Search

Li-Tzy Wu,1–4 Udi E Ghitza,5 Anne L Burns,6 Paolo Mannelli,1 1Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 2Department of Medicine, 3Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, 4Center for Child and Family Policy, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, 5Center for Clinical Trials Network, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, MD, 6American Pharmacists Association, Washington, DC, USA The USA is experiencing an opioid overdose epidemic. It has been driven largely by prescription opioids and intensified by a surge of illicit opioids (e.g., heroin and fentanyl).1,2 Drug-involved overdose, mainly opioids (e.g., prescription opioids and heroin), is a leading cause of accidental death in the USA. The opioid overdose epidemic has been escalating consistently for over a decade.2 Every day, an estimated 91 Americans die from opioid-related overdose.3 Opioid overdose appears to have disproportionally affected men, adults aged 25–64 years, and non-Hispanic whites.2

Daniel J Pilowsky,1,2 Li-Tzy Wu3,41Columbia University Medical Center, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health New York City, NY, USA; 2Division of Epidemiology, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City, NY, USA; 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, 4Center for Child and Family Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USAAbstract: Although HIV-related sexual risk behaviors have been studied extensively in adolescents and young adults, there is limited information about these behaviors among older Americans, which make up a growing segment of the US population and an understudied population. This review of the literature dealing with sexual behaviors that increase the risk of becoming HIV-infected found a low prevalence of condom use among older adults, even when not in a long-term relationship with a single partner. A seminal study by Schick et al published in 2010 reported that the prevalence of condom use at last intercourse was highest among those aged 50–59 years (24.3%; 95% confidence interval, 15.6–35.8) and declined with age, with a 17.1% prevalence among those aged 60–69 years (17.1%; 95% confidence interval, 7.3–34.2). Studies have shown that older Americans may underestimate their risk of becoming HIV-infected. Substance use also increases the risk for sexual risk behaviors, and studies have indicated that the prevalence of substance use among older adults has increased in the past decade. As is the case with younger adults, the prevalence of HIV infections is elevated among ethnic minorities, drug users (eg, injection drug users), and men who have sex with men. When infected, older adults are likely to be diagnosed with HIV-related medical disorders later in the course of illness compared with their younger counterparts. Physicians are less likely to discuss sexual risk behaviors with older adults and to test them for HIV compared with younger adults. Thus, it is important to educate clinicians about sexual risk behaviors in the older age group and to design preventive interventions specifically designed for older adults.Keywords: HIV/AIDS, older adults, aging, sexual risk behaviors, condom use

Paolo Mannelli,1 Li-Tzy Wu1–41Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 2Department of Medicine, 3Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, 4Center for Child and Family Policy, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USARecent reports on prescription opioid misuse and abuse have described unprecedented peaks of a national crisis and the only answer is to expand prevention and treatment, including different levels of care.1 Nonetheless, concerns remain about the ability of busy primary care settings to manage problem opioid users along with other patients. In particular, proposed extensions of buprenorphine treatment, a critically effective intervention for opioid use disorder (OUD), are cautiously considered due to the potential risk of misuse or abuse.2 General practitioners are already facing this burden daily in the treatment of chronic pain, and expert supervision and treatment model adjustment are needed to help improve outcomes. Approximately 20% of patients in primary care have noncancer pain symptoms, with most of them receiving opioid prescriptions by their physicians, and their number is increasing.3 Pain diagnoses are comparable in severity to those of tertiary centers and are complicated by significant psychiatric comorbidity, with a measurable lifetime risk of developing OUD.4,5 Some primary care physicians report frustration about opioid abuse and diversion by their patients; support from pain specialists would improve their competence, the quality f their performance, and the ability to identify patients at risk of opioid misuse.6 Thus, buprenorphine treatment should not be adding to a complex clinical scenario. To this end, the promising models of care emphasize the integration of medical with psychological and pharmacological expertise for the management of OUD.

