The Relationship between Vaping Cannabis and Frequency of Cannabis Use and Cannabis-Related Problems among Urban High School Students.

Background: Vaping, including vaping cannabis, is increasing among adolescents. In this longitudinal study, we examined the relationship between vaping cannabis and frequency of cannabis use and related problems over 6 months among adolescents. Material and Methods: Data were from 233 participants (46.8% male, 93.1% African American, mean age = 16.4 years) reporting cannabis use. The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) assessed frequency of past 30-day cannabis use and cannabis-related problems at baseline, 3- and 6-months post-baseline. We used latent growth curve modeling to compare vaping to non-vaping adolescents on trends in cannabis use frequency and ASSIST cannabis scores. Results: Adolescents who vaped cannabis (11.7%) had higher past 30-day frequency (mean = 17.89 days, SD = 10.49) of cannabis use at baseline compared to adolescents who had not vaped (mean = 12.1 days, SD = 10.93), but reported a significantly sharper decline in frequency of cannabis use (b = -0.34, p = 0.017). A significantly steeper decrease existed in the mean cannabis ASSIST scores for the vaping group than for the non-vaping group (b = -0.34, p = 0.014). Mean ASSIST scores on the cannabis subscale between the two groups were significantly different at 6-month follow-up (Vape mean = 6.00, SD = 8.12 vs. Non-vape mean = 9.6, SD = 9.39; p < 0.021). Conclusions: In a sample of cannabis-using adolescents, adolescents with experience vaping cannabis, compared to adolescents without vaping experience, on average reported sharper decreases in frequency of cannabis use and cannabis-related problems such as health or social problems.

Sustainability of Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention Services in Primary Care After Removal of Implementation Supports.

OBJECTIVE: Although many health care organizations have sought to increase the integration of substance use services into clinical practice, such practice changes can prove difficult to sustain. METHOD: Seven primary care clinics participated in an implementation study of screening and brief intervention (BI) services for adolescent patients (ages 12-17). All sites delivered screening and brief advice (BA) for low-risk use using a uniform protocol. Clinics were randomized to deliver BI using generalist (provider-delivered) or specialist (behavioral health clinician-delivered) models. Implementation was facilitated by multiple supporting activities (e.g., trainings, local "champion," electronic health record [EHR] integration of screening and documentation, individualized feedback, project-specific materials, etc.). Data on the penetration of screening, BA, and BI delivery (N = 14,486 adolescent patient visits) were abstracted from the EHR for the 20-month implementation phase and a 12-month sustainability phase (during which implementation supports were removed). RESULTS: Penetration of screening continued to slowly increase across the implementation-to-sustainability phases (62% vs. 70%; p = .04). Although uptake during implementation was low for BA (29%) and BI (22%), there was no significant decrease in service provision during the sustainability phase. Although overall delivery of BI was significantly higher in generalist compared with specialist sites (p < .001), sustainability did not differ by generalist versus specialist conditions. There were considerable differences in penetration across clinic sites. CONCLUSIONS: Clinics sustained a high level of substance use screening. Uptake of intervention services was low but did not decrease further following the cessation of implementation supports. This study illustrates the challenges of successfully implementing and sustaining substance use services in adolescent primary care.

Examining the Effectiveness of the FaCES Adolescent SBIRT Intervention.

