The long-term impact of the earthquake on substance use

Earthquake is associated with several health conditions such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and cardiovascular disease. However, the association between earthquakes and substance use has been less studied to date. We conducted a historical cohort study 17 years after the Bam earthquake by enrolling 818 households using multi-stage cluster sampling. The sample consisted of earthquake-exposed and non-exposed citizens. The ASSIST screening test was used to determine substance use. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association of variables of interest with substance use. Nearly 60% of the study subjects were female and the mean ± SD age of the sample was 46.6 ± 11.5 years. The prevalence of tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use in the exposed group was 19.5%, 24.9%, and 21.6%, respectively. The corresponding figures in the non-exposed group were 15.6%, 19.3%, and 20.1%, respectively (P > 0.05). The logistic regression model found no association between the history of earthquake exposure and the risk of any current drug use. Our results showed those 17 years after the Bam earthquake, there was no relationship between earthquake exposure and substance use.

Use of dexmedetomidine in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

Background

Dexmedetomidine is widely used in patients with sepsis. However, its effect on septic patients remains controversial. The objective of this study was to summarize all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining dexmedetomidine use in sepsis patients.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis included RCTs comparing dexmedetomidine with other sedatives in adult sepsis patients. We generated pooled relative risks (RRs) and standardized mean differences and performed trial sequential analysis and a cumulative meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the length of the intensive care unit stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, number of ventilation-free days, incidence of total adverse event, incidence of delirium, and levels of interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and alanine aminotransferase.

Results

We included 19 RCTs that enrolled 1929 patients. Compared with other sedatives, dexmedetomidine decreased the all-cause mortality (RR 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.69, 0.99]) and inflammatory response (interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha levels at 24 h: standardized mean difference (SMD) − 2.15; 95% CI [− 3.25, − 1.05] and SMD − 1.07, 95% CI [− 1.92, − 0.22], respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that it is not up to required information size. The overall risk adverse events was similar between dexmedetomidine and the other sedatives (RR 1.27, 95% CI [0.69, 2.36]), but dexmedetomidine increased the risk of arrhythmias (RR 1.43, 95% CI [0.59, 3.51]). Length of intensive care unit stay (SMD − 0.22; 95% CI [− 0.85, − 0.41]), duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD 0.12; 95% CI [− 1.10, 1.35]), incidence of delirium (RR 0.98; 95% CI [0.72, 1.33]), and levels of alanine aminotransferase and creatinine at 24 h were not significantly reduced.

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine in sepsis patients could significantly reduce mortality compared with benzodiazepines but not with propofol. In addition, dexmedetomidine can significantly decrease inflammatory response in patients with sepsis compared with other sedatives. Dexmedetomidine might lead to an increased incidence of arrhythmias, but its safety profile did not show significant differences in the incidence of total adverse events. Future RCTs are needed to determine the sepsis patient population that would benefit most from dexmedetomidine and its optimal dosing regimen.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-022-01052-2.

Comparison of the effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol on hypothermia in patients under spinal anesthesia: a prospective, randomized, and controlled trial

Background: Redistribution hypothermia caused by vasodilation during anesthesia is the primary cause of perioperative hypothermia. Propofol exerts a dose-dependent vasodilatory effect, whereas dexmedetomidine induces peripheral vasoconstriction at high plasma concentrations. This study compared the effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol on core temperature in patients undergoing surgery under spinal anesthesia. Methods: This prospective study included 40 patients (aged 19-70 years) with American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status class I-III who underwent elective orthopedic lower-limb surgery under spinal anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated to a dexmedetomidine or propofol group (n = 20 per group). After induction of spinal anesthesia, patients received dexmedetomidine (loading dose: 1 μg/kg over 10 min; maintenance dose: 0.2-0.7 μg/kg/h) or propofol (loading dose: 75 μg/kg over 10 min; maintenance dose: 12.5-75 μg/kg/min). The doses of sedatives were titrated to maintain moderate sedation. During the perioperative period, tympanic temperatures, thermal comfort score, and shivering grade were recorded. Results: Core temperature at the end of surgery did not differ significantly between the groups (36.4 ± 0.4 and 36.1 ± 0.7°C in the dexmedetomidine and propofol groups, respectively; P = 0.118). The lowest perioperative temperature, incidence and severity of perioperative hypothermia, thermal comfort score, and shivering grade did not differ significantly between the groups (all P > 0.05). Conclusions: In patients undergoing spinal anesthesia with moderate sedation, the effect of dexmedetomidine on patients' core temperature was similar to that of propofol.