Udi E Ghitza,1 Li-Tzy Wu,2 Betty Tai11Center for the Clinical Trials Network, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, 2Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USAAbstract: Cigarette smoking and alcohol use are prevalent among individuals with diabetes in the US, but little is known about screening and treatment for substance use disorders in the diabetic population. This commentary discusses the scope and clinical implications of the public health problem of coexisting substance use and diabetes, including suggestions for future research. Diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death in the US, and is associated with many severe health complications like cardiovascular disease, stroke, kidney damage, and limb amputations. There are an estimated 24 million adults in the US with type 2 diabetes. Approximately 20% of adults aged 18 years or older with diabetes report current cigarette smoking. The prevalence of current alcohol use in the diabetic population is estimated to be around 50%–60% in epidemiological surveys and treatment-seeking populations. Cigarette smoking is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes in a dose-dependent manner and is an independent modifiable risk factor for development of type 2 diabetes. Diabetic patients with an alcohol or other drug use disorder show a higher rate of adverse health outcomes. For example, these patients experience more frequent and severe health complications as well as an increased risk of hospitalization, and require longer hospital stays. They are also less likely to seek routine care for diabetes or adhere to diabetes treatment than those without an alcohol or other drug use disorder. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Mental Health Parity Act and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 provide opportunities for facilitating integration of preventive services and evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders with diabetes care in community-based medical settings. These laws also offer emerging areas for research.Keywords: addiction, illicit drug use, substance use disorder, substance abuse treatment, alcohol use, diabetes care, primary care, screening, brief intervention

Walter Ling,1 David Farabee,1 Dagmar Liepa,2 Li-Tzy Wu31Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 2Valley Care Medical Center, Panorama City, CA, USA; 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USAAbstract: The fields of addiction medicine and addiction research have long sought an efficient yet comprehensive instrument to assess patient progress in treatment and recovery. Traditional tools are expensive, time consuming, complex, and based on topics that clinicians or researchers think are important. Thus, they typically do not provide patient-centered information that is meaningful and relevant to the lives of patients with substance use disorders. To improve our ability to understand patients’ progress in treatment from their perspectives, the authors and colleagues developed a patient-oriented assessment instrument that has considerable advantages over existing instruments: brevity, simplicity, ease of administration, orientation to the patient, and cost (none). The resulting Treatment Effectiveness Assessment (TEA) elicits patient responses that help the patient and the clinician quickly gauge patient progress in treatment and in recovery, according to the patients’ sense of what is important within four domains established by prior research. Patients provide both numerical responses and representative details on their substance use, health, lifestyle, and community. No software is required for data entry or scoring, and no formal training is required to administer the TEA. This article describes the development of the TEA and the initial phases of its application in clinical practice and in research.Keywords: substance use disorders, global treatment progress, brief instrument, patient-centered

Daniel J Pilowsky1, Li-Tzy Wu21Departments of Epidemiology and Psychiatry, Columbia University, and the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City, NY, 2Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USABackground: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 supports integration of substance abuse interventions and treatments into the mainstream health care system. Thus, effective screening and intervention for substance use disorders in health care settings is a priority.Objective: This paper reviews the prevalence of alcohol and drug use disorders (abuse or dependence) in primary care settings and emergency departments, as well as current screening tools and brief interventions.Methods: MEDLINE was searched using the following keywords: alcohol use, alcohol use disorder, drug use, drug use disorder, screening, primary care, and emergency departments. Using the related-articles link, additional articles were screened for inclusion. This review focuses on alcohol and drug use and related disorders among adults in primary care settings.Conclusion: Screening, brief intervention, and referral for treatment are feasible and effective in primary care settings, provided that funding for screening is available, along with brief interventions and treatment facilities to which patients can be referred and treated promptly.Keywords: brief intervention, emergency departments

Betty Tai1, Li-Tzy Wu2, H Westley Clark31Center for Clinical Trials Network, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, MD, 2Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, 3Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD, USAAbstract: While substance use problems are considered to be common in medical settings, they are not systematically assessed and diagnosed for treatment management. Research data suggest that the majority of individuals with a substance use disorder either do not use treatment or delay treatment-seeking for over a decade. The separation of substance abuse services from mainstream medical care and a lack of preventive services for substance abuse in primary care can contribute to under-detection of substance use problems. When fully enacted in 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2010 will address these barriers by supporting preventive services for substance abuse (screening, counseling) and integration of substance abuse care with primary care. One key factor that can help to achieve this goal is to incorporate the standardized screeners or common data elements for substance use and related disorders into the electronic health records (EHR) system in the health care setting. Incentives for care providers to adopt an EHR system for meaningful use are part of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act 2009. This commentary focuses on recent evidence about routine screening and intervention for alcohol/drug use and related disorders in primary care. Federal efforts in developing common data elements for use as screeners for substance use and related disorders are described. A pressing need for empirical data on screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for drug-related disorders to inform SBIRT and related EHR efforts is highlighted.Keywords: electronic health records, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2010, primary care, screening, brief intervention, substance abuse treatment, substance use disorders