PURPOSE: The Facilitating Change for Excellence in SBIRT (FaCES) is a service package for adolescent primary care that was developed based on best practices and evidence, but was empirically untested. The aim of this study is to compare the FaCES intervention to treatment as usual (TAU) for rural adolescent primary care patients. METHODS: In this modified cluster-randomized stepped wedge design, providers who completed at least 20 adolescent TAU visits received training in the FaCES package in random order. Adolescent patients (N = 1,226) waiting for appointments were continuously recruited into the study and completed a baseline assessment before their scheduled appointment and an on-line 3-month follow-up. Participants received either FaCES or TAU, depending on whether their provider had been trained in FaCES. Due to COVID-19 disruptions, only 14 of the 29 providers were trained before study recruitment activities ceased. RESULTS: More than 80% of the sample indicated no prior use of tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana at study entry. The Arm × Time interaction failed to reach significance for the substance use outcomes considered. In the FaCES condition, the group with no prior use had an increased probability of substance use at 3-month follow-up, while the group reporting prior use had a decreased probability of use at follow-up. Participants who reported no use at baseline had an increased probability of use at follow-up, whether they received the FaCES intervention or TAU. DISCUSSION: This study was unable to demonstrate the effectiveness of FaCES. Findings suggest some natural movement in substance use risk over time.

Costs and Implementation Effectiveness of Generalist Versus Specialist Models for Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed the marginal service and program costs, and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of two models of implementation of adolescent substance screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). METHOD: SBIRT was implemented at seven clinics in a multisite, cluster-randomized trial, through a Specialist model (behavioral health counselor-delivered brief intervention), and a Generalist model (primary care provider-delivered brief intervention). The CEA calculated marginal costs using an activity-based costing methodology for direct SBIRT services, and effectiveness was measured by the proportion of brief interventions delivered among patients who screened positive for alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. Site-level program costs comprised start-up and maintenance (training and technical assistance). Costs were estimated in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: The marginal cost of SBIRT per patient with a positive screen for brief intervention was $6.72 in the Specialist model and $6.05 in the Generalist model. Implementation effectiveness was 7.2% (SE = 2.9%) in the Specialist model and 37.7% (SE = 5.6%) in the Generalist model. The program costs to provide SBIRT for 1 year per site were $13,548 for the Specialist site and $12,081 for the Generalist. CONCLUSIONS: The Generalist model was more effective in implementing brief intervention and less expensive than the Specialist model. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis. Brief intervention delivered by primary care providers rather than by handoff to a behavioral health counselor may ensure greater penetration and a lower cost of these services in primary care settings.

Increasing knowledge about recovery-related life domains among pregnant and parenting women in comprehensive substance use disorder treatment: The Art of Addiction Recovery Program.

BACKGROUND: Group treatments designed specifically for pregnant and parenting women with substance use disorders are lacking. This study provides a preliminary assessment of the Art of Addiction Recovery Program, a manualized group treatment imbedded within a comprehensive substance use disorder treatment program for pregnant and parenting women. METHODS: The Program consists of 14 sessions, each focusing on a different topic, including health, social relationships, the recovery process, well-being, and introspection. Each session includes both the presentation of information by a facilitator, group discussions guided by the facilitator, and a creative project. A single-group pretest-posttest design provides an initial evaluation of the Art of Addiction Recovery Program. RESULTS: Participants were 51 women with an average age of 28.7 (SD = 5.0) with most (69%) having a primary opioid use disorder and 82% reporting tobacco use. Significant (ps < 0.001) pre- to post-session increases in session-specific knowledge occurred for all 14 sessions with a measure of multivariate association indicating that these changes were substantial. Ratings of learning and effectiveness were generally high, with 19/28 means at 3.7 or above (maximum score = 4). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that The Art of Addiction Recovery Program was effective in conveying knowledge about substance use and recovery, and that participants increased their knowledge and generally strongly agreed that the sessions provided high levels of learning and were highly effective. The Art of Addiction Recovery Program provides an option for those seeking a manual-based group treatment program as an aid in the treatment process for this subpopulation.

Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing After Brief Intervention for Risk Behaviors in School-Based Health Centers.

