Effects of kratom on driving: Results from a cross-sectional survey, ecological momentary assessment, and pilot simulated driving Study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite widespread kratom use, there is a lack of knowledge regarding its effects on driving. We evaluated the self-reported driving behaviors of kratom consumers and assessed their simulated-driving performance after self-administering kratom products. METHODS: We present results from: 1) a remote, national study of US adults who regularly use kratom, and 2) an in-person substudy from which we re-recruited participants. In the national study (N = 357), participants completed a detailed survey and a 15-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) that monitored naturalistic kratom use. For the remote study, outcomes were self-reported general and risky driving behaviors, perceived impairment, and driving confidence following kratom administration. For the in-person substudy, 10 adults consumed their typical kratom products and their driving performance on a high-fidelity driving simulator pre- and post-kratom administration was evaluated. RESULTS: Over 90% of participants surveyed self-reported driving under the influence of kratom. Most reported low rates of risky driving behavior and expressed high confidence in their driving ability after taking kratom. This was consistent with EMA findings: participants reported feeling confident in their driving ability and perceived little impairment within 15-180 min after using kratom. In the in-person substudy, there were no significant changes in simulated driving performance after taking kratom. CONCLUSIONS: Using kratom before driving appears routine, however, self-reported and simulated driving findings suggest kratom effects at self-selected doses among regular kratom consumers do not produce significant changes in subjective and objective measures of driving impairment. Research is needed to objectively characterize kratom's impact on driving in regular and infrequent consumers.

Establishing a research agenda for the study and assessment of opioid withdrawal.

The opioid crisis is an international public health concern. Treatments for opioid use disorder centre largely on the management of opioid withdrawal, an aversive collection of signs and symptoms that contribute to opioid use disorder. Whereas in the past 50 years more than 90 medications have been developed for depression, only five medications have been developed for opioid use disorder during this period. We posit that underinvestment has occurred in part due to an underdeveloped understanding of opioid withdrawal syndrome. This Personal View summarises substantial gaps in our understanding of opioid withdrawal that are likely to continue to limit major advancements in its treatment. There is no firm consensus in the field as to how withdrawal should be precisely defined; 10-550 symptoms of withdrawal can be measured on 18 scales. The imprecise understanding of withdrawal is likely to result in overestimating or underestimating the severity of an individual's withdrawal syndrome or potential therapeutic effects of different candidate medications. The severity of the opioid crisis is not remitting, and an international research agenda for the study and assessment of opioid withdrawal is necessary to support transformational changes in withdrawal management and treatment of opioid use disorder. Nine actionable targets are delineated here: develop a consensus definition of opioid withdrawal; understand withdrawal symptomatology after exposure to different opioids (particularly fentanyl); understand precipitated opioid withdrawal; understand how co-exposure of other drugs (eg, xylazine and stimulants) influences withdrawal expression; examine individual variation in withdrawal phenotypes; precisely characterise the protracted withdrawal syndrome; identify biomarkers of opioid withdrawal severity; identify predictors of opioid withdrawal severity; and understand which symptoms are most closely associated with treatment attrition or relapse. The US Food and Drug Administration recently established a formal indication for opioid withdrawal that has invigorated interest in drug development for opioid withdrawal management. Action is now needed to support these interests and help industry identify new classes of medications so that real change can be achieved for people with opioid use disorder.

Polymorphisms in the A118G SNP of the OPRM1 gene produce different experiences of opioids: A human laboratory phenotype-genotype assessment.