Daniel J Pilowsky1, Li-Tzy Wu2, Bruce Burchett2, Dan G Blazer2, George E Woody3, Walter Ling41Departments of Epidemiology and Psychiatry, Columbia University, and the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City, NY; 2Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; 3Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania and Treatment Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA; 4David Geffen School of Medicine, NPI/Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USABackground: In response to the rising rate of treatment admissions related to illicit use of amphetamines (eg, methamphetamine), we examined the prevalence of amphetamine use among treatment-seeking, opioid-dependent adults, explored whether amphetamine users were as likely as nonamphetamine users to enroll in opioid-dependence treatment trials, and determined whether amphetamine users manifested greater levels of medical and psychiatric comorbidity than nonusers.Methods: The sample included 1257 opioid-dependent adults screened for participation in threemultisite studies of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN001-003), which studied the effectiveness of buprenorphine for opioid detoxification under varying treatment conditions. Patients were recruited from 23 addiction treatment programs across the US. Medical and psychiatric comorbidity were examined by past-month amphetamine use (current vs former) and route of administration. Five mutually exclusive groups were examined, ie, nonusers, current amphetamine injectors, current amphetamine noninjectors, former amphetamine injectors, and former amphetamine noninjectors.Results: Of the sample (n = 1257), 22.3% had a history of regular amphetamine use. Of the 280 amphetamine users, 30.3% reported injection as their primary route. Amphetamine users were more likely than nonusers to be white and use more substances. Amphetamine users were as likely as nonusers to enroll in treatment trials. Bivariate analyses indicated elevated rates of psychiatric problems (depression, anxiety, hallucinations, cognitive impairment, violence, suicidal thoughts/attempts) and medical illnesses (dermatological, hepatic, cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, seizure, allergy conditions) among amphetamine users. After adjusting for demographic variables and lifetime use of other substances: current amphetamine users and former injectors showed an increased likelihood of having medical illnesses and hospitalizations; current injectors had elevated odds of suicidal thoughts or attempts; current noninjectors exhibited elevated odds of anxiety, cognitive impairment, and violent behaviors; and former noninjectors had increased odds of depression.Conclusion: Treatment-seeking, amphetamine-using, opioid-dependent adults manifest greater levels of medical and psychiatric morbidity than treatment-seeking, opioid-dependent adults who have not used amphetamines, indicating a greater need for intensive clinical management.Keywords: amphetamine use, buprenorphine, clinical trials network, injection drug use, methamphetamine use, opioid dependence, rehabilitation

Paolo Mannelli, Kathleen S Peindl, Li-Tzy WuDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USAPurpose: Opioid dependence (OD) is a serious and growing clinical condition with increasing social costs that requires expanding treatment beyond opioid agonist substitution. The opioid antagonist naltrexone has displayed a remarkable association of theoretical effectiveness and poor clinical utility in treating OD due to noncompliant behavior and low acceptability among patients, only partly modified by psychosocial interventions. We reviewed pharmacological studies, including naltrexone depot formulations and combination treatments.Method: We searched PubMed for clinical studies on the use of naltrexone implants and slow-release injections in OD, and investigations using adjunct medications to improve naltrexone maintenance therapy of OD. We discussed the results in view of their application to the clinical practice.Results: Significant reduction in opioid use and improved retention in treatment have been found in several studies using depot naltrexone formulations, some of which are controlled clinical trials. Pilot investigations have gathered initial positive results on the use of naltrexone in combination with serotonin reuptake inhibitors, α-2 adrenergic, opioid, and γ-aminobutyric acid agonist medications.Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that more research on effectiveness and safety is needed in support of depot naltrexone treatment for OD. Further research comparing slow-release with oral naltrexone and opioid agonist medications will help characterize the role of opioid antagonist-mediated treatment of OD. Preliminary investigations on naltrexone combination treatments suggest the opportunity to continue study of new mixed receptor activities for the treatment of OD and other drug addictions.Keywords: extended-release, naltrexone, implant, injection, depot, combination