PURPOSE: The initiation and escalation of substance use and sex behaviors is prevalent during adolescence. School-based health centers (SBHCs) are well-equipped to provide interventions for risky behaviors and offer sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing services. This study examined receipt of STI testing following brief intervention (BI) among sexually active adolescents. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial comparing computer versus nurse practitioner-delivered BI approaches among adolescents (ages 14-18) with risky alcohol and/or cannabis use at two SBHCs within two urban high schools. Associations were examined among receipt of STI testing and participant characteristics, BI format, site, and frequency of substance use/sexual behaviors. RESULTS: Among sexually active participants (N = 254), 64.2% received STI testing at their SBHC within 6 months of receiving a BI. Participants receiving nurse practitioner-delivered BI had higher odds of getting STI testing than participants receiving computer-delivered BI (adjusted odds ratio 2.51, 95% confidence interval 1.41-4.47, p = .002). Other variables associated with STI testing in multivariable logistic regression included female sex (p = .001), being in a serious relationship (p = .018), and SBHC site (p < .001). Frequency of substance use and sexual risk behaviors were not independently associated with receipt of STI testing services. CONCLUSION: Sexually active adolescents who received in-person BI from a nurse practitioner were more likely to get STI testing than adolescents who received BI via computer. Nurse practitioners working in SBHCs can successfully engage adolescents in additional sexual health services subsequent to BI for risky behaviors.

Extended-release naltrexone for youth with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Few published research studies have examined the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) among adolescents and young adults. METHODS: This two-group randomized controlled trial recruited 288 youth, ages 15-21, with moderate/severe OUD from a residential addiction treatment program in Baltimore, Maryland. The study randomized the youth within the first week of treatment entry to receive either XR-NTX or treatment-as-usual (TAU; either buprenorphine maintenance treatment or treatment without OUD medication following medically managed withdrawal) prior to discharge, with continued treatment in the community for 6 months. However, due to various reasons spanning patients' and caregivers' preferences and constraints, considerable participant nonadherence to randomized condition occurred (i.e., only 30% of the participants randomized to XR-NTX received an initial injection, while 27% of participants randomized to TAU received an XR-NTX injection at treatment discharge, instead of their assigned treatment). The study used generalized linear mixed modeling (GLiMM) to examine self-reported 90-day opioid, cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol use as well as DSM-5 OUD criteria on "intention-to-treat" (as randomized), "as-received" (XR-NTX vs. not XR-NTX), and "as-medicated" (XR-NTX vs. buprenorphine vs. no medication) bases. RESULTS: The condition x time interactions in the intention-to-treat analyses failed to reach significance for past-90-day self-reported use of illicit opioids, cocaine, marijuana, or alcohol, or in meeting DSM-5 OUD criteria at 3 or 6 months [all ps > 0.05]. However, these findings are of limited interpretive value due to participant nonadherence to their randomized condition. When the study analyzed results by the treatment received at discharge, the "as-received" group x time interaction for illicit opioid use was significant [p = .003], with the XR-NTX group reporting less opioid use in the past 90 days at 3 and 6 months. Participants who received their first XR-NTX dose at inpatient discharge (n = 82) received, on average, 1.3 subsequent injections in the community over the 6-month study follow-up period. Only 2 of the 82 study participants received XR-NTX continuously through the 6-month postdischarge follow-up period. Twelve serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred during the study, but the study determined that only 1 was possibly study related (hepatitis C/elevated liver function test results). CONCLUSION: None of the condition x time interactions in the intention-to-treat analyses reached significance. Participants' nonadherence may have contributed to the failure to reject the null hypothesis. Irrespective of randomized condition, participants who received XR-NTX for OUD demonstrated low retention in treatment, receiving an average of only 1.3 subsequent injections, yet reported less opioid use at follow-up than participants who did not received XR-NTX. Treatment programs should consider XR-NTX as a treatment option for youth motivated to receive it. Future research should focus on building developmentally informed strategies to improve uptake of and adherence to relapse prevention medication in this population.

Computer- vs. nurse practitioner-delivered brief intervention for adolescent marijuana, alcohol, and sex risk behaviors in school-based health centers.