Deprescribing to reduce polypharmacy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial assessing deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative drugs in a cohort of frail older people living in the community

BACKGROUND

Targeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications in older people may improve their health outcomes. This trial will determine if pharmacist-led reviews lead to general practitioners deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medications in older people living in the community.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The standard protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist was used to develop and report the protocol. The trial will involve older adults stratified by frailty (low, medium, and high). This will be a pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial to test general practitioner uptake of pharmacist recommendations to deprescribe anticholinergic and sedative medications that are causing adverse side effects in patients.

STUDY POPULATION

Community-dwelling frail adults, 65 years or older, living in the Canterbury region of New Zealand, seeking publicly funded home support services or admission to aged residential care and taking at least one anticholinergic or sedative medication regularly.

INTERVENTION

New Zealand registered pharmacists using peer-reviewed deprescribing guidelines will visit participants at home in the community, review their medications, and recommend anticholinergic and sedative medications that could be deprescribed to the participant's general practitioner. The total use of anticholinergic and sedative medications will be quantified using the Drug Burden Index (DBI).

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome will be the change in total DBI between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include entry into aged residential care, prolonged hospitalization, and death.

DATA COLLECTION POINTS

Data will be collected at the time of interRAI assessments (T0), at the time of the baseline review (T1), at 6 months following the baseline review (T2), and at the end of the study period, or end of study participation for participants admitted into aged residential care, or who died (T3).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from the Human, Disability and Ethics Committee: ethical number (17CEN265).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ACTRN12618000729224 . Registered on May 2, 2018, with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

A systems omics-based approach to decode substance use disorders and neuroadaptations

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are a group of neuropsychiatric conditions manifesting due to excessive dependence on potential drugs of abuse such as psychostimulants, opioids including prescription opioids, alcohol, inhalants, etc. Experimental studies have generated enormous data in the area of SUDs, but outcomes from such data have remained largely fragmented. In this review, we attempt to coalesce these data points providing an important first step towards our understanding of the etiology of SUDs. We propose and describe a 'core addictome' pathway that behaves central to all SUDs. Besides, we also have made some notable observations paving way for several hypotheses; MECP2 behaves as a master switch during substance use; five distinct gene clusters were identified based on respective substance addiction; a central cluster of genes serves as a hub of the addiction pathway connecting all other substance addiction clusters. In addition to describing these findings, we have emphasized the importance of some candidate genes that are of substantial interest for further investigation and serve as high-value targets for translational efforts.

Drugs of Abuse-Opioids, Sedatives, Hypnotics

Over the last 2 decades, prescription and nonprescription substance use has significantly increased. In this article, 3 particular drug classes-opioids, sedatives, and hypnotics-are discussed. For each class, a brief history of the agent, a description of relevant pharmacology, the clinical presentation of overdose, the management of specific drug overdoses, and a summary of salient points are presented. The intent is to provide a clinically relevant and comprehensive approach to understanding these potential substance exposures in order to provide a framework for management of opioid, sedative, and hypnotic overdoses.

The effects of anaesthetics and sedatives on brain inflammation

Microglia are involved in many dynamic processes in the central nervous system (CNS) including the development of inflammatory processes and neuromodulation. Several sedative, analgesic or anaesthetic drugs, such as opioids, ∝2-adrenergic agonists, ketamine, benzodiazepines and propofol can cause both neuroprotective and harmful effects on the brain. The purpose of this review is to present the main findings on the use of these drugs and the mechanisms involved in microglial activation. Alpha 2-adrenergic agonists, propofol and benzodiazepines have several pro- or anti-inflammatory effects on microglia. Long-term use of benzodiazepines and propofol causes neuroapoptotic effects and α2-adrenergic agonists may attenuate these effects. Conversely, morphine and fentanyl may have proinflammatory effects, causing behavioural changes in patients and changes in cell viability in vitro. Conversely, chronic administration of morphine induces CCL5 chemokine expression in microglial cells that promotes their survival.

The Risk of Overdose With Concomitant Use of Z-Drugs and Prescription Opioids: A Population-Based Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The Z-drugs (zolpidem, zopiclone, zaleplon) are widely used to treat insomnia in patients receiving prescription opioids, and the risk of overdose resulting from this coprescription has not been explored. The authors compared the rates of overdose among patients using opioids plus Z-drugs and patients using opioids alone.