Li-Tzy Wu1, George E Woody2, Chongming Yang3, Paolo Mannelli1, Dan G Blazer11Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; 2Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania and Treatment Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 3Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USAObjectives: To examine patterns of onset and abuse/dependence episodes of prescription opioid (PO) and heroin use disorders in a national sample of adults, and to explore differences by gender and substance abuse treatment status.Methods: Analyses of data from the 2001–2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (N = 43,093).Results: Of all respondents, 5% (n = 1815) reported a history of nonmedical PO use (NMPOU) and 0.3% (n = 150) a history of heroin use. Abuse was more prevalent than dependence among NMPOUs (PO abuse, 29%; dependence, 7%) and heroin users (heroin abuse, 63%; dependence, 28%). Heroin users reported a short mean interval from first use to onset of abuse (1.5 years) or dependence (2.0 years), and a lengthy mean duration for the longest episode of abuse (66 months) or dependence (59 months); the corresponding mean estimates for PO abuse and dependence among NMPOUs were 2.6 and 2.9 years, respectively, and 31 and 49 months, respectively. The mean number of years from first use to remission from the most recent episode was 6.9 years for PO abuse and 8.1 years for dependence; the mean number of years from first heroin use to remission from the most recent episode was 8.5 years for heroin abuse and 9.7 years for dependence. Most individuals with PO or heroin use disorders were remitted from the most recent episode. Treated individuals, whether their problem was heroin or POs, tended to have a longer mean duration of an episode than untreated individuals.Conclusion: Periodic remissions from opioid or heroin abuse or dependence episodes occur commonly but take a long time. Timely and effective use of treatment services are needed to mitigate the many adverse consequences from opioid/heroin abuse and dependence.Keywords: comorbidity, heroin use disorders, natural recovery, opioid use disorders, prescription opioid abuse, self-change

Brian E Perron1, Joseph E Glass2, Brian K Ahmedani3, Michael G Vaughn4, Daniel E Roberts1, Li-Tzy Wu51University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 2Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA; 3Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA; 4St Louis University, St Louis, MO, USA; 5Duke University, Durham, NC, USABackground: Inhalants are among the most common and dangerous forms of substance use, but very little research on inhalant use disorders exist. Unlike other substances, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition (DSM-IV) indicates that inhalants do not have an associated withdrawal syndrome among persons who meet criteria for inhalant dependence.Methods: Using data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, this study examines the prevalence of withdrawal symptoms among inhalant users. Prevalence of inhalant withdrawal symptoms for inhalants was also compared with the prevalence of cocaine withdrawal symptoms to help determine the presence of an inhalant withdrawal syndrome.Results: Approximately 47.8% of persons who met criteria for inhalant dependence reported experiencing three or more inhalant-related withdrawal symptoms that were clinically significant. Among those with inhalant dependence, almost half of the withdrawal symptoms were as common as the corresponding withdrawal symptoms experienced by persons with cocaine dependence. Furthermore, the percentage of persons with inhalant dependence reporting clinically significant inhalant withdrawal symptoms was almost equal to the percentage of persons with cocaine dependence reporting clinically significant cocaine withdrawal symptoms.Conclusions: These data provide evidence for an inhalant-related withdrawal syndrome among persons with inhalant dependence. Revisions to DSM-IV should consider including inhalant withdrawal as a diagnostic criterion for this disorder.Keywords: Inhalants, volatile solvents, withdrawal, inhalant use disorders