Allelic variations in the A118G SNP of the OPRM1 gene change opioid signaling; however, evaluations of how allelic differences may influence opioid effects are lacking. This human laboratory paradigm examined whether the AA versus AG/GG genotypes determined opioid response profiles. Individuals with limited opioid exposure (N = 100) completed a five-day within-subject, double-blind, placebo-controlled, residential study. Participants were admitted (Day 1), received 4 mg hydromorphone (Day 2) and 0 mg, 2 mg and 8 mg hydromorphone in randomized order (Days 3-5) and completed self-reported visual analog scale (VAS) ratings and Likert scales, observed VAS, and physiological responses at baseline and for 6.5 h post-dose. Outcomes were analysed as peak/nadir effects over time as a function of genotype (available for N = 96 individuals; AG/GG = 13.5%, AA = 86.4%). Participants with AG/GG rated low and moderate doses of hydromorphone as significantly more positive (e.g., Good Effects VAS, coasting, drive, friendly, talkative, stimulation) with fewer negative effects (e.g., itchy skin, nausea, sleepiness), and were also observed as being more talkative and energetic relative to persons with AA. Persons with AG/GG were less physiologically reactive as determined by diastolic blood pressure and heart rate, but had more changes in core temperature compared with those with AA. Persons with AA also demonstrated more prototypic agonist effects across doses; persons with AG/GG showed limited response to 2 mg and 4 mg. Data suggest persons with AG/GG genotype experienced more pleasant and fewer unpleasant responses to hydromorphone relative to persons with AA. Future studies should replicate these laboratory findings in clinical populations to support a precision medicine approach to opioid prescribing.

Ecological Momentary Assessment of Self-Reported Kratom Use, Effects, and Motivations Among US Adults.

Importance: Kratom products, which are sold legally in most of the US, contain alkaloids with opioidergic, adrenergic, and serotonergic activity. Millions of people use kratom to relieve pain, improve mood, or self-manage substance use disorders (SUDs). Kratom use has primarily been examined via surveys, in which recall biases among satisfied users may lead to minimization of transient negative outcomes. Further prospective study of kratom use, such as with ecological momentary assessment (EMA), is needed. Objective: To characterize proximal motivators, effects, and patterns of kratom use and to assess whether use frequency is associated with motivations, effects, past-year criteria for SUD for kratom (KUD), or other substance use. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this prospective cross-sectional study, an intensive longitudinal smartphone-based EMA in which participants' current behaviors and experiences were repeatedly sampled in real time was conducted between July 1 and October 31, 2022. Participants comprised a convenience sample of US adults who used kratom at least 3 days per week for at least 4 weeks at the time of online screening. Criteria for past-year KUD were based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Data analysis was performed between November 2022 and November 2023. Exposure: The exposure was 13 401 kratom-use events across 15 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: A baseline survey covering demographics, health, kratom attitudes and behaviors, use motivations, other substance use, and KUD was administered before EMA. Data for the following EMA entries were then collected: event-contingent entries for kratom use (product, dose, and proximal motivations), follow-up entries (short-term effects and consequences of use events), random-prompt entries (mood), beginning-of-day entries (effects of kratom on sleep), and end-of-day entries (daily subjective descriptions of kratom effects). Bayesian regression was used to estimate means and credible intervals. Results: A total of 357 participants completed the EMA. Their mean (SD) age was 38.0 (11.1) years; more than half were men (198 [55.5%]). Participants reported overall motivators of use on the baseline survey that involved managing psychiatric and SUD problems, but proximal motivators evaluated during the EMA involved situation-specific needs such as increasing energy and productivity and decreasing pain. Acute effects were considered congruent with daily obligations. Use patterns, despite having some distinguishing features, were generally similar in their motivators and effects; participants used kratom predominantly during the daytime and seemed to find use frequencies that suited their needs. Higher use patterns were associated with symptoms of physical dependence (eg, withdrawal or tolerance). Co-used substances included caffeine, nicotine, vitamins, and cannabis. Conclusions and Relevance: Most participants in this study reported using kratom in a seemingly nonproblematic way. When such use appeared problematic, the key element was usually that withdrawal avoidance became a proximal motivator. Longitudinal studies examining changes in kratom use patterns and effects over time are needed.

Need for clarity and context in case reports on kratom use, assessment, and intervention.

This Letter to the Editor is a response to Broyan and colleagues who recently published a Case Report presenting data on 28 patients in the United States who identified kratom as their primary substance of use and who were subsequently induced on buprenorphine/naloxone for a reported diagnosis of kratom use disorder. We applaud the authors for helping to advance the science on kratom and recognize the difficulties in conducting kratom-related clinical assessment and research. However, a number of inconsistences and generalizations were identified in this Case Report, which also lacked some critical context. Importantly, such inconsistencies and generalizations can be observed throughout kratom-specific case reports. We feel this is now an important opportunity to highlight these issues that are present in the Broyan and colleagues Case report but emphasize that they are not unique to it. We do this with the hope that by acknowledging these issues it can help inform editors, clinicians, and researchers who may not be familiar with kratom and, as a result of this unfamiliarity, may inadvertently present findings in a manner that could confuse readers and even misinform clinical researchers and practitioners.

