Associations between tobacco and cannabis use and anxiety and depression among adults in the United States: Findings from the COVID-19 citizen science study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about whether people who use both tobacco and cannabis (co-use) are more or less likely to have mental health disorders than single substance users or non-users. We aimed to examine associations between use of tobacco and/or cannabis with anxiety and depression. METHODS: We analyzed data from the COVID-19 Citizen Science Study, a digital cohort study, collected via online surveys during 2020-2022 from a convenience sample of 53,843 US adults (≥ 18 years old) nationwide. Past 30-day use of tobacco and cannabis was self-reported at baseline and categorized into four exclusive patterns: tobacco-only use, cannabis-only use, co-use of both substances, and non-use. Anxiety and depression were repeatedly measured in monthly surveys. To account for multiple assessments of mental health outcomes within a participant, we used Generalized Estimating Equations to examine associations between the patterns of tobacco and cannabis use with each outcome. RESULTS: In the total sample (mean age 51.0 years old, 67.9% female), 4.9% reported tobacco-only use, 6.9% cannabis-only use, 1.6% co-use, and 86.6% non-use. Proportions of reporting anxiety and depression were highest for the co-use group (26.5% and 28.3%, respectively) and lowest for the non-use group (10.6% and 11.2%, respectively). Compared to non-use, the adjusted odds of mental health disorders were highest for co-use (Anxiety: OR = 1.89, 95%CI = 1.64-2.18; Depression: OR = 1.77, 95%CI = 1.46-2.16), followed by cannabis-only use, and tobacco-only use. Compared to tobacco-only use, co-use (OR = 1.35, 95%CI = 1.08-1.69) and cannabis-only use (OR = 1.17, 95%CI = 1.00-1.37) were associated with higher adjusted odds for anxiety, but not for depression. Daily use (vs. non-daily use) of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and cannabis were associated with higher adjusted odds for anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Use of tobacco and/or cannabis, particularly co-use of both substances, were associated with poor mental health. Integrating mental health support with tobacco and cannabis cessation may address this co-morbidity.

The U.S. COVID-19 County Policy Database: a novel resource to support pandemic-related research.

BACKGROUND: It is increasingly recognized that policies have played a role in both alleviating and exacerbating the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. There has been limited systematic evaluation of variation in U.S. local COVID-19-related policies. This study introduces the U.S. COVID-19 County Policy (UCCP) Database, whose objective is to systematically gather, characterize, and assess variation in U.S. county-level COVID-19-related policies. METHODS: In January-March 2021, we collected an initial wave of cross-sectional data from government and media websites for 171 counties in 7 states on 22 county-level COVID-19-related policies within 3 policy domains that are likely to affect health: (1) containment/closure, (2) economic support, and (3) public health. We characterized the presence and comprehensiveness of policies using univariate analyses. We also examined the correlation of policies with one another using bivariate Spearman's correlations. Finally, we examined geographical variation in policies across and within states. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in the presence and comprehensiveness of county policies during January-March 2021. For containment and closure policies, the percent of counties with no restrictions ranged from 0% (for public events) to more than half for public transportation (67.8%), hair salons (52.6%), and religious gatherings (52.0%). For economic policies, 76.6% of counties had housing support, while 64.9% had utility relief. For public health policies, most were comprehensive, with 70.8% of counties having coordinated public information campaigns, and 66.7% requiring masks outside the home at all times. Correlations between containment and closure policies tended to be positive and moderate (i.e., coefficients 0.4-0.59). There was variation within and across states in the number and comprehensiveness of policies. CONCLUSIONS: This study introduces the UCCP Database, presenting granular data on local governments' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We documented substantial variation within and across states on a wide range of policies at a single point in time. By making these data publicly available, this study supports future research that can leverage this database to examine how policies contributed to and continue to influence pandemic-related health and socioeconomic outcomes and disparities. The UCCP database is available online and will include additional time points for 2020-2021 and additional counties nationwide.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy. METHODS: Using an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922]). CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.).