METHODS

All individuals 15 to 85 years of age receiving prescription opioids, regardless of underlying indication and without evidence of cancer, were identified in the IBM MarketScan database (2004-2017). Patients with concomitant exposure to Z-drugs were matched 1:1 to patients with exposure to prescription opioids alone based on opioid prescribed, morphine equivalents, number of days' supply, and hospitalization within the past 30 days. The primary outcome was any hospitalization or emergency department visit due to an overdose within 30 days, using an intention-to-treat approach. Fine stratification on the propensity score was used to control for confounding.

RESULTS

A total of 510,529 exposed patients and an equal number of matched reference patients were analyzed. There were 217 overdose events among the exposed patients (52.5 events per 10,000 person-years) and 57 events among the reference patients (14.4 events per 10,000 person-years), corresponding to an unadjusted hazard ratio of 3.67 (95% CI=2.75, 4.90). Using fine stratification on the propensity score (c-statistic: 0.66), the adjusted hazard ratio was 2.29 (95% CI=1.79, 2.91). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients receiving prescription opioids, after controlling for all confounding factors, concomitant treatment with Z-drugs was associated with a substantial relative increase in the risk of overdose. The potential implications are significant given the large number of opioid-treated patients receiving Z-drugs.

Association Between Benzodiazepine or Z-Drug Prescriptions and Drug-Related Poisonings Among Patients Receiving Buprenorphine Maintenance: A Case-Crossover Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Persons with opioid use disorder who take benzodiazepines are at high risk for overdose. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of benzodiazepine and Z-drug use with drug-related poisonings among patients receiving buprenorphine maintenance treatment.

METHODS

A case-crossover study design was used to analyze prescription claims among persons ages 12-64 with opioid use disorder who had buprenorphine prescriptions and had claims data in the IBM MarketScan databases (2006-2016), encompassing 14,213,075 person-days of observation time for 23,036 individuals who experienced drug-related poisoning. The exposures were buprenorphine prescriptions and benzodiazepine or Z-drug prescriptions, standardized as daily diazepam-equivalent milligram doses and separated by pharmacologic properties (short-acting or long-acting benzodiazepines, Z-drugs). The outcome of interest was nonfatal drug-related poisoning. Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate variation in benzodiazepine or Z-drug and buprenorphine use between poisoning and nonpoisoning days.

RESULTS

Buprenorphine treatment days were associated with a nearly 40% reduction in the risk of poisoning events (odds ratio=0.63, 95% CI=0.60, 0.66) compared with nontreatment days, whereas benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment days were associated with an 88% increase in the risk of such events (95% CI=1.78, 1.98). In stratified analyses by dose, we observed a 78% (95% CI=1.67, 1.88) and 122% (95% CI=2.03, 2.43) increase in poisonings associated with low-dose and high-dose benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment days, respectively. High-dose, but not low-dose, benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment was associated with increased poisonings in combination with buprenorphine cotreatment (odds ratio=1.64, 95% CI=1.39, 1.93), but this was lower than the odds risk associated with benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment in the absence of buprenorphine (low-dose: odds ratio=1.69, 95% CI=1.60, 1.79; high-dose: odds ratio=2.23, 95% CI=2.04, 2.45).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased risk of nonfatal drug-related poisoning is associated with benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment in patients with opioid use disorder, but this risk is partially mitigated by buprenorphine treatment. Dose reduction of benzodiazepines or Z-drugs while maintaining buprenorphine treatment may provide the advantage of lowering drug-related poisoning risk.

Effects of hypnotics on obstructive sleep apnea endotypes and severity: Novel insights into pathophysiology and treatment

Impaired upper airway anatomy is the main cause of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). However, there are other important non-anatomical contributors or "endotypes" including ventilatory control instability, poor pharyngeal dilator muscle responsiveness and waking up too easily to minor respiratory events (low arousal threshold). Recent studies have focused on the potential to target specific OSA causes with novel treatments to reduce OSA severity and improve efficacy with existing non-CPAP therapies which are often suboptimal (e.g., mandibular advancement splints). One novel target is pharmacotherapy with hypnotics to increase the threshold for arousal and reduce OSA severity in the approximately 30% of patients who have a low arousal threshold endotype. This increasing body of work has produced varied and at times unexpected findings which have challenged previous knowledge on the effects of hypnotics on upper airway physiology and breathing during sleep in people with OSA. This review provides a concise overview of the latest research that has investigated the effects of common hypnotics/sedative agents on upper airway physiology and OSA severity and potential implications for OSA pathophysiology, treatment and safety. This includes a summary of the latest knowledge on the effects of hypnotics on OSA endotypes. Priorities for future research are also highlighted.