Assessment of Kratom Use Disorder and Withdrawal Among an Online Convenience Sample of US Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2007, kratom use in the United States has increased, centered around nonmedical self-treatment of pain, psychiatric, and substance use disorder symptoms. Reports of kratom withdrawal have emerged amidst description of therapeutic effects, yet we know little about disordered use. Our objective was to assess Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 substance use disorder for kratom ("kratom use disorder," KUD) and examine kratom withdrawal symptoms among those who ever used regularly. We also sought to identify clinical characteristics of respondents who qualified for current, remitted, or never KUD. METHODS: Between April and May 2021, we re-recruited online respondents who reported lifetime kratom use on an unrelated survey into our cross-sectional kratom survey study, permitting a diverse sample of current and former kratom-using persons. RESULTS: A total of 129/289 (44.6%) evaluable surveys were obtained. Over half (52.7%) of respondents never met KUD diagnostic criteria; 17.8% were assessed remitted, and 29.5% met current (past-year) KUD threshold. For past-year KUD, severity was: 14.0% mild, 7.0% moderate, and 8.5% severe. Pain, psychiatric symptoms, and polydrug use were found across all groups. KUD symptoms reflected increased use, tolerance, withdrawal, unsuccessful quit attempts, and craving; 9.3% reported decreases in important social, occupational, or recreational activities because of use. Withdrawal symptoms were moderate and included gastrointestinal upset, restlessness, anxiety, irritability, fatigue/low energy, and craving. CONCLUSIONS: As assessed here, tolerance and withdrawal are primary KUD features rather than psychosocial impairments. As kratomis often used among persons with a myriad of health conditions, clinicians should be aware of and assess for kratom use and withdrawal.

Stigmatizing Terminology for Outcomes and Processes (STOP) in Alcohol Research: A Meta-epidemiologic Assessment of Language Used in Clinical Trial Publications.

INTRODUCTION: Stigmatizing language used to describe patients and medical conditions is associated with poorer health outcomes. A recent investigation showed that approximately 80% of medical literature focused on alcohol use disorder (AUD) contained stigmatizing terms related to individuals; however, the quantification of stigmatizing terminology for outcomes and processes (STOP) among AUD research is unknown. Thus, our primary objective was to evaluate publications of clinical trials for their inclusion of STOP. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed for AUD clinical trials between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2021. Article screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate manner by 2 investigators. We searched the full text of included manuscripts for STOP. We reported the frequency and percentage of manuscripts with STOP and individual terms. We evaluated associations between STOP usage and several clinical trial characteristics via logistic regression. RESULTS: Our search returned 1552 articles, which were then randomized and the first 500 were screened for inclusion. Of 147 included articles, 115 (78.2%) included STOP. The most common STOP were "drop out" (38.78%; 57/147), "relapse" (36.05%; 53/ 147), and "adherent, nonadherence" (35.37%; 52/147). No significant associations were found between STOP usage and trial characteristics. DISCUSSION: STOP was found in a majority of AUD clinical trial publications. As AUD is highly stigmatized, steps should be taken to eliminate usage of STOP in literature pertaining to AUD treatments. Many stigmatizing terms can be replaced by person-centered, more clinically accurate terms to further combat AUD stigma.