BACKGROUND: This study examined approaches to delivering brief interventions (BI) for risky substance use and sexual behaviors in school-based health centers (SBHCs). METHODS: 300 Adolescents (ages 14-18; 54 % female) with risky marijuana and/or alcohol use identified via CRAFFT screening (scores >1) were recruited from two SBHCs and randomized to computer-delivered BI (CBI) or nurse practitioner-delivered BI (NBI). Both BIs included motivational and didactic content targeting marijuana, alcohol, and risky sexual behaviors. Assessments at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up included past 30-day frequency of marijuana use, alcohol use, binge drinking, unprotected sex, and sex while intoxicated; marijuana and alcohol problems; and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). A focused cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. An historical 'assessment-only' cohort (N=50) formed a supplementary quasi-experimental comparison group. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between NBI and CBI on any outcomes considered (e.g., days of marijuana use; p=.26). From a cost-effectiveness perspective, CBI was 'dominant' for HRQoL and marijuana use. Participants' satisfaction with BI was significantly higher for NBI than CBI. Compared to the assessment-only cohort, participants who received a BI had lower frequency of marijuana (3-months: Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] = .74 [.57, .97], p=.03), alcohol (3-months: IRR = .43 [.29, .64], p<.001; 6-months: IRR = .58 [.34, .98], p = .04), alcohol-specific problems (3-months: IRR = .63 [.45, .89], p=.008; 6-months: IRR = .63 [.41, .97], p = .04), and sex while intoxicated (6-months: IRR = .42 [.21, .83], p = .013). CONCLUSIONS: CBI and NBI did not yield different risk behavior outcomes in this randomized trial. Supplementary quasi-experimental comparisons suggested potential superiority over assessment-only. Both NBI and CBI could be useful in SBHCs.

Adolescent SBIRT implementation: Generalist vs. Specialist models of service delivery in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among adolescents pose significant short- and long-term health consequences and are associated with more severe use as adults. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in primary care settings has the potential to deliver preventive interventions to a diverse range of adolescents, but optimal implementation of these services needs to be determined. The purpose of this study was to compare implementation of two different SBIRT service delivery models in primary care settings. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial assigned 7 primary care clinics of a federally qualified health center to implement brief interventions (BI) using a Generalist model (4 sites), in which BIs were delivered by the primary care provider (PCP), or a Specialist model (3 sites), in which BIs were delivered by a behavioral health counselor (BHC) for adolescent patients ages 12-17 years. Implementation was tracked through the clinic's electronic health record, spanning 9639 clinic visits over 20 months. Multilevel logistic regression modeling was used to compare Generalist and Specialist strategies on penetration of BI for patients scoring ≥2 on the CRAFFT substance use screen, delivered by the PCP in the Generalist sites, and via warm hand-off to a BHC in the Specialist sites. RESULTS: Approximately 62% of adolescent patient visits were screened with the CRAFFT (with <4% screening positive with a CRAFFT score ≥ 2). The Generalist Condition had significantly higher self-reported penetration of BI delivery than the Specialist Condition (38% vs. 8%; Adjusted Odds Ratio = 6.53; p = .005). DISCUSSION: Despite having co-located behavioral health services at all sites, a Specialist approach to providing BI was less effectively implemented than a Generalist approach in this FQHC. BI delivered by PCPs rather than by hand-off to a BHC may ensure greater penetration of these services in primary care settings. Both implementation models provided a framework for identifying and intervening with adolescent primary care patients whose substance use might have otherwise gone undetected.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Psychoactive Substance Use Intervention for Children in Afghanistan: Differences Between Girls and Boys at Treatment Entry and in Response to Treatment.

