and median THC:CBD-ratio have dramatically increased for seizures in California, particularly north of the Mexican border. Conclusion: Research on the consequences of the THC:CBD ratio should continue, especially as more attention is devoted to thinking about how to regulate marijuana for medical and recreational use. Researchers should also consider the lack of uniformity in the chemical composition of marijuana when evaluating its health effects. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: There is significant interest in comparing countries on many different indicators of social problems and policies. Cross-national comparisons of drug prevalence and policies are often hampered by differences in the approach used to reach respondents and the methods used to obtain information in national surveys. The paper explores how much these differences could affect cross-country comparisons.Methods: This study reports prevalence of drug use according to the most recent national household survey and then adjusts estimates as if all national surveys used the same methodology. The analysis focuses on European countries for which the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reports data, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Adjustment factors are based on US data.Findings: Adjusting for modality differences appears likely to modestly affect the rankings of countries by prevalence, but to an extent that could be important for comparisons. For example, general population surveys suggest that the US had some of the highest cannabis and cocaine prevalence rates circa 2012, but this is partially driven by the use of a modality known to produce higher prevalence estimates. This analysis shows that country rankings are partly an artifact of the mode of interview used in national general population surveys.Conclusions: Our preliminary efforts suggest that cross-national prevalence comparisons, policy analyses and, other projects such as estimating the global burden of disease could be improved by adjusting estimates from drug use surveys for differences in modality. Research is needed to create more authoritative adjustment factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Studying markets for illegal drugs is important, but difficult. Data usually come from a selected subset of consumers, such as arrestees, treatment clients, or household survey respondents. There are rarely opportunities to study how such groups may differ from other market participants or how much of total consumption they represent. Methods This paper uses respondent-driven sampling (RDS) of drug users in a mid-sized American city to estimate the shares of cocaine (powder and crack) users and expenditures that are attributable to different combinations of these groups. Results We find that those arrested in the last year accounted for 34% of past-month cocaine users and 40% of past-week cocaine spending in the RDS sample. Augmenting past-year arrestees with those who received treatment in the past year increases these values to 44% (users) and 55% (spending). Conclusions Our results suggest that estimates based only on people who were arrested and/or treated in the past year would have to be inflated by 100–200% to capture the market totals. Adding those who own or rent their place of residence increased coverage in this study to 76% (users) and 81% (spending), suggesting that in theory the inflation factor could be reduced to 23–32% by supplementing data on arrestees and treatment populations with household data, although in practice rates of under-reporting by survey respondents may make coverage (sampling frame) a secondary concern for household surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cigarette excise taxes are a well-established policy lever for reducing tobacco use. However, estimating the effect of taxes on smoking behavior can be confounded by endogeneity concerns such as selection. This study leverages a unique natural experiment -compulsory relocation of U.S. military service members to installations - to estimate the relationship between state cigarette taxes and smoking behavior without concerns about selection into environments.Methods: The current study uses data from the Department of Defense's 2011 Health-Related Behaviors Survey and 2011 state cigarette excise taxes from the CDC STATE System. Logistic and Poisson regression analyses estimate the cross-sectional associations between state cigarette excise taxes and the following smoking behaviors: current cigarette smoking, frequency of smoking, heaviness of consumption, and cigarette cessation among individuals who smoked while at the current installation.Results: Higher taxes are associated with lower odds of current cigarette smoking (AOR = 0.94; 95 % CI: 0.89-0.98), fewer smoking days per month among current cigarette smokers (IRR = 0.98, 95 % CI 0.97-0.996), and higher likelihood of quitting smoking among individuals who had smoked at their current installation (AOR = 1.14, 95 % CI 1.05-1.25). Taxes are not associated with the number of cigarettes smoked per day among current smokers.Conclusions: Exogenous assignment to installations in states with higher cigarette taxes is associated with lower likelihood