Dr. Maneesh Sharma[/caption]
Maneesh Sharma, M.D
Director of Pain Medicine
MedStar Good Samaritan Hospital
Medical Director of the Interventional Pain Institute
Baltimore, Maryland
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Opioid abuse in chronic pain patients is a major public health issue, with rapidly increasing addiction rates and deaths from unintentional overdose more than quadrupling since 1999. Just in the last year alone according to the CDC, synthetic opioid deaths have increased 72%. As a practicing interventional pain specialist, I am confronted with the challenge of assessing patient risk for opioids as I evaluate multi-modal approaches to effective pain management. Existing tools are inadequate, as they either rely on a urine toxicology test to evaluate a patient’s current potential substance abuse as a predictor of future abuse, or on a patient’s honesty to fill out a questionnaire. We know that many patients who are not currently abusing illicit drugs or misusing prescription medications can develop prescription opioid tolerance, dependence, or abuse—especially with prolonged opioid therapy. Furthermore, we know that patients who are looking to abuse medications or divert those prescriptions will obviously lie on questionnaires.
Dr. Brummett[/caption]
Chad M. Brummett, MD
Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology
University of Michigan Medical School
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: The opioid epidemic has received considerable attention, but most of the focus has been on chronic pain and primary care. However, surgeons prescribe ~40% of the opioids in the US, and little attention has been given to the importance of prescribing after surgery.
In this study, we found that among patients not using opioids in the year prior to surgery, ~6% of patients continued to use opioids long after what would be considered normal surgical recovery. Furthermore, there was no difference between patients undergoing minor and major surgeries, thereby suggesting that some patients continue to use opioids for reasons other than pain related to surgery.
Dr. McIntosh[/caption]
James McIntosh PhD
Economics Department
Concordia University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study
Response: Marijuana is about to become legal in Canada. Consequently, an analysis of its effects on users is a high priority. This issue has been explored by Canadian researchers to some extent but there are gaps in what is known about the effects of using marijuana. Most of the Canadian studies focus on youth or adolescent use. This is clearly important but adult use is as well. Establishing the link between early usage and the effects of use over an individual’s lifetime was a major objective of the study.
Dr. Sommer Hammoud[/caption]
Dr. Sommer Hammoud MD
ABOS Board Certified Assistant Professor of Orthopedic Surgery
Thomas Jefferson University
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: The background for this exhibit stemmed from the growing problem of prescription opioid abuse in the United States. As we saw this issue developing, we aimed to investigate the history behind this epidemic, what information we have now to fight it, and what information we need in the future to improve care our patients.
Our main findings for each of those aims are the following:
1) It would appear that a large push at the end of the last century led to a lower threshold to prescribe opiates in the effort to control pain, leading to the current opioid epidemic
2) Mulitmodal methods of pain control and the expanding skill of regional anesthesia can be used to help decrease narcotic use and thus limit exposure to narcotics, and
3) Future research needs to focus on the psychologic aspect of patients' ability to manage pain and we should strive to be able to categorize patients in order to create an individualized pain management protocol which will most effectively manage pain.
Dr. Aditi Kalla[/caption]
Aditi Kalla, MD
Cardiology Research Fellow
Einstein Medical Center
Philadelphia
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: As of the recent 2016 election, decriminalization of cannabis passed in several states bringing the total count up to 28 states and D.C. where cannabis is now legal for medicinal and/or recreational purposes. From a physician’s perspective, it is rare that a drug has “hit the market” so to speak without undergoing clinical trials to determine safety and efficacy. Hence, we sought out to study if cannabis had any effects (positive or negative) on the cardiovascular system.
Dr.Hefei Wen[/caption]
Hefei Wen, PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Health Management & Policy
University of Kentucky College of Public Health
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Buprenorphine has been proven effective in treating opioid use disorder. However, the high cost of buprenorphine and the limited prescribing capacity may restrict access to this effective medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder.
We found a 70% increase in Medicaid-covered buprenorphine prescriptions and a 50% increase in buprenorphine spending associated with the implementation of Medicaid expansions in 26 states during 2014. Physician prescribing capacity was also associated with increased buprenorphine prescriptions and spending.