Risk of In-Hospital Falls among Medications Commonly Used for Insomnia in Hospitalized Patients

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To investigate the risk of in-hospital falls among patients receiving medications commonly used for insomnia in the hospital setting.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of all adult hospitalizations to a large academic medical center from 1/2007 to 7/2013. We excluded patients admitted for a primary psychiatric disorder. Medication exposures of interest, defined by pharmacy charges, included benzodiazepines, non-benzodiazepine benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs), trazodone, atypical antipsychotics, and diphenhydramine. In-hospital falls were ascertained from an online patient safety reporting system.

RESULTS

Among the 225,498 hospitalizations (median age = 57 years; 57.9% female) in our cohort, 84,911 (37.7%) had exposure to at least one of the five medication classes of interest; benzodiazepines were the most commonly used (23.5%), followed by diphenydramine (8.3%), trazodone (6.6%), BZRAs (6.4%), and atypical antipsychotics (6.3%). A fall occurred in 2,427 hospitalizations (1.1%). The rate of falls per 1,000 hospital days was greater among hospitalizations with exposure to each of the medications of interest, compared to unexposed: 3.6 versus 1.7 for benzodiazepines (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.8, 95%CI 1.6-1.9); 5.4 versus 1.8 for atypical antipsychotics (aHR 1.6, 95%CI 1.4-1.8); 3.0 versus 2.0 for BZRAs (aHR 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.8); 3.3 versus 2.0 for trazodone (aHR 1.2, 95%CI 1.1-1.5); and 2.5 versus 2.0 for diphenhydramine (aHR 1.2, 95%CI 1.03-1.5).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort of hospitalizations at an academic medical center, we found an association between each of the sedating medications examined and in-hospital falls. Benzodiazepines, BZRAs, and atypical antipsychotics had the strongest associations.

Prevalence and drug use correlates of extra-medical use of prescription medications for sleep among adults in the United States: Results of the 2015-2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health

BACKGROUND

This paper examines the epidemiology of extra-medical use of prescription medications for sleep among a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 2015-2018 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health. The sample includes 3410 U.S. adults who reported extra-medical use of prescription medications for sleep. Multinomial logistic regression models identified correlates of type of drug used [i.e., sedatives and/or tranquilizers-only (ST-only), prescription pain relievers-only (PPR-only), or sedatives, tranquilizers, and prescription pain relievers (ST + PPR)], and logistic regression models identified correlates of reasons for extra-medical use (i.e., sleep-only vs. sleep and recreational).

RESULTS

About 60% (95%CI = 58.9, 63.5) of the sample reported extra-medical use of ST-only, followed by PPR-only (29.9%, 95%CI = 27.5, 32.5), and ST + PPR (8.9%, 95%CI = 7.7, 10.4). Recreational use was reported by 28.4% (95% CI = 26.5, 30.4) of the sample. The odds of extra-medical use of PPR-only (aRRR = 3.1, 95%CI = 2.1, 4.5) and ST + PPR (aRRR = 1.9, 95%CI = 1.2, 3.1) as opposed to ST-only, were greater among Non-Hispanic Blacks than Non-Hispanic Whites. Compared to non-alcohol users, those with a past-12 months diagnosis of alcohol use disorder were more likely to use ST + PPR rather than ST-only (aIRR = 2.0, 95%CI = 1.1, 3.7). Non-Hispanic Blacks (aOR = 0.6, 95%CI = 0.4, 08) and individuals living in rural areas (aOR = 0.5, 95%CI = 0.3, 09) were less likely to report extra-medical use of prescription medications for recreational reasons than Non-Hispanic Whites and those residing in large metropolitan areas, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Extra-medical use of PPR-only and ST + PPR as an aid to sleep, is prevalent among Non-Hispanic Blacks, young adults, and those residing in rural areas. Most individuals reported that extra-medical use of prescription medications was primarily motivated by sleep reasons, rather than by sleep and recreational reasons. Potential interventions include access to sleep treatments, education on the effectiveness and risk associated with extra-medical use and co-use of prescription medications for sleep, and research on sleep-related disparities.

Sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of recommendations

BACKGROUND

Sedation is commonly used in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, considerable variability in sedation practices has been reported. The objective of this review was to identify and synthesize existing recommendations on sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed guidelines and position statements identified through a search of PubMed, guidelines databases, and websites of relevant professional associations from January 1, 2005 to May 10, 2019. We included English-language guidelines/position statements with recommendations relating to sedation for adults undergoing routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. Documents with guidance only for complex endoscopic procedures were excluded. We extracted and synthesized recommendations relating to: 1) choice of sedatives, 2) sedation administration, 3) personnel responsible for monitoring sedated patients, 4) skills and training of individuals involved in sedation, and 5) equipment required for monitoring sedated patients. We assessed the quality of included documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.

RESULTS

We identified 19 guidelines and 7 position statements meeting inclusion criteria. Documents generally agreed that a single, trained registered nurse can administer moderate sedation, monitor the patient, and assist with brief, interruptible tasks. Documents also agreed on the routine use of pulse oximetry and blood pressure monitoring during endoscopy. However, recommendations relating to the drugs to be used for sedation, the healthcare personnel capable of administering propofol and monitoring patients sedated with propofol, and the need for capnography when monitoring sedated patients varied. Only 9 documents provided a grade or level of evidence in support of their recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations for sedation practices in routine gastrointestinal endoscopy differ across guidelines/position statements and often lack supporting evidence with potential implications for patient safety and procedural efficiency.

The Epidemiology of Substance Use Disorders among the Adult Jewish Population in Israel

INTRODUCTION

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, having a profound and global impact on health, well-being, safety, and productivity. Although traditionally the prevalence of SUDs in Israel has been estimated to be lower than those in high-income countries, estimates and characteristics of individuals with SUDs in the past decade are lacking. In this work, we explored the prevalence of SUDs among the adult Jewish population in Israel, per different classes of substances across sex, age group, and other sociodemographic factors.

METHODS

Data from an online representative sample of 4,025 respondents were collected, including the alcohol, smoking, and substance involvement screening test (ASSIST) metric and sociodemographic data.

RESULTS

We found that the most common SUDs were alcohol (10.5% [9.5-11.4]), cannabis (9.0% [8.2-9.9]), and sedative (3.6% [3.0-4.2]) use disorders. Alcohol-cannabis (3.2% [2.7-3.7]) and alcohol-sedative (1.04% [0.7-1.35]) were the most prevalent co-occurring SUDs. Among those with cannabis use disorder, the prevalence of alcohol use disorder was found to be 35.3% [30.4-40.2]. The estimated risk for alcohol use disorder was found to be inversely proportional to age, cannabis use disorder increased, peaked, and decreased with age, and that of sedative use disorder increased with age, particularly among women. While older individuals (in the 51-60 years of age group) were at lower risk (OR = 0.5 [0.3, 0.8]) compared to those <20 years of age for alcohol use disorder, they were at increased risk for sedative use disorder (OR = 3.1 [1.2, 9.7]).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings represent substantially higher rates of SUDs in Israel than those previously reported and should affect resources allocated to addiction prevention and treatment. Further research on the role of gender, age, culture, and ethnicity in the propensity to develop SUDs is necessary for the development of more focused preventive and intervention measures. Focusing on non-Jewish populations in Israel and broadening the scope to include behavioral addictions should be addressed in future studies.

How do medical and non-medical use of z-drugs relate to psychological distress and the use of other depressant drugs?

BACKGROUND

Z-drugs are hypnotic drugs used for insomnia with considerable potential of abuse. We investigated the relationship of past-year medical and non-medical use of z-drugs with past-year: i) psychological distress; ii) medical use, non-medical use, and DSM-IV use disorder of Benzodiazepine (BZD) tranquilizers; iii) use and DSM-IV alcohol and marijuana use disorders, recreational drugs with a depressant effect on the central nervous system.