of smoking and greater likelihood of quitting. Findings provide novel evidence in support of a causal impact of cigarette taxes on lower smoking levels among adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies of opioid prescribing patterns have shown that a small percentage of prescribers are responsible for a large portion of total prescriptions. There is some evidence that prescription opioid use may be similarly concentrated, but patterns may differ by population and choice of opioid utilization measure. The objective of this study is to determine what proportion of prescription opioid utilization was attributable to the top utilizers among Medicaid beneficiaries and how this proportion varies by the measure used.Methods: We analyzed 2008-2009 Medicaid claims data from 14 states and created three claims-based measures of aggregate opioid utilization: total number of annual prescriptions, total annual milligrams morphine equivalent, and total days supply. We tested two versions of the total days supply measure: one assuming consecutive use and the other assuming concurrent use of prescriptions.Results: The top 20 % of prescription opioid users accounted for 66 % of prescriptions, 82-85 % of days supply depending on assumption, and 90 % of morphine milligram equivalents (MME). The degree to which prescription opioid utilization was concentrated among the top 20 % of users varied minimally across states.Conclusions: A small percentage of prescription opioid users account for a large share of prescription opioid use. Policy efforts should use metrics pertaining to days supply and total MME, not numbers of prescriptions, to more efficiently target heavy utilization. Policies targeting high-dose prescribing should consider the different ways that overlapping prescriptions may be taken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Illegally manufactured potent synthetic opioids (IMPSO) like fentanyl have contributed to rises in overdose deaths in parts of North America and Europe. While many of these substances are produced in Asia, there is little evidence they have entered markets there. We consider the susceptibility to IMPSO's encroachment in markets in the Asia-Pacific region.Methods: Our analysis focuses on Australia, China, India, and Myanmar. Using a mixed-methods approach comprising interviews, literature review, and secondary data analyses, we examine factors facilitating or impeding incursion of IMPSO. Finally, we illustrate the potential for IMPSO fatalities in Australia.Results: Australia reports some signs of three facilitating factors to IMPSO's emergence: 1) existing illicit opioid markets, 2) disruption of opioid supply, and 3) user preferences. The other three countries report only existing illicit opioid markets. While diverted pharmaceutical opioids are a noted problem in Australia and India, heroin is the dominant opioid in all four countries. There are divergent trends in heroin use, with use declining in China, increasing in India, and stable in Australia and Myanmar. If IMPSO diffused in Australia as in North America from 2014 to 2018, and our assumptions generally hold, deaths from IMPSO could range from 1500-5700 over a five-year period.Conclusions: This analysis and illustrative calculations serve as an early indication for policymakers. With the exception of Australia, many countries in the region fail to properly record overdose deaths or monitor changes in local drug markets. Early assessment and monitoring can give officials a better understanding of these changing threats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Various surveys now ask respondents to describe their most recent purchase of illicit drugs, as one mechanism through which market size can be estimated. This raises the question of whether issues surrounding the timing of survey administration might make a sample of most recent purchases differ from a random sample of all purchases. We investigate these issues through a series of questions which ask about the three most recent purchases, and about drug use. Methods Data were drawn from 688 respondents in the Melbourne Injecting Drug User Cohort Study across the period 2008-2013 and 2782 respondents to the Washington Cannabis Consumption Study in 2013. Responses to questions about the most recent purchases were compared to larger subsets of all recent purchases. Results For heroin, methamphetamine and cannabis no differences were found between the amount spent by participants on their most recent purchase and the average amount spent on three or more recent purchases. There were also no differences concerning the locations and types of deals, and the duration between consecutive cannabis purchases was the same for first and second most recent, and second and third most recent. Conclusions Asking about the most recent purchase appears to be an economical way to learn about purchases more generally, with little evidence of substantial variation between the most recent purchase and other recent purchases reported by participants. In spite of consistent findings across our two surveys, further replication of the work reported in this paper involving other populations of users is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]