Psychoactive substance use among children in Afghanistan is an issue of concern. Somewhere around 300,000 children in the country have been exposed to opioids that either parents directly provided to them or by passive exposure. Evidence-based and culturally appropriate drug prevention and treatment programs are needed for children and families. The goals of this study were to: (1) examine lifetime psychoactive substance use in girls and boys at treatment entry; and (2) examine differential changes in substance use during and following treatment between girls and boys. Children ages 10-17 years old entering residential treatment were administered the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test for Youth (ASSIST-Y) at pre- and post-treatment, and at three-month follow-up. Residential treatment was 45 days for children and 180 days for adolescents and consisted of a comprehensive psychosocial intervention that included education, life skills, individual and group counseling and, for older adolescents, vocational skills such as embroidery and tailoring. Girls and boys were significantly different regarding lifetime use of five substances at treatment entry, with girls less likely than boys to have used tobacco, cannabis, stimulants, and alcohol, and girls more likely than boys to have used sedatives. Differences between boys and girls were found for past-three-month use of four substances at treatment entry, with girls entering treatment with higher past-three-month use of opioids and sedatives, and boys with higher past-three-month use of tobacco, cannabis, and alcohol. Change over the course of treatment showed a general decline for both girls and boys in the use of these substances. Girls and boys in Afghanistan come to treatment with different substance use histories and differences in past-three-month use. Treatment of children for substance use problems must be sensitive to possible differences between girls and boys in substance use history.

A Comparison of Screening Practices for Adolescents in Primary Care After Implementation of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment.

PURPOSE: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening adolescents for substance use at all well-child and appropriate acute-care visits. However, many pediatric practices aim for such screenings annually at well-child visits. METHODS: As part of a larger study, 7 urban Federally Qualified Health Center clinics implemented universal screening for risky alcohol and drug use using the Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble (CRAFFT) screening tool. The present study compared uptake of screening and screening results at well-child versus acute-care visits. RESULTS: Over a period of 13 months for which encounter-level electronic medical records data were available, there were 6,346 clinic visits by 3,475 unique patients aged 12-17 years, at which 76.6% (n = 4,865) of visits had a screening for problematic substance use conducted. Rates of screening were 95.1% (2,750/2,891 involving 2,629 unique adolescents) for well-child visits and 61.2% (2,115/3,455 involving 1,535 unique adolescents) for acute-care visits. Rates of positive screening results were 9.0% (248/2,750 involving 245 unique adolescents) for well-child visits and 7.8% (164/2,115 involving 126 unique adolescents) for acute-care visits. Of the 469 unique adolescents screened only during an acute-care visit during that same period, 40 unique adolescents had positive screening results for a positive screening rate of 8.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 10% of adolescent patients screened only at acute-care visits would not have been screened if screening was implemented solely at well-child visits, and 40 adolescents reporting substance use would have been missed. The findings highlight the benefits of screening adolescents at every primary care visit to better detect and intervene in adolescents' substance use.

The CHILD Intervention for Living Drug-free Comprehensive Assessment of Risk, Resilience, and Experience (CHILD CARRE) Measure: Initial Findings.

This paper summarizes the development and evaluation of an assessment instrument for children ages 7-12. The CHILD CARRE measure is a semi-structured interview with 7 domains. Children from the USA and Argentina (N=134) completed baseline and follow-up assessments. Substance use occurred at an average age of 8. Almost 33% of the children were taking medications for medical issues, more than 50% of them said that medical problem gets in the way of doing things they like to to do and almost 64% of the children stated that they would like to feel better. On average, children completed third grade in school, 56% of them knew how to read and 26% of the children started making money at age 8. Most children (74%) saw someone drunk or high and 23% of children reported alcohol or psychoactive substance use. Among these children using substances, such substance use occurred at an average age of 8, and in the past 30 days they used these substances an average for 5 days. The rating of level of risk on the part of the interviewer placed these children in the "risky" to "very risky" categories. Most children reported seeing their family members smoking (83%) or using alcohol (67%), and 49% reported seeing their family members high on drugs. Few children (10%) had conflicts with the law, while 46% of their family members had legal problems. Some children (30%) reported having serious problems getting along with family members, neighbors, or friends. These results suggest that this measure can serve as the first comprehensive measure to assess multiple life domains for young children at risk for or using psychoactive substances.

