The abuse potential of lemborexant, a dual orexin receptor antagonist, according to the 8 factors of the Controlled Substances Act

RATIONALE

Lemborexant (LEM) is a dual orexin receptor antagonist (DORA) approved in multiple countries including the USA, Japan, Canada, Australia, and several Asian countries for the treatment of insomnia in adults. As a compound with central nervous system activity, it is important to understand the abuse potential of LEM with respect to public health.

OBJECTIVES

This review discusses data for LEM relevant to each of the 8 factors of the United States Controlled Substances Act.

RESULTS

LEM did not demonstrate abuse potential in nonclinical testing and was associated with a low incidence of abuse-related adverse events in clinical study participants with insomnia disorder. Similar to other DORAs that have been evaluated (eg., almorexant, suvorexant (SUV), and daridorexant), LEM and the positive controls (zolpidem and SUV) also showed drug liking in a phase 1 abuse potential study that enrolled subjects who used sedatives recreationally. However, internet surveillance of SUV and the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System suggests that drugs in the DORA class display very low abuse-related risks in the community. Additionally, as described in FDA-approved labeling, it does not carry physical dependence and withdrawal risks.

CONCLUSIONS

LEM, similar to most other prescription insomnia medications, was placed into Schedule IV. However, LEM and other drugs in the DORA class may have a lower potential for abuse as suggested by real-world postmarketing data from federal surveys and internet surveillance, and thus may have lower risks to public health than Schedule IV benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics that potentiate GABA signaling.

Doctors and Pain Patients Avoid "Ruan" in the Supreme Court

Physicians' fear of criminal prosecution for prescribing opioid analgesics is a major reason why many chronic pain patients are having an increasingly difficult time obtaining medically appropriate pain relief. In Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2370 (2022), the Supreme Court unanimously vacated two federal convictions under the Controlled Substances Act. The Court held that the government must prove that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner.

Fentanyl-related substance scheduling as an effective drug control strategy

Fentanyl is now the primary driver of the current opioid crisis. Fentanyl and its analogues are subject to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the Controlled Substances Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 (Federal Analogue Act), state laws, international treaties, and the laws of foreign countries. The appearance of novel psychoactive substances led to further legislative developments in scheduling. New fentanyl analogues proliferated in a manner previously unseen since about 2016. Overdose deaths of these fentanyl analogues prompted the Drug Enforcement Administration to reactively emergency schedule each new fentanyl analogue as it appeared. The international community also acted. Finally, on February 6, 2018, a proactive temporary (emergency) class-wide scheduling of fentanyl-related substances was implemented based upon the fentanyl core structure to save lives. This action spurred a similar action in China. Fentanyl analogues fell dramatically in the marketplace, despite further increases in fentanyl itself. Congress temporarily extended this scheduling, but it will soon expire. Opposition to permanent class-wide was lodged due to concerns over law enforcement overreach, inadequate Health and Human Services input, and hindrance of research. This paper reaffirms the importance of a class-based scheduling strategy while also arguing for increased research of schedule I controlled substances.

No "back to normal" after COVID-19 for our failed drug policies

Before COVID-19 pandemic, advocates had long urged drug policy reforms based on health, security, civil rights, racial justice, fiscal stewardship, and other considerations. In the United States, such calls went largely unanswered. In response to COVID-19, public health and occupational safety concerns have rapidly transformed some drug policies, along with their enforcement. Almost contemporaneously, nationwide protests against violence and racism by militarized police have highlighted the enduring legacy of the Drug War in fueling carceral systems. Disruption from these historical events provides a once-in-a-century opportunity to reconsider the legal architecture of drug policy and policing–both in the U.S. and elsewhere. Rather than returning to a fundamentally broken and inequitable status quo, we urge envisioning a new drug policy in service to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The abuse potential of medical psilocybin according to the 8 factors of the Controlled Substances Act

This review assesses the abuse potential of medically-administered psilocybin, following the structure of the 8 factors of the US Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Research suggests the potential safety and efficacy of psilocybin in treating cancer-related psychiatric distress and substance use disorders, setting the occasion for this review. A more extensive assessment of abuse potential according to an 8-factor analysis would eventually be required to guide appropriate schedule placement. Psilocybin, like other 5-HT2A agonist classic psychedelics, has limited reinforcing effects, supporting marginal, transient non-human self-administration. Nonetheless, mushrooms with variable psilocybin content are used illicitly, with a few lifetime use occasions being normative among users. Potential harms include dangerous behavior in unprepared, unsupervised users, and exacerbation of mental illness in those with or predisposed to psychotic disorders. However, scope of use and associated harms are low compared to prototypical abused drugs, and the medical model addresses these concerns with dose control, patient screening, preparation and follow-up, and session supervision in a medical facility. CONCLUSIONS: (1) psilocybin has an abuse potential appropriate for CSA scheduling if approved as medicine; (2) psilocybin can provide therapeutic benefits that may support the development of an approvable New Drug Application (NDA) but further studies are required which this review describes; (3) adverse effects of medical psilocybin are manageable when administered according to risk management approaches; and (4) although further study is required, this review suggests that placement in Schedule IV may be appropriate if a psilocybin-containing medicine is approved. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'Psychedelics: New Doors, Altered Perceptions'.