METHODS

Data came from the 2015-2017 NSDUH (n = 128,740). Participants aged 18+ were asked if they had used any Z-Drug medically or non-medically in the past year. We investigated the associations between the three-level z-drugs variable with psychological distress and BZD, alcohol, and marijuana variables in multinomial logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Past-year prevalences of z-drug use were 3.3% for medical and 0.5% for non-medical use. Medical and non-medical users of z-drugs had higher risk of psychological distress, compared to non-users. Medical and non-medical users of z-drugs had higher risk of medical use, non-medical use, and BZD use disorders. Compared to non-users of z-drugs, medical users had higher risk of marijuana and alcohol use and alcohol use disorders, while non-medical users had higher risk of marijuana use and marijuana use disorders and alcohol.

CONCLUSION

Z-drug users have elevated risk of use and dependence of BZDs and recreational drugs, possibly due to concurrent prescribing and self-medication.

Early life exposures and risk of adult respiratory disease during 50 years of follow-up

Adult health is influenced by factors during fetal life affecting organ development and birth weight. We aimed to study such factors in relation to adult respiratory disease (ARD) risk. The Helsingborg Birth Cohort, Sweden, contributed baseline data collected by medical staff through clinical examination and questionnaires on maternal and birth characteristics 1964-1967. Register linkages were performed with completions of data on ARD by ICD 8-10 classifications (1969-2016), and/or ARD-related drug usage (2005-2016) enabling a 50-year follow-up time. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were made to adjust for potential confounders, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR). A total of 3675 mothers and their offspring were included. Female offspring showed higher frequency of ARD than males, aHR 1.5 (95% CI 1.3-1.8). Maternal use of sedatives during second trimester, aHR 2.2 (95% CI 1.4-3.4), and maternal smoking during most of pregnancy, aHR 1.2 (95% CI 1.0-1.4), were associated with offspring ARD. Stratified by sex, large-for-gestational-age, aHR 1.4 (95% CI 1.0-1.9), was significantly associated with ARD in female offspring along with maternal sedative use during second trimester and maternal smoking during most of pregnancy. Maternal sedative use during second trimester or all trimesters were the only significant risk factors for male offspring. In conclusion, maternal sedative use in second trimester was independently associated with subsequent respiratory disease in adult offspring irrespective of sex.

Mental health, pain, and risk of drug misuse: A nationwide cohort study

Evidence suggests that rising drug misuse, particularly of prescription painkillers, is more closely linked with period increases in reported pain among Americans of the same age range than with deterioration in mental health, but it is unclear whether those cross-sectional associations reflect causal effects of pain and mental health on drug misuse. Using data from the 1995-96, 2004-05, and 2013-14 waves of a nationwide cohort study, we evaluate the effects of pain and mental health on subsequent misuse of prescription painkillers and sedatives. Logistic regression is applied to model drug misuse (separately for painkillers and sedatives) as a function of predictors measured at the previous wave; respondents who reported misuse of that drug type at the prior wave are excluded from the analysis. Mental health is an important predictor of both painkiller and sedative misuse, whereas pain plays a much bigger role in painkiller misuse. Frequency of joint aches and stiffness has the strongest effect on subsequent painkiller misuse, although mental health yields substantial incremental predictive ability above and beyond pain. Negative affect, positive affect, and psychological well-being have notable effects on sedative misuse, while pain (particularly backache) makes only a small incremental contribution to sedative misuse. We suspect that increases over time in pain levels may have played a bigger role than mental health in explaining the rise in prescription painkiller misuse and may have contributed to growing misuse of sedatives. In contrast, deteriorating mental health was probably more important in explaining the rise of sedative misuse.

Development and validation of a liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry method for the simultaneous quantification of five analgesics and sedatives, and six of their active metabolites in human plasma: Application to a clinical study on the determination of neurological death in the intensive care unit

