Discordant reporting of nonmedical amphetamine use among Adderall-using high school seniors in the US

Substance Use and the Nervous System

OBJECTIVE

This article informs and updates the practicing neurologist on the current landscape of known neurologic injuries linked to the use of illicit drugs, focusing on emerging agents.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and similar derivatives have exploded in prevalence, becoming the leading cause of overdose fatalities. The higher potency of synthetic opioids compared with semisynthetic and nonsynthetic opiates poses an increased risk for unintentional overdose when found as an adulterant in other illicit drug supplies such as heroin. Conversely, misinformation about the risk of symptomatic exposure to fentanyl through casual contact with the skin and ambient air has led to misdirected fear and stigma that threatens to impede valid harm-reduction measures for fentanyl users at risk of actual overdose. Finally, during the COVID-19 pandemic, overdose rates and deaths continued to climb, especially among those who use opioids and methamphetamine.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

A variety of potential neurologic effects and injuries can occur with illicit drug use owing to the diverse properties and mechanisms of action of the various classes. Many high-risk agents are not detected on standard drug screens, including so-called designer drugs, and the practicing neurologist is best served by recognizing the clinical features of the traditional toxidrome and other potential idiosyncratic effects of various illicit agents.

Discordant report of vaping of cannabis among high school seniors in the United States

Introduction: Reliable responses on surveys are important to ensure accurate estimates of drug use. This study compared prevalence of self-reported vaping of cannabis based on two separate questions on the same survey.Methods: We examined combined data from the 2017-2019 Monitoring the Future nationally representative survey of high school seniors in the US (N = 6,982). Students were first asked whether they had used cannabis in the past year via vaporizer in a section about cannabis use. Later on, students were asked about vaping behaviors, including cannabis vaping. Prevalence of self-reported vaping of cannabis was compared and a multivariable model delineated correlates of providing a discordant response - defined as reporting vaporizer use but not reporting vaping.Results: Estimated prevalence of use based on the question in the cannabis section was 11.9% (95% CI: 11.0-12.9) and prevalence based on the question in the vaping section was 13.2% (95% CI: 12.3-14.2). Among those reporting vaping of cannabis, 17.3% provided a discordant response. The corrected prevalence was 16.5% (95% CI: 15.5-17.6). Black students were more likely to provide a discordant report (aPR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.23-2.69) and those reporting past-year vaping of nicotine (aPR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.19-0.38) and/or nonmedical use of prescription stimulants (aPR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.21-0.91) were less likely to provide a discordant report.Conclusions: Self-report of vaping of cannabis varies depending on whether it is asked in a section about vaping practices or about overall cannabis use (use via vaporizer). Survey researchers need to consider how to best query cannabis vaping practices on surveys.

Underreporting of past-year cannabis use on a national survey by people who smoke blunts

Background: Accurate prevalence estimates are critical to epidemiological research but discordant responses on self-report surveys can lead to over- or underestimation of drug use. We sought to examine the extent and nature of underreported cannabis use (among those later reporting blunt use) from a national drug survey in the US. Methods: We used data from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (N = 281,650), a nationally representative probability sample of non-institutionalized populations in the US. We compared self-reported prevalence of past-year cannabis use and blunt use and delineated correlates of underreporting cannabis use, defined as reporting blunt use but not overall cannabis use. Results: An estimated 4.8% (95% CI: 4.4-5.2) of people reported blunt use but not cannabis use. Although corrected prevalence, cannabis use recoded as use only increased from 15.2% (95% CI: 15.0-15.4) to 15.5% (95% CI: 15.3-15.7), individuals who are aged ≥50 (aOR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.06-3.08), female (aOR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.12-1.62), Non-Hispanic Black (aOR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.16-1.76), or report lower English proficiency (aOR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.40-7.83) are at increased odds for providing such a discordant response. Individuals with a college degree (aOR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.84) and those reporting past-year use of tobacco (aOR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.91), alcohol (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.33-0.54), cocaine (aOR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.34-0.73), or LSD (aOR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.31-0.87) were at lower odds of providing a discordant response. Conclusion: Although changes in prevalence are small when correcting for discordant responses, results provide insight into subgroups that may be more likely to underreport use on surveys.