Integration of Patient-reported Outcomes Assessment Into Routine Care for Patients Receiving Residential Treatment for Alcohol and/or Substance Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: More than 3 million individuals receive treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD) and/or substance use disorder each year, yet there exists no standardized method for measuring patient success in treatment. Quantifying a more comprehensive assessment of treatment outcomes could identify the relative efficacy of different treatment strategies for individuals with AUD/substance use disorders, and help patients to identify, in advance, appropriate treatment options. METHODS: This study developed and embedded patient-reported outcome measures into the routine clinical operations of a residential treatment program. Surveys assessed demographics, drug use history, physical and mental health, and quality of life. Outcomes were assessed among participants at admission (n = 961) and in patients who completed the survey at time of discharge (n = 633). RESULTS: Past 30-day alcohol and/or opioid use at admission were correlated with worse self-reported physical and mental health, sleep, and quality of life, and greater negative affect and craving ( P s < 0.05). Previous history of treatment and/or withdrawal management were associated with worse self-reported physical and mental health, quality of life, and increased craving ( P s < 0.05). Physical and mental health improved across timepoints and was most pronounced when comparing persons receiving treatment for opioid use disorder versus AUD, wherein persons with opioid use disorder had worse physical health at all time points, and greater sleep disturbance and negative affect at discharge ( P s < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to embed patient outcome monitoring into routine clinic operations, which could be used in the future to tailor treatment plans.

Provider Continuity in the Prescribing of Buprenorphine/Naloxone Within Medicare Part D.

OBJECTIVES: Efforts to improve buprenorphine access for opioid use disorder have focused on increasing the number of waivered providers. However, it is unknown how efforts to increase initial prescribing result in a sustained pool of prescribers. We examine the prevalence of year-to-year provider-level buprenorphine prescribing, and provider- and state-level factors associated with provider continuity. METHODS: Providers prescribing buprenorphine/naloxone within the Medicare Part D claims database were evaluated from 2013 to 2017 with prescriber continuity measured as prescriptions made in consecutive years from the same provider (N = 14,222 unique providers; 6670 in 2013). RESULTS: The number of providers prescribing buprenorphine/naloxone within Medicare Part D increased from 2013 to 2017. The majority of providers prescribed buprenorphine/naloxone to 10 or fewer beneficiaries. Approximately 84% of providers prescribing buprenorphine/naloxone in 1 year prescribed it in the following year. Continuous prescribing from 2013 to 2017 was 59.4%, which was 86% the rate of a comparator chronic health medication (ie, lisinopril). Survival analyses indicated that female providers (adjusted hazard ratios [AHR] = 1.30, P < 0.001) and clinical neuroscience specialties such as psychiatry (AHR = 1.21, P < 0.001) exhibited greater discontinuation rates, whereas those with higher buprenorphine/naloxone beneficiary loads (AHR = 0.50, P < 0.001) and in states with a greater increase in overdose mortality rates (AHR = 0.88, P < 0.05) showed lower discontinuation rates. CONCLUSIONS: These data support evidence that providers who begin prescribing buprenorphine continue prescribing, although short of maximum capacity. Efforts to help providers become waivered, understand the impact of overdose fatalities in their area, and prescribe to multiple patients are likely to generate an enduring positive contribution to the number of treated patients.

Evaluating the co-use of opioids and cannabis for pain among current users using hypothetical purchase tasks.

BACKGROUND: Cannabinoids may potentiate opioid analgesia and therefore could be used to reduce reliance on opioids for analgesia. AIMS: The current study evaluated whether the concurrent availability of cannabis influences opioid consumption using a behavioral economic demand framework. METHODS: An online survey assessed cannabis and opioid use frequency and dependence measures, pain severity, and demand for both cannabis and opioids alone and when concurrently available using hypothetical purchase tasks. Adults reporting current use of opioids for pain management and past 30-day cannabis exposure (N=155) completed two hypothetical purchase tasks in which only grams of cannabis or units of participants' index opioids were available for purchase, and two hypothetical tasks in which both were concurrently available and the price of one drug increased whereas the other was kept constant. Paired-sample t-tests compared the demand of each drug alone with when it was available concurrently with an alternative. RESULTS: Demand intensity was significantly reduced and demand elasticity was significantly increased for both cannabis and opioids when the alternate commodity was available, although the reductions in cannabis consumption were more pronounced than they were for opioid consumption in the presence of the alternate commodity. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide behavioral economic evidence that cannabis access may modestly reduce demand for opioids in persons who have pain. Additional clinical studies that evaluate the analgesic effects of cannabis and cannabis-opioid effects on pain are warranted.

Differences in Availability and Use of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Residential Treatment Settings in the United States.