A sensitive and selective high-performance liquid chromatographic method coupled to tandem mass spectrometry was developed and validated for the quantification of morphine, hydromorphone, fentanyl, midazolam and propofol and their metabolites morphine-3-β-d-glucuronide, morphine-6-β-d-glucuronide, hydromorphone-3-β-d-glucuronide, 1'-hydroxymidazolam-β-d-glucuronide, α-hydroxymidazolam and 4-hydroxymidazolam in human plasma using potassium oxalate/sodium fluoride mixture as anticoagulant. Human plasma samples (0.4 mL) to which were added a mixture of eleven deuterated internal standards were subjected to solid phase extraction using a mixed-mode polymeric Oasis PRiME MCX in 96-well format. Propofol was selectively eluted and further derivatized using 2-Fluoro-1-methylpyridinium p-toluenesulfonate, whereas the remaining 10 analytes were eluted separately and further concentrated. The derivatized propofol was analyzed separately in a second injection. The analytes were chromatographically separated on a Kinetex phenyl-hexyl analytical column in gradient elution mode, using a mobile phase consisting of aqueous ammonium formate/formic acid buffer and methanol. The overall run time was 8 min. Detection was performed using an AB/SCIEX 4000 QTRAP instrument with positive electrospray ionization employing scheduled multiple reaction monitoring mode. The lower limits of quantification ranged from 0.02 to 5 ng/mL depending on the analyte. Calibration curves covered a concentration range of 1000× in all cases but 1'-hydroxymidazolam-β-d-glucuronide where it covered a range of 500 × . The validated method was accurate and precise, the intra-day accuracy and precision of quality control samples (4 concentration levels, n = 6 each) being within 91.5-112 % and 1.3-13.2 % (coefficient of variation), respectively, and inter-day (n = 24; 4 days) accuracy and precision of quality control samples (3 concentration levels) being within 94.8-103.5 % and 3.2-11.2 % (coefficient of variation). Mean absolute extraction recoveries were above 60 % for all compounds, except for hydromorphone-3-β-d-glucuronide (44 %) and for 1'-hydroxymidazolam-β-d-glucuronide (33 %). Internal standard corrected matrix effect ranged from -4.8 to 3.8 % in normal plasma and in plasma containing 1 % hemolyzed blood. Analytes were stable (above 90 %) in plasma and blood for 19 h at 22 °C, in blood for 90 h at 5 °C, in plasma for 60 days at -20 °C, for 4 months at -70 °C and after three freeze-thaw cycles, and in the injection solvent for at least 3 days in the autosampler. The present method is successfully being applied in a multicenter clinical study for the analysis of plasma samples from patients in intensive care units from a number of Canadian hospitals.

Marijuana versus evidence-based treatments for sleep and relaxation: A cross-sectional study of use and dose modification following involuntary job loss

OBJECTIVES

Sleep disruption and relaxation are commonly cited reasons for marijuana use. Job loss is a significant stressor associated with high risk for sleep disruption. Little is known about marijuana use in relation to other intervention choices for sleep/relaxation in individuals who have experienced recent, involuntary job loss.

METHODS

This study compared self-reported use of marijuana to evidence-based treatments (EBT) for sleep/relaxation using data from the ongoing Assessing Daily Activity Patterns through Occupational Transitions (ADAPT) study. Participants were 1639 completers of the ADAPT phone screen interview. EBT was defined as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I), non-benzodiazepine sedatives/hypnotics, and benzodiazepines.

RESULTS

Marijuana was the most common treatment for sleep/relaxation. Two-sample tests of proportions revealed that prevalence of use of marijuana was comparable to the entire class of EBTs (~5%). Only 2 (0.1%) participants reported receiving CBT-I, the first-line treatment for insomnia disorder, as per the American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guidelines. Rates of dose increase following job-loss were comparable between users of marijuana and EBTs (Z = 0.56, p = .58). Multiple logistic regression models demonstrated that male sex (OR = 0.28, 95%CI = 0.14-0.57) and substance abuse (OR = 7.68, 95%CI = 2.89-20.43) were significantly associated with increased likelihood of marijuana use.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals who have recently experienced involuntary job loss may be more likely to use marijuana than any one EBT for sleep/relaxation and as likely to increase their treatment dose. Dissemination of evidence-based sleep health interventions is needed in unemployed populations to prevent habitual patterns resulting in the long-term use of marijuana for sleep/relaxation.

Co-occurring opioid and sedative use disorder: Gender differences in use patterns and psychiatric co-morbidities in the United States

Non-medical use of both opioids and sedatives increases risk of overdose or accident. The purpose of the present study was to describe rates of co-use, to examine baseline characteristics and psychiatric conditions potentially associated with meeting criteria for co-occurring opioid use disorder and sedative use disorder, and to examine whether these relationships varied by gender. Participants were 330 individuals from the NESARC-III who met criteria for current opioid use disorder. Gender-stratified logistic regression analyses, accounting for the survey design, were used to identify psychiatric conditions associated with meeting criteria for co-occurring sedative use disorder. Results indicated that 16.4% of the sample also met criteria for sedative use disorder. Notably, 55.6% of the sample attained opioids through their own prescription. Of those with co-occurring sedative use disorder, 47.2% attained sedatives through their own prescription. Posttraumatic stress disorder (OR = 3.02, 95% CI = 1.40-6.51) and antisocial personality disorder (OR = 2.72, 95% CI = 1.37-5.41) were associated with co-occurring sedative use disorder among both men and women with opioid use disorder. Depressive disorders (OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.01-4.42) and schizotypal personality disorder (OR = 5.78, 95% CI = 2.48-13.49) were associated with co-occurring sedative use disorder in women only. Results of the present study highlight the importance of prescription monitoring, further research into gender-informed treatments, and implementation of treatments for substance use and co-occurring symptoms.