NarxCare Scores Greater Than 300 Are Associated with Adverse Outcomes After Primary THA

BACKGROUND

The association between preoperative prescription drug use (narcotics, sedatives, and stimulants) and complications and/or greater healthcare utilization (length of stay, discharge disposition, readmission, emergency department visits, and reoperation) after total joint arthroplasty has been established but not well quantified. The NarxCare score (NCS) is a weighted scalar measure of overall prescription opioid, sedative, and stimulant use. Higher scores reflect riskier drug-use patterns, which are calculated based on (1) the number of prescribing providers, (2) the number of dispensing pharmacies, (3) milligram equivalence doses, (4) coprescribed potentiating drugs, and (5) overlapping prescription days. The aforementioned factors have not been incorporated into association measures between preoperative prescription drug use and adverse events after THA. In addition, the utility of the NCS as a scalar measure in predicting post-THA complications has not been explored.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is the NarxCare score (NCS) associated with 90-day readmission, reoperation, emergency department visits, length of stay, and discharge disposition after primary THA; and are there NCS thresholds associated with a higher risk for those adverse outcomes if such an association exists? (2) Is there an association between the type of preoperative active drug prescription and the aforementioned outcomes?

METHODS

Of 3040 primary unilateral THAs performed between November 2018 and December 2019, 92% (2787) had complete baseline information and were subsequently included. The cohort with missing baseline information (NCS or demographic/racial determinants; 8%) had similar BMI distribution but slightly younger age and a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Outcomes in this retrospective study of a longitudinally maintained institutional database included 90-day readmissions (all-cause, procedure, and nonprocedure-related), reoperations, 90-day emergency department (ED) visits, prolonged length of stay (> 2 days), and discharge disposition (home or nonhome). The association between the NCS category and THA outcomes was analyzed through multivariable regression analyses and a confirmatory propensity score-matched comparison based on age, gender, race, BMI, smoking status, CCI, insurance status, preoperative diagnosis, and surgical approach, which removed significant differences at baseline. A similar regression model was constructed to evaluate the association between the type of preoperative active drug prescription (opioids, sedatives, and stimulants) and adverse outcomes after THA.

RESULTS

After controlling for potentially confounding variables like age, gender, race, BMI, smoking status, CCI, insurance status, preoperative diagnosis, and surgical approach, an NCS of 300 to 399 was associated with a higher odds of 90-day all-cause readmission (odds ratio 2.0 [95% confidence interval 1.1 to 3.3]; p = 0.02), procedure-related readmission (OR 3.3 [95% CI 1.4 to 7.9]; p = 0.006), length of stay > 2 days (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.5 to 3.2]; p < 0.001), and nonhome discharge (OR 2.0 [95% CI 1.3 to 3.1]; p = 0.002). A score of 400 to 499 demonstrated a similar pattern, in addition to a higher odds of 90-day emergency department visits (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2 to 3.9]; p = 0.01). After controlling for potentially confounding variables like age, gender, race, BMI, smoking status, CCI, insurance status, preoperative diagnosis, and surgical approach, we found no clinically important association between an active opioid prescription and 90-day all-cause readmission (OR 1.002 [95% CI 1.001 to 1.004]; p = 0.05), procedure-related readmission (OR 1.003 [95% CI 1.001 to 1.006]; p = 0.02), length of stay > 2 days (OR 1.003 [95% CI 1.002 to 1.005]; p < 0.001), or nonhome discharge (OR 1.002 [95% CI 1.001 to 1.003]; p = 0.019); the large size of the database allowed us to find statistical associations, but the effect sizes are so small that the finding is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. A similarly small association that is unlikely to be clinically important was found between active sedative use and 90-day ED visits (OR 1.002 [95% CI 1.001 to 1.004]; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative prescription drug use, as reflected by higher NCSs, has a dose-response association with adverse outcomes after THA. Surgeons may use the preoperative NCS to initiate and guide a patient-centered discussion regarding possible postoperative risks associated with prescription drug-use patterns (sedatives, opioids, or stimulants). An interdisciplinary approach can then be initiated to mitigate unfavorable patterns of prescription drug use and subsequently lower patient NCSs. However, given its nature and its reflection of drug-use patterns rather than patients' current health status, the NCS does not qualify as a basis for surgical denial or ineligibility.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