Importance: While many individuals with opioid use disorder seek treatment at residential facilities to initiate long-term recovery, the availability and use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) in these facilities is unclear. Objective: To examine differences in MOUD availability and use in residential facilities as a function of Medicaid policy, facility-level factors associated with MOUD availability, and admissions-level factors associated with MOUD use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used deidentified facility-level and admissions-level data from 2863 residential treatment facilities and 232 414 admissions in the United States in 2017. Facility-level data were extracted from the 2017 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services, and admissions-level data were extracted from the 2017 Treatment Episode Data Set-Admissions. Statistical analyses were conducted from June to November 2019. Exposures: Admissions for opioid use disorder at residential treatment facilities in the United States that identified opioids as the patient's primary drug of choice. Main Outcomes and Measures: Availability and use of 3 MOUDs (ie, extended-release naltrexone, buprenorphine, and methadone). Results: Of 232 414 admissions, 205 612 (88.5%) contained complete demographic data (166 213 [80.8%] aged 25-54 years; 136 854 [66.6%] men; 151 867 [73.9%] white). Among all admissions, MOUDs were used in only 34 058 of 192 336 (17.7%) in states that expanded Medicaid and 775 of 40 078 (1.9%) in states that did not expand Medicaid (P < .001). A relatively low percentage of the 2863 residential treatment facilities in this study offered extended-release naltrexone (854 [29.8%]), buprenorphine (953 [33.3%]), or methadone (60 [2.1%]). Compared with residential facilities that offered at least 1 MOUD, those that offered no MOUDs had lower odds of also offering psychiatric medications (odds ratio [OR], 0.06; 95% CI, 0.05-0.08; Wald χ21 = 542.09; P < .001), being licensed by a state or hospital authority (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57; Wald χ21 = 24.28; P < .001), or being accredited by a health organization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.23-0.33; Wald χ21 = 180.91; P < .001). Residential facilities that did not offer any MOUDs had higher odds of accepting cash-only payments than those that offered at least 1 MOUD (OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 3.47-6.64; Wald χ21 = 89.65; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of residential addiction treatment facilities in the United States, MOUD availability and use were sparse. Public health and policy efforts to improve access to and use of MOUDs in residential treatment facilities could improve treatment outcomes for individuals with opioid use disorder who are initiating recovery.

Differential adoption of opioid agonist treatments in detoxification and outpatient settings.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant public health problem for which a substantial amount of treatment exists. The degree to which methadone and buprenorphine are administered in different treatment modalities is not clear but critical to understanding treatment success rates and service development strategies. METHODS: Data from the national Treatment Episode Dataset for Admissions and Discharges (TEDS-A [N = 4,070,264] and TEDS-D [832,731], respectively) were used to determine the likelihood patients initiating detoxification and outpatient OUD treatment between 2006 and 2015 were expected to receive opioid agonist treatment. Joinpoint regression evaluated significant trends and a generalized linear model with logit link function identified characteristics associated with receiving an agonist during detoxification. TEDS-D informed the percent of patients leaving detoxification against medical advice who did/did not receive an opioid agonist. RESULTS: Though agonist use in outpatient settings increased by 60% during 2012-2015, agonist use in detoxification was lower than outpatient treatment, decreased significantly by 26% from 2009 to 2015, and never exceeded 16% of detoxification admissions during 2006-2015. In 2015, persons who were under 25, homeless, had co-occurring psychiatric problems, utilized Medicare, Medicaid, or had no insurance, and had no prior OUD treatment or were high treatment utilizers were the least likely to receive an agonist during detoxification. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to expand opioid agonist access has been successful for outpatient but not detoxification settings. Improving detoxification outcomes is a potentially high impact way for the US to expand efficacious OUD treatment access in the US.