Li-Tzy Wu1, George E Woody2, Chongming Yang3, Jih-Heng Li4, Dan G Blazer11Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; 2Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania and Treatment Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 3Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; 4College of Pharmacy, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, TaiwanContext: Media and scientific reports have indicated an increase in recreational use of Salvia divinorum. Epidemiological data are lacking on the trends, prevalence, and correlates of S. divinorum use in large representative samples, as well as the extent of substance use and mental health problems among S. divinorum users.Objective: To examine the national trend in prevalence of S. divinorum use and to identify sociodemographic, behavioral, mental health, and substance-use profiles of recent (past-year) and former users of S. divinorum.Design: Analyses of public-use data files from the 2006–2008 United States National Surveys on Drug Use and Health (N = 166,453).Setting: Noninstitutionalized individuals aged 12 years or older were interviewed in their places of residence.Main measures: Substance use, S. divinorum, self-reported substance use disorders, criminality, depression, and mental health treatment were assessed by standardized survey questions administered by the audio computer-assisted self-interviewing method.Results: Among survey respondents, lifetime prevalence of S. divinorum use had increased from 0.7% in 2006 to 1.3% in 2008 (an 83% increase). S. divinorum use was associated with ages 18–25 years, male gender, white or multiple race, residence of large metropolitan areas, arrests for criminal activities, and depression. S. divinorum use was particularly common among recent drug users, including users of lysergic acid diethylamide (53.7%), ecstasy (30.1%), heroin (24.2%), phencyclidine (22.4%), and cocaine (17.5%). Adjusted multinomial logistic analyses indicated polydrug use as the strongest determinant for recent and former S. divinorum use. An estimated 43.0% of past-year S. divinorum users and 28.9% of former S. divinorum users had an illicit or nonmedical drug-use disorder compared with 2.5% of nonusers. Adjusted logistic regression analyses showed that recent and former S. divinorum users had greater odds of having past-year depression and a substance-use disorder (alcohol or drugs) than past-year alcohol or drug users who did not use S. divinorum.Conclusion: S. divinorum use is prevalent among recent or active drug users who have used other hallucinogens or stimulants. The high prevalence of substance use disorders among recent S. divinorum users emphasizes the need to study health risks of drug interactions.Keywords: alcohol-use disorders, drug-use disorders, ecstasy, lysergic acid diethylamide, major depression, multiple race, nicotine dependence, phencyclidine, prescription drug abuse

Walter Ling,1 David Farabee,1 Dagmar Liepa,2 Li-Tzy Wu3 1Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 2Valley Care Medical Center, Panorama City, CA, 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA We have been surprised and gratified by the readers’ responses to our article, The Treatment Effectiveness Assessment (TEA): an efficient, patient-centered instrument for evaluating progress in recovery from addiction, which was published in December 2012.1 In the six months since that time, we have received numerous questions and observations about the article, and about the TEA instrument. Respondents were clinicians: physicians, counselors, therapists, nurses; as well as administrators and policy makers. View original paper by Ling W, Farabee D, Liepa D, Wu LT.

Walter Ling,1 Li-Tzy Wu21Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Science, Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 2Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USAPrescription drug overdoses, mainly involving prescription opioids, have reached epidemic proportions in the United States over the past 20 years.1,2 Since 2003, prescription opioids have been involved in more drug-related overdose deaths than heroin and cocaine combined. Among patients who were prescribed opioids, an estimated 20% were prescribed high doses of opioids by either single or multiple physicians, and these patients appeared to account for the majority of prescription opioid-related overdoses.1,3,4 The increase in prescription overdose deaths has coincided with a major increase in prescription opioid sales.2 The prescribing practices of some physicians are often believed to have contributed in part to the increase in these overdose deaths. In a recently published perspective, Anna Lembke speculated on why doctors prescribe opioids to known prescription opioid abusers.5 Her article raises a timely and troubling issue for all of us interested in this area of medicine. Lembke identifies the root of the problem to lie in the changing societal attitude towards pain and suffering, the ever-growing availability of opioid medications, the regulatory requirements promulgated, and the perceived shift in the role of the medical professional in this context. Central to her argument is that physicians must now practice according to a set of externally imposed expectations of patients, payers, and regulators, putting the prescriber in the position of being "damned if you do and damned if you don’t". If Lembke is right, the physician now prescribes not according to what he or she wants to do, but according to what he or she must do. The result, at one extreme, is the patient acting as their own physician and, at the other extreme, self-deception on both ends. Things could hardly get worse. Lembke’s proposed solutions are to make the threat of public and legal censure equal in not treating addiction as in not treating pain, and to compensate addiction treatment on a par with care for other illnesses (presumably including pain).5

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine psychometric properties of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), diagnostics criteria for alcohol and marijuana dependences among 462 alcohol users and 311 marijuana users enrolled in two multisite trials of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network.Method: Diagnostic questions were assessed by the DSM-IV checklist. Data were analyzed by the item response theory and the multiple indicators-multiple causes method procedures.Results: Criterion symptoms of alcohol and marijuana dependences exhibited a high level of internal consistency. All individual symptoms showed good discrimination in distinguishing alcohol or marijuana users between high and low severity levels of the continuum. In both groups, "withdrawal" appeared to measure the most severe symptom of the dependence continuum. There was little evidence of measurement nonequivalence in assessing symptoms of dependence by gender, age, race/ethnicity, and educational level.Conclusions: These findings highlight the clinical utility of the DSM-IV checklist in assessing alcohol- and marijuana dependence syndromes among treatment-seeking substance users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]