Re-engineering methadone-Cost-effectiveness analysis of a patient-centered approach to methadone treatment.

Methadone maintenance treatment has proven effectiveness in the treatment of opioid use disorder, but significant barriers remain to treatment retention. In a randomized clinical trial, 300 newly-admitted methadone patients were randomly assigned to patient-centered methadone (PCM) v. treatment-as-usual (TAU). In PCM, participants were treated under revised program rules which permitted voluntary attendance at counseling and other changes focused on reducing involuntary discharge, and different staff roles which shifted disciplinary responsibility from the participant's counselor to the supervisor. The study found no significant differences in treatment retention, measures of opioid use, or other patient outcomes. This paper employs an activity-based costing approach to estimate the cost and cost-effectiveness of the two study conditions. We found that service use and costs were similar between PCM and TAU. Specifically, the average cost for PCM patients was $2396 compared to $2292 for standard methadone, while the average length of stay was 2 weeks longer for PCM patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for self-reported heroin use, opioid positive urine screens, and meeting DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence were mixed, with TAU achieving non-significantly better outcomes at lower treatment episode costs (i.e., economically dominating) for opioid positive urine screens. PCM patients reported slightly more days abstinent from heroin and fewer meet the opioid dependence criteria. While these differences are small and not statistically significant, we can still examine the cost-effectiveness implications. For days, abstinent from heroin, the ICER was $242 for one additional day of abstinence, however, there was notable uncertainty around this estimate. For opioid dependence criteria, the ICER was $1160 for a one-percentage point increase in the probability that a participant no longer met criteria for opioid dependence at follow-up. This economic study finds that patient choice concepts can be introduced into methadone treatment without significant impacts on costs or patient outcomes.

Start-Up Costs of SBIRT Implementation for Adolescents in Urban U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the costs to implement Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescent substance use in primary care settings is important for providers in planning for services and for decision makers considering dissemination and widespread implementation of SBIRT. We estimated the start-up costs of two models of SBIRT for adolescents in a multisite U.S. Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). In both models, screening was performed by a medical assistant, but models differed on delivery of brief intervention, with brief intervention delivered by a primary care provider in the generalist model and a behavioral health specialist in the specialist model. METHOD: SBIRT was implemented at seven clinics in a multisite, cluster randomized trial. SBIRT implementation costs were calculated using an activity-based costing methodology. Start-up activities were defined as (a) planning activities (e.g., changing existing electronic medical record system and tailoring service delivery protocols); and (b) initial staff training. Data collection instruments were developed to collect staff time spent in start-up activities and quantity of nonlabor resources used. RESULTS: The estimated average costs to implement SBIRT were $5,182 for the specialist model and $3,920 for the generalist model. Planning activities had the greatest impact on costs for both models. Overall, more resources were devoted to planning and training activities in specialist sites, making the specialist model costlier to implement. CONCLUSIONS: The initial investment required to implement SBIRT should not be neglected. The level of resources necessary for initial implementation depends on the delivery model and its integration into current practice.

Gender and ethnic differences in primary care patients' response to computerized vs. in-person brief intervention for illicit drug misuse.

This study is a secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial of computerized vs. in-person brief intervention (BI) for illicit drug misuse among adult primary care patients (N=359; 45% Female; 47% Hispanic) with moderate-risk illicit drug misuse as measured by the World Health Organization's Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). This study examined differences in response to the two brief intervention strategies (both based on motivational interviewing) on the basis of gender and ethnicity, comparing non-Hispanic males, non-Hispanic females, Hispanic males, and Hispanic females. Participants were assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up with the ASSIST. Trajectories in Global Continuum of Illicit Drug Risk Scores were examined using a generalized linear mixed model. There were significant differences in response to computerized vs. in-person BI over time on the basis of gender-ethnic subgroups (Gender×Ethnicity×Condition×Time interaction; p=0.03), with Hispanic males tending to respond more favorably to the computerized BI and Hispanic females tending to respond more favorably to the in-person BI. There was no clear differentiation in response to the two BIs among non-Hispanic males, while among non-Hispanic females the pattern of change converged following baseline differences. Consideration of gender and ethnic differences in future studies of BI is warranted.