The relationship between treatment accessibility and preference amongst out-of-treatment individuals who engage in non-medical prescription opioid use.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known regarding the perception of medication-assisted treatments (MATs) and other treatment options amongst individuals that engage in non-medical prescription opioid use. This study surveyed out-of-treatment individuals that misuse opioids to better understand how perceived access to treatment shapes treatment preference. METHODS: Participants (n=357) were out-of-treatment adults registered as workers on the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform who reported current non-medical prescription opioid use. Participants were surveyed regarding demographics, insurance status, attitudes toward opioid use disorder (OUD) treatments, and self-reported symptoms of OUD. RESULTS: Participants who were male, did not have health insurance, and knew that counseling-type services were locally available were most likely to first attempt counseling/detox treatments (χ2(6)=30.19, p<0.001). Participants who met criteria for severe OUD, used heroin in the last 30days, knew their insurance covered MAT, and knew of locally available MAT providers were most likely to first attempt MAT (χ2(4)=26.85, p<0.001). Participants with insurance and who knew of locally available physicians were most likely to attempt physician visits without the expressed purpose of MAT (χ2(3)=24.75, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Out-of-treatment opioid users were particularly interested in counseling-based services and medical care that could be attained from a primary-care physician. Results suggest that insurance coverage and perceived access to OUD treatment modalities influences where out-of-treatment opioid users might first seek treatment; understanding the factors that shape treatment preference is critical in designing early interventions to effectively reach this population.

Behavioral risk assessment for infectious diseases (BRAID): Self-report instrument to assess injection and noninjection risk behaviors in substance users.

BACKGROUND: Infectious diseases such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Hepatitis C are a significant problem among substance abusers. Current risk behavior measures [e.g., HIV Risk Taking Behaviour Scale (HRBS) and Risk Assessment Battery (RAB)] were developed for injection drug users and do not include newly identified risks or noninjection drug use behaviors. This study developed and provided initial, internal validation of the Behavioral Risk Assessment for Infectious Diseases (BRAID) to assess infectious disease risk behaviors among alcohol and other drug users. METHODS: A self-report measure was developed from literature regarding risk behaviors. Participants (total N=998) with alcohol/substance use disorder completed the measure in 2 phases to establish initial psychometric validity. RESULTS: Phase 1 (N=270) completed 65 self-report questions; factor analysis revealed a 12-item solution with 5 factors (Unprotected Sex with Risky Partners, Injection Use, Sex on Cocaine/Crack, Condom Availability, and Intranasal Drug Use). Infectious disease history was positively associated with Injection Use (Sample 1) and Unprotected Sex with Risky Partners (Sample 2) and negatively associated with Intranasal Drug Use (Samples 1 and 2). Phase 2 (N=728) added additional injection-related items and confirmed the factor structure of the existing BRAID. CONCLUSIONS: The BRAID is a 5-factor, 14-item self-report measure of past 6 month risk behaviors that is composed of noninjection and injection risk behaviors and was psychometrically confirmed. Though additional external (convergent/divergent) validation is needed, this report provides preliminary support for the use of the BRAID to assess infectious disease risk in substance users.

Racial differences in women's prodromal and acute symptoms of myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Minority women, especially black and Hispanic women, have higher rates of coronary heart disease and resulting disability and death than do white women. A lack of knowledge of minority women's symptoms of coronary heart disease may contribute to these disparities. OBJECTIVE: To compare black, Hispanic, and white women's prodromal and acute symptoms of myocardial infarction. METHODS: In total, 545 black, 539 white, and 186 Hispanic women without cognitive impairment at 15 sites were retrospectively surveyed by telephone after myocardial infarction. With general linear models and controls for cardiovascular risk factors, symptom severity and frequency were compared among racial groups. Logistic regression models were used to examine individual prodromal or acute symptoms by race, with adjustments for cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: Among the women, 96% reported prodromal symptoms. Unusual fatigue (73%) and sleep disturbance (50%) were the most frequent. Eighteen symptoms differed significantly by race (P<.01); blacks reported higher frequencies of 10 symptoms than did Hispanics or whites. Thirty-six percent reported prodromal chest discomfort; Hispanics reported more pain/discomfort symptoms than did black or white women. Minority women reported more acute symptoms (P < .01). The most frequent symptom, regardless of race, was shortness of breath (63%); 22 symptoms differed by race (P <.01). In total, 28% of Hispanic, 38% of black, and 42% of white women reported no chest pain/discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: Prodromal and acute symptoms of myocardial infarction differed significantly according to race. Racial descriptions of women's prodromal and acute symptoms should assist providers in interpreting women's symptoms.