The abuse potential of kratom according the 8 factors of the controlled substances act: implications for regulation and research

RATIONALE

Consideration by the US Drug Enforcement Administration and Food and Drug Administration of placing kratom into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) requires its evaluation of abuse potential in the context of public health.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to provide a review of kratom abuse potential and its evaluation according to the 8 factors of the CSA.

RESULTS

Kratom leaves and extracts have been used for centuries in Southeast Asia and elsewhere to manage pain and other disorders and, by mid-twentieth century, to manage opioid withdrawal. Kratom has some opioid effects but low respiratory depression and abuse potential compared to opioids of abuse. This appears due to its non-opioid-derived and resembling molecular structure recently referred to as biased agonists. By the early 2000s, kratom was increasingly used in the US as a natural remedy to improve mood and quality of life and as substitutes for prescription and illicit opioids for managing pain and opioid withdrawal by people seeking abstinence from opioids. There has been no documented threat to public health that would appear to warrant emergency scheduling of the products and placement in Schedule I of the CSA carries risks of creating serious public health problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Although kratom appears to have pharmacological properties that support some level of scheduling, if it was an approved drug, placing it into Schedule I, thus banning it, risks creating public health problems that do not presently exist. Furthermore, appropriate regulation by FDA is vital to ensure appropriate and safe use.

Medical marijuana and related legal aspects

State policies vary regarding the legal use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Pharmacists, physicians, and P&T committee members must become familiar with the laws in their states before assuming that this controlled substance can be legally prescribed or dispensed to patients.

Evaluating the dissent in state of Oregon v. Ashcroft: implications for the patient-physician relationship and the democratic process

Over the past decade or so, no issue in medical ethics or bioethics law has raised more concerns about federal intervention in the practice of medicine, about judicial attempts to craft health policy, or about the wisdom of public mandates directing specific health care initiatives than the issue of physician-assisted suicide. State voter referenda, lower and federal court cases (including two U.S. Supreme Court decisions), proposed legislation in both houses of Congress, and orders and determinations from agencies within the executive branch of two administrations are representative of the kinds of actions taken in the last ten years implicating medical care at the end of life. Whether the intent was to codify into law physician-assisted suicide, to deny a constitutional right of assisted suicide, or to make “easier” physicians' efforts to alleviate intractable suffering at the risk of hastening death, or to prohibit physician aid in dying altogether, the impact on the patient-doctor relationship and on our understanding of what constitutes dignified and humane care at the end of life is undeniable.

Oregon versus Ashcroft: pain relief, physician-assisted suicide, and the Controlled Substances Act

OBJECTIVE

Late in 2001, the State of Oregon filed suit against Attorney General John Ashcroft, seeking to halt his recent directive that physicians who comply with the Oregon Death with Dignity Act by writing a lethal prescription for a controlled substance should be prosecuted for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This special article reviews the history of the series of challenges to the Oregon Act since its initial adoption in 1994, with particular consideration of the arguments on both sides of Oregon v. Ashcroft and the disposition of the case by the district court.

DESIGN

The article utilizes an historical review of the Oregon Act, including legal and political challenges to it, as well as discussion of the 3 years of data on the experience with legalized physician-assisted suicide in Oregon, and analysis of the legal issues in the current litigation.

CONCLUSIONS

The federal district court concluded that the Attorney General's interpretation of certain provisions of the CSA so as to preclude the writing of a lethal prescription where otherwise permitted by state law as a legitimate medical practice was inconsistent with the CSA and, therefore, beyond the scope of his authority. The Oregon Act will continue in force while the Attorney General's appeal of the district court ruling is considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Oregon v. Ashcroft: the battle over the soul of medicine

When one considers the protracted and continuing struggle of the citizens of Oregon to include physician-assisted suicide (also known as “physician aid in dying”) among the panoply of measures available to dying patients and the physicians who care for them, the depth and breadth of the issue becomes inescapable. The potential intractability of the dispute is illustrated by the very fact, noted in the preceding parenthetical phrase, that consensus eludes us on even the most basic of semantic points—how we are to most aptly characterize the conduct in question? The case featured in this issue's The Caduceus in Court must be examined as the latest battle in a long war of attrition waged by opponents of physician-assisted suicide against the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (“the Oregon Act”). After briefly reviewing that history, I will then consider the details of Oregon v. Ashcroft and the implications of the litigation not only for the care of dying patients but also for the regulation of medical practice in the United States and, more broadly still, the search for resolution of serious medical disputes in a democratic society.

An overview of prescription drug misuse and abuse: defining the problem and seeking solutions

Each year, millions of individuals in the United States are treated for a variety of serious medical conditions with prescription drugs whose therapeutic benefits are well known. The vast majority of these medications are used to treat medical and psychiatric illnesses. Generally, they are used as prescribed, and contribute to a better quality of life for persons suffering from debilitating or life-threatening disorders.

The fact that a small portion of these medications is diverted by those who seek their psychoactive effects raises the important policy issue: how to make drugs easily available for medical use while limiting access for purposes of abuse.

Such a responsibility poses challenges very different from those of the so-called “war” on illicit drugs, because this control must be achieved without impeding patients’ access to medical care. A rational public policy would attempt to achieve a balance between the need to minimize abuse and the need to provide relief.