Sedatives used in children to obtain head CT in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

Children in the emergency department who require computerized tomography (CT) of the head often are given sedative medications to facilitate completion of the study with adequate imaging. A prior study found the two most common medications used to obtain head CT in children were pentobarbital and chloral hydrate; however, these medications have become less popular. We hypothesized that there was variability in medication choice amongst providers in the emergency department and there has been a change in the preferred sedatives used in the last decade.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional study of children 0-18 years old who received a medication with sedative properties and underwent head CT while in the emergency department from 2007 to 2018, using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. The primary outcome measure was the frequency of administration of drugs within an individual sedative class.

RESULTS

We analyzed 24,418 patient encounters, of whom 53% received an opioid and 41% received a benzodiazepine. There were statistically significant decreases in the use of barbiturates, chloral hydrate, anti-emetic sedatives, and opioids, while increases in barbiturate combination drugs, benzodiazepines and dexmedetomidine were observed over the study period. The majority of medications were administered parenterally.

CONCLUSION

There is wide variability in sedatives used in children to obtain head CT and the preferred drugs have shifted over the last decade.

Drugs Causing Bone Loss

Drugs may cause bone loss by lowering sex steroid levels (e.g., aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer, GnRH agonists in prostate cancer, or depot medroxyprogestone acetate - DMPA), interfere with vitamin D levels (liver inducing anti-epileptic drugs), or directly by toxic effects on bone cells (chemotherapy, phenytoin, or thiazolidinedions, which diverts mesenchymal stem cells from forming osteoblasts to forming adipocytes). However, besides effects on the mineralized matrix, interactions with collagen and other parts of the unmineralized matrix may decrease bone biomechanical competence in a manner that may not correlate with bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual energy absorptiometry (DXA).Some drugs and drug classes may decrease BMD like the thiazolidinediones and consequently increase fracture risk. Other drugs such as glucocorticoids may decrease BMD, and thus increase fracture risk. However, glucocorticoids may also interfere with the unmineralized matrix leading to an increase in fracture risk, not mirrored in BMD changes. Some drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), paracetamol, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may not per se be associated with bone loss, but fracture risk may be increased, possibly stemming from an increased risk of falls stemming from effects on postural balance mediated by effects on the central nervous system or cardiovascular system.This paper performs a systematic review of drugs inducing bone loss or associated with fracture risk. The chapter is organized by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification.

[Drugs for intravenous induction of anesthesia: ketamine, midazolam and synopsis of current hypnotics]

Ketamine and midazolam form the endpoint of a series of articles about intravenous induction of anesthesia . Both substances can be used as single induction hypnotic drugs; however, in practice, this is unusual. Both substances, with the exception of a few very specific indications and clinical situations, are more frequently used in combination or with one of the more common alternatives propofol, barbiturates and etomidate. The reasons are the activity and side effects of both substances and their positive characteristics are used more as a supplement. In the concluding comparison the five discussed induction hypnotics are judged against each other. The use in certain clinical constellations and in special patient populations is evaluated individually for each substance. It is highlighted which drug appears most appropriate in which situation. As methohexital is nowadays only administered in very few clinical situations, this substance is not included in the comparative assessment.

Clinical Pharmacology in Donkeys and Mules

Donkeys and mules show several pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic idiosyncrasies that have to be fully considered by any clinician dealing with these species. Because they possess an increased metabolic rate and cellular water content compared with horses, higher doses (or shorter dosing intervals) are usually recommended for those drugs where pharmacologic studies have been performed. Nonetheless, owing to the lack of species-specific information, this assumption cannot be arbitrarily applied. Thus, when a drug protocol published for horses is extrapolated to a donkey or a mule, a close monitoring is required to detect any secondary effect or subdosing.