Dual Use of Cigarettes, Little Cigars, Cigarillos, and Large Cigars: Smoking Topography and Toxicant Exposure.

OBJECTIVE: Smoking topography variables and toxicant exposure (plasma nicotine and exhaled CO) were examined in 3 groups of study participants that smoked both cigarettes and either filtered little cigars (Winchester), cigarillos (Black & Mild), or large cigars (Phillies Blunt). METHODS: Laboratory ad lib smoking of the cigar products was collected with a smoking puff analyzer; plasma levels of nicotine and exhaled CO were collected before and after smoking. RESULTS: Although there were no statistically significant differences in demographic and cigarette smoking topography among the groups, there were significant differences in how the different cigar products were smoked. Plasma nicotine boost was similar after all products but exhaled CO was greater after the cigarillo and large cigar than the little cigar. Some of the differences were due to the differences in article size but other differences were apparent even after adjustment for the amount of tobacco burned or the mouth intake (puff volume). CONCLUSIONS: The topography findings of differences among products challenge the practice of grouping cigars as a single entity in surveys, regulatory decisions, and discussions of toxicant exposure. The results add to the discussion of distinctions among products in the scientific assessment of public health risk and regulatory decisions.

Trajectories of energy drink consumption and subsequent drug use during young adulthood.

BACKGROUND: Highly caffeinated energy drinks (EDs) are popular with adolescents and young adults, but longitudinal consumption patterns are poorly understood especially in relation to other substance use. METHODS: ED and other substance use were assessed annually (modal ages 21-25) among a sample (n=1099) who were originally recruited as first-year college students (modal age 18). Trajectory groups were derived based on probability of past-year use during ages 21-24, and compared for possible differences in substance use outcomes at age 25, holding constant demographics, sensation-seeking, other caffeine consumption, and age 21 substance use. RESULTS: From age 21-25, ED consumption declined in both annual prevalence [62.5%wt to 49.1%wt (wt=weighted)] and frequency of use among consumers (35.2-26.3 days/year). Yet individuals exhibiting a Persistent trajectory (51.4%) of consumption outnumbered those with Non-Use (20.6%), Intermediate (17.4%), or Desisting (10.6%) trajectories. Age 25 cocaine use, nonmedical use of prescription stimulants (NPS), and alcohol use disorder (AUD) risk were significantly associated with trajectory group membership, with Persistent and Intermediate groups exhibiting the highest risk for such outcomes, even accounting for prior substance use and other risk factors. Neither marijuana nor tobacco use were associated with group membership. CONCLUSIONS: The typical pattern of ED consumption among this sample was sustained use throughout young adulthood. Such individuals appear to be at high risk for adverse substance use outcomes, and results suggest possible specificity regarding cocaine use and NPS, and AUD risk. More research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying the connection between ED and substance use.