Dr. Eric Sun[/caption]
Eric C Sun MD PhD, assistant professor
Department of Anesthesiology
Perioperative and Pain Medicine
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford, CA
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: There have been large increases in opioid-related adverse events over the past decade. The goal of our study was to examine the extent to which these increases may have been driven by combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines, a combination that is known to be potentially risky. Overall, we found that the combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines nearly doubled (80% increase) between 2001 and 2013, and that opioid users who also used benzodiazepines were at a higher risk of an opioid-related adverse event. Indeed, our results suggest eliminating the combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines could have reduced the population risk of an opioid-related adverse event by 15%.
Dr. Emil Coccaro[/caption]
Emil F. Coccaro, M.D.
Ellen C. Manning Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience
The University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois 60637
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Aggressive behavior and drug use have been related for years but this study shows people with problematic aggression (Intermittent Explosive Disorder: IED) are in fact at risk for developing alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use disorders and that the onset of problematic aggression (IED) begins before the onset of the drug use.
The increased risk for alcohol use disorder was nearly six-fold higher, the increased risk for cannabis use disorder was seven-fold higher, and the increased risk for tobacco use disorder was four-fold higher. In addition, the presence of IED increased the severity of the substance use disorder.
Philippe Lucas[/caption]
Philippe Lucas
VP, Patient Research & Access, Tilray
Graduate Researcher, Centre for Addictions Research of BC
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: In 2001 Canada become one of the first nations to develop a federally regulated program to allow access to cannabis for medical purposes with the launch of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR). The program has undergone numerous convolutions, culminating in the establishment by Health Canada of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) in 2014, which was replaced by the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes (ACMPR) in 2016.
One of the primary changes in the new program(s) has been to move from a single Licensed Producer (LP) of cannabis to multiple large-scale Licensed Producers. This is the first comprehensive survey of patients enrolled in the MMPR/ACMPR, and with 271 complete responses, it’s the largest survey of federally-authorized medical cannabis patients to date.
Andrea Globa[/caption]
Andrea K. Globa, Ph.D. Candidate
Graduate Program in Neuroscience
Life Sciences Institute
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Addiction is a complex disease, characterized by continued substance use despite serious negative consequences, increased drug tolerance, and withdrawal. In fact, the statistics show that over 40 million Americans abuse or are addicted to nicotine, alcohol or other drugs. This is a huge public health issue, so naturally, scientists are interested in figuring out why people get addicted, and in particular why certain people are more prone to addiction than others.
Studies examining genetic differences in addicted populations have shown that there are many mutations in genes that are important for brain function. One group of genes affected encode proteins that act as 'glue' to hold cells together. These proteins are called cadherins. In the brain, cadherins are important for holding brain cells together at spots where they communicate with one another – and these points where brain cells talk to one another are called synapses.
Many neuroscientists believe that addiction is actually a type of "pathological" learning, where there are changes at synapses in a brain circuit involved in reward and motivation. So we decided to examine the molecular mechanisms that are important for the strengthening of synapses in this brain circuit.
To put it very simply, to learn something you have to make your synapses stronger, and this involves adding more cadherin or 'glue' to the synapse. We wanted to see if these same rules held true in addiction.
Dr. Scott Hadland[/caption]
Scott E. Hadland, MD, MPH, MS
Assistant Professor of Pediatrics
Boston University School of Medicine
Urban Health & Advocacy Track Director | Boston Combined Residency Program
Boston, MA 02118
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Studies to date have shown that states’ alcohol laws can help prevent young people from dying in car crashes. However, studies to date have usually only looked at a single policy at once. We wanted to build on these previous studies by looking at the overall effect of multiple alcohol laws acting at once. We also wanted to look at laws not necessarily only targeting drinking and driving among young people, but also policies aimed primarily at adults over 21.
We studied deaths of young people under 21 who were killed in motor vehicle crashes across the United States between 2000 and 2013. We found that one-quarter of all young people died in a crash involving a driver who alcohol level was over the legal limit. One-half died in a crash in which the driver had any level of alcohol in their bloodstream above zero.
We also found that most young people died on evenings and weekends, which is when people are most likely to have been drinking. Importantly, almost half of all young people died in a crash in which they were the passenger, not the driver. In 80% of cases in which they were the passenger, it was actually an adult >21, not a young person, who was driving the vehicle.