Neuroenhancement: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

Pharmacological neuroenhancement refers to the non-medical use of prescription drugs, alcohol, illegal drugs, or the so-called soft enhancers for the purpose of improving cognition, mood, pro-social behavior, or work and academic performance. This phenomenon is undoubtedly more frequent than previously supposed especially amongst university students. The aim of the present paper was to carefully review and comment on the available literature on neuroenhancement, according to Prisma guidelines. The results showed a great use of all prescribed drugs (benzodiazepines, antidepressants, antipsychotics, nootropic compounds, and especially stimulants) as neuroenhancers amongst healthy subjects, although probably the real prevalence is underestimated. The use of illicit drugs and soft enhancers is similarly quite common. Data on the improvement of cognition by other compounds, such as oxytocin and pheromones, or non-pharmacological techniques, specifically deep brain stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation, are still limited. In any case, if it is true that human beings are embedded by the desire to overcome the limits of their intrinsic nature, neuroenhancement practices put into question the concept of authenticity. Therefore, the problem appears quite complex and requires to be deepened and analyzed with no prejudice, although within an ethical conceptual frame.

Self-Correction of Unreported Marijuana Use by Participants Taking a Street Intercept Survey

Background: Due to underreporting, a major challenge associated with drug use surveys is obtaining precise estimates of drug use. Objective: This study examined reliability of self-reported lifetime marijuana use among electronic dance music (EDM) party attendees - a high-risk population for drug use. Methods: 794 adults (35.1% female) entering EDM parties were intercept-surveyed. Participants were asked about lifetime marijuana use early in the survey. Those not reporting use were asked 5-10 min later if their earlier response was correct. Participants reporting their original response was not correct were asked to check off a reason why they did not originally report use. Participants were also asked at the end of the survey how honestly they responded throughout the survey. Prevalence of lifetime marijuana use with and without corrected responses was compared and risk factors for underreporting were examined using a Poisson generalized linear model. Results: Among those not reporting marijuana use, 31.2% subsequently reported use when asked again. Prevalence of use increased from 73.7% to 81.9% after correcting responses, an 8.2% absolute increase and a 10.0% relative increase. Reporting lifetime use of ecstasy and/or LSD was associated with lower risk for underreporting marijuana use. Compared to those reporting that they answered all questions honestly, those who reportedly answered most or no questions honestly were at higher risk for underreporting. Conclusion: Asking participants to confirm previous responses can help detect underreporting of drug use on intercept surveys. Results can inform survey methods when participants are believed to be at risk for underreporting.

Underreporting of drug use on a survey of electronic dance music party attendees

OBJECTIVES

Skip-logic is commonly used on electronic surveys in which programs provide follow-up questions to affirmative responses and skip to the next topic in response to non-affirmative responses. While skip-logic helps produce data without contradictory responses, erroneous non-affirmative reports can lead to loss of accurate information. We examined the extent to which type-in drug use responses contradict unreported use in a survey of a high-risk population-electronic dance music (EDM) party attendees.

DESIGN

We surveyed 1029 EDM party-attending adults (ages 18-40) using time-spacing sampling in 2018. We examined the extent to which reporting of recent drug use via type-in responses occurred after past-year use of the same drugs were unreported earlier on the same survey. Changes in prevalence of use and predictors of providing discordant responses were examined.

RESULTS

3.6% of participants typed in names of drugs they had used that they did not report using earlier on the survey. Changes in prevalence were not significant when correcting contradictory responses, but prevalence of past-year cocaine use increased from 23.3% to 24.3%. Those with a college degree were at lower odds for providing a discordant response (aOR = 0.13, p = .019). Females (aOR = 2.82, p = .022), those earning ≥$1000 per week (aOR = 11.03, p = .011), and those identifying as gay/lesbian (aOR = 5.20, p = .032) or bisexual or other sexuality (aOR = 15.12, p < .001) were at higher odds of providing a discordant response.

CONCLUSIONS

Electronic surveys that query drug use can benefit from follow-up (e.g. open-ended) questions not dependent on previous responses, as they may elicit affirmative responses underreported earlier in the survey.