Validation of the TAPS-1: A Four-Item Screening Tool to Identify Unhealthy Substance Use in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance use (TAPS) tool is a combined two-part screening and brief assessment developed for adult primary care patients. The tool's first-stage screening component (TAPS-1) consists of four items asking about past 12-month use for four substance categories, with response options of never, less than monthly, monthly, weekly, and daily or almost daily. OBJECTIVE: To validate the TAPS-1 in primary care patients. DESIGN: Participants completed the TAPS tool in self- and interviewer-administered formats, in random order. In this secondary analysis, the TAPS-1 was evaluated against DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD) criteria to determine optimal cut-points for identifying unhealthy substance use at three severity levels (problem use, mild SUD, and moderate-to-severe SUD). PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand adult patients at five primary care sites. MAIN MEASURES: DSM-5 SUD criteria were determined via the modified Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Oral fluid was used as a biomarker of recent drug use. KEY RESULTS: Optimal frequency-of-use cut-points on the self-administered TAPS-1 for identifying SUDs were ≥ monthly use for tobacco and alcohol (sensitivity = 0.92 and 0.71, specificity = 0.80 and 0.85, AUC = 0.86 and 0.78, respectively) and any reported use for illicit drugs and prescription medication misuse (sensitivity = 0.93 and 0.89, specificity = 0.85 and 0.91, AUC = 0.89 and 0.90, respectively). The performance of the interviewer-administered format was similar. When administered first, the self-administered format yielded higher disclosure rates for past 12-month alcohol use, illicit drug use, and prescription medication misuse. Frequency of use alone did not provide sufficient information to discriminate between gradations of substance use problem severity. Among those who denied drug use on the TAPS-1, less than 4% had a drug-positive biomarker. CONCLUSIONS: The TAPS-1 can identify unhealthy substance use in primary care patients with a high level of accuracy, and may have utility in primary care for rapid triage.

Marijuana and tobacco cigarettes: Estimating their behavioral economic relationship using purchasing tasks.

Although marijuana and tobacco are commonly coused, the nature of their relationship has not been fully elucidated. Behavioral economics has characterized the relationship between concurrently available commodities but has not been applied to marijuana and tobacco couse. U.S. adults ≥18 years who coused marijuana and tobacco cigarettes were recruited via Mechanical Turk, a crowdsourcing service by Amazon. Participants (N = 82) completed online purchasing tasks assessing hypothetical marijuana or tobacco cigarette puff consumption across a range of per-puff prices; 2 single-commodity tasks assessed these when only 1 commodity was available, and 2 cross-commodity tasks assessed these in the presence of a concurrently available fixed-price commodity. Purchasing tasks generated measures of demand elasticity, that is, sensitivity of consumption to prices. In single-commodity tasks, consumption of tobacco cigarette puffs (elasticity of demand: α = 0.0075; 95% confidence interval [0.0066, 0.0085], R² = 0.72) and of marijuana puffs (α = .0044; 95% confidence interval [0.0038, 0.0049], R² = 0.71) declined significantly with increases in price per puff. In cross-commodity tasks when both tobacco cigarette puffs and marijuana puffs were available, demand for 1 commodity was independent of price increases in the other commodity (ps > .05). Results revealed that, in this small sample, marijuana and tobacco cigarettes did not substitute for each other and did not complement each other; instead, they were independent of each other. These preliminary results can inform future studies assessing the economic relationship between tobacco and marijuana in the quickly changing policy climate in the United States. (PsycINFO Database Record

Drug involvement during and after college: Estimates of opportunity and use given opportunity.

BACKGROUND: College students perceive widespread availability of drugs and prescription medications for non-medical use on campus, but less is known about the relationship between opportunity to use, use, and use given opportunity of these drugs during and after college. The current study describes annual trends in (1) opportunity to use, (2) use, and (3) use given opportunity of eight drugs and three prescription medications used non-medically over seven years. METHODS: Data were derived from a longitudinal cohort study of 1253 first-year college students (52% female, 72% non-Hispanic white) at one large, public university. Annually, past-year opportunity to use and use were assessed for marijuana, hallucinogens, inhalants, cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, methamphetamine, heroin, and non-medical use of prescription stimulants, analgesics, and tranquilizers. Binary variables were created to represent opportunity to use, use, and use given opportunity for each drug. RESULTS: Participants had the greatest opportunity to use marijuana compared with other drugs during the study period, but there was a significant decline in the opportunity to use marijuana over time. Notably, opportunity for both drugs other than marijuana and prescription medications used non-medically consistently declined, while use given opportunity remained relatively stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that changes in drug use are driven by changes in opportunity to use, even during the post-college years. Greater opportunity to use and use of all drugs during the college years in comparison with the post-college years confirms the high-risk nature of the college environment.