We then looked at states’ alcohol laws, and found that the stronger the set of alcohol policies in a state, the lower the likelihood of young people dying in a crash that was alcohol-related. Policies included laws relating to alcohol taxes, alcohol availability and hours of sales, and graduated driver’s licensing for young people, among many others.
Kristi Roberts[/caption]
Kristi Roberts, M.S., M.P.H.
Research Project Coordinator
Center for Injury Research and Policy
Nationwide Children’s Hospital
Columbus, Ohio
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Lin Lu[/caption]
Lin Lu, M.D. Ph.D.
Director/Professor, Institute of Mental Health and Peking University Sixth Hospital
Director/Professor, National Institute on Drug Dependence, Peking University
Beijing China
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Nicotine addiction is the leading preventable cause of mortality, and causes over 6 million deaths each year. One fundamental mechanism that maintain smoking relapse in smokers is the persistence of memories of both nicotine reward and nicotine-associated conditioned stimulus (CS, e.g. ashtray,cigarette lighters, etc.).Preclinical studies suggest that the drug reward memories can be reactivated by nicotine-associated CS undergo an unstable stage, named memory reconsolidation, and that pharmacological or behavioral manipulations that interfere with reconsolidation inhibit subsequent drug relapse.
However, most of the translational studies targeting reconsolidation stages of the drug reward memory have not been successful.One important reason is that when participants were exposed to nicotine-associated CS to induce memory reconsolidation, the pharmacological or behavioral manipulations only interfere with the reconsolidation of memories selectively associated with the reactivated CS, without affecting other CSs.
However, in real life, smoking is associated with multiple CSs that vary across individuals. Thus, a key question is how to interfere with reconsolidation of multiple nicotine-associated memories . In the present study, we introduce a novel memory reconsolidation interference procedure in which we reactivated multiple nicotine reward memories in rats and human smokers by acute exposure to nicotine (the UCS) and then interfered with memory reconsolidation using the noradrenergic blocker propranolol, an FDA-approved drug.
Dr. Guillaume Sescousse[/caption]
Guillaume Sescousse, PhD
Senior post-doc
Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging
The Netherlands
with collaborators Maartje Luijten, PhD,
and Arnt Schellekens, MD PhD
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: People with an addiction process rewards in their brain differently from people who are not addicted. However, whether this is associated with “too much” or “too little” brain activity is an open question. Indeed, past research has produced conflicting findings.
In order to get a reliable answer, we have combined 25 studies investigating brain reward sensitivity in more than 1200 individuals with and without addiction to various substances such as alcohol, nicotine or cocaine but also gambling. By analyzing the brain images from these studies, we have discovered an important difference in brain activity between expecting a reward and receiving a reward. Compared with non-addicted individuals, individuals with substance or gambling addiction showed a weaker brain response to anticipating monetary rewards. This weaker response was observed in the striatum, a core region of the brain reward circuit, possibly indicating that individuals with an addiction have relatively low expectations about rewards. In contrast, this same region showed a relatively stronger response to receiving a reward in individuals with substance addiction compared with non-addicted individuals. Many addiction rehab centres, such as Avante, offer targeted addiction relief strategies to help a specific person with their addiction.
This stronger response possibly indicates a stronger surprise to getting the reward, and is consistent with low expectations. This same effect was not found among people addicted to gambling.
Dr. Meredith Shiels[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Dr Meredith S Shiels
Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics
National Cancer Institute
Bethesda, MD
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: In most high-income countries, premature death rates have been declining, due to the overwhelming successes of public health efforts to prevent and treat chronic disease. The US is a major outlier, where death rates overall have plateaued, or even increased, as reported recently by our sister agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of particular concern are recent reports of increasing death rates among Americans during mid-life.
To expand upon prior findings, we focused on premature death, which we defined as death occurring between the ages of 25 and 64. We examined finely detailed death certificate data for the entire U.S. population and described changes in death rates during 1999-2014 by cause of death, sex, race, ethnicity, and geography. To provide context to our findings, we compared trends in death rates in the U.S. to England and Wales and Canada.