Polysubstance use poisoning deaths in Canada: an analysis of trends from 2014 to 2017 using mortality data.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, rates of drug poisoning deaths have increased dramatically in Canada. Current evidence suggests that the non-medical use of synthetic opioids, stimulants and patterns of polysubstance use are major factors contributing to this increase. METHODS: Counts of substance poisoning deaths involving alcohol, opioids, other central nervous system (CNS) depressants, cocaine, and CNS stimulants excluding cocaine, were acquired from the Canadian Vital Statistics Death Database (CVSD) for the years 2014 to 2017. We used joinpoint regression analysis and the Cochrane-Armitage trend test for proportions to examine changes over time in crude mortality rates and proportions of poisoning deaths involving more than one substance. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, the rate of substance poisoning deaths in Canada almost doubled from 6.4 to 11.5 deaths per 100,000 population (Average Annual Percent Change, AAPC: 23%, p < 0.05). Our analysis shows this was due to increased unintentional poisoning deaths (AAPC: 26.6%, p < 0.05) and polysubstance deaths (AAPC: 23.0%, p < 0.05). The proportion of unintentional poisoning deaths involving polysubstance use increased significantly from 38% to 58% among males (p < 0.0001) and 40% to 55% among females (p < 0.0001). Polysubstance use poisonings involving opioids and CNS stimulants (excluding cocaine) increased substantially during the study period (males AAPC: 133.1%, p < 0.01; females AAPC: 118.1%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Increases in substance-related poisoning deaths between 2014 and 2017 were associated with polysubstance use. Increased co-use of stimulants with opioids is a key factor contributing to the epidemic of opioid deaths in Canada.

Associations Between Canada's Cannabis Legalization and Emergency Department Presentations for Transient Cannabis-Induced Psychosis and Schizophrenia Conditions: Ontario and Alberta, 2015-2019.

OBJECTIVE: Cannabis legalization in many jurisdictions worldwide has raised concerns that such legislation might increase the burden of transient and persistent psychotic illnesses in society. Our study aimed to address this issue. METHODS: Drawing upon emergency department (ED) presentations aggregated across Alberta and Ontario, Canada records (April 1, 2015-December 31, 2019), we employed Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA) models to assess associations between Canada's cannabis legalization (via the Cannabis Act implemented on October 17, 2018) and weekly ED presentation counts of the following ICD-10-CA-defined target series of cannabis-induced psychosis (F12.5; n = 5832) and schizophrenia and related conditions ("schizophrenia"; F20-F29; n = 211,661), as well as two comparison series of amphetamine-induced psychosis (F15.5; n = 10,829) and alcohol-induced psychosis (F10.5; n = 1,884). RESULTS: ED presentations for cannabis-induced psychosis doubled between April 2015 and December 2019. However, across all four SARIMA models, there was no evidence of significant step-function effects associated with cannabis legalization on post-legalization weekly ED counts of: (1) cannabis-induced psychosis [0.34 (95% CI -4.1; 4.8; P = 0.88)]; (2) schizophrenia [24.34 (95% CI -18.3; 67.0; P = 0.26)]; (3) alcohol-induced psychosis [0.61 (95% CI -0.6; 1.8; P = 0.31); or (4) amphetamine-induced psychosis [1.93 (95% CI -2.8; 6.7; P = 0.43)]. CONCLUSION: Implementation of Canada's cannabis legalization framework was not associated with evidence of significant changes in cannabis-induced psychosis or schizophrenia ED presentations. Given the potentially idiosyncratic rollout of Canada's cannabis legalization, further research will be required to establish whether study results generalize to other settings.

Towards cross-Canada monitoring of the unregulated street drug supply.

BACKGROUND: The well-being of people who use drugs (PWUD) continues to be threatened by substances of unknown type or quantity in the unregulated street drug supply. Current efforts to monitor the drug supply are limited in population reach and comparability. This restricts capacity to identify and develop measures that safeguard the health of PWUD. This study describes the development of a low-barrier system for monitoring the contents of drugs in the unregulated street supply. Early results for pilot sites are presented and compared across regions. METHODS: The drug content monitoring system integrates a low-barrier survey and broad spectrum urine toxicology screening to compare substances expected to be consumed and those actually in the drug supply. The system prototype was developed by harm reduction pilot projects in British Columbia (BC) and Montreal with participation of PWUD. Data were collected from harm reduction supply distribution site clients in BC, Edmonton and Montreal between May 2018-March 2019. Survey and urine toxicology data were linked via anonymous codes and analyzed descriptively by region for trends in self-reported and detected use. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 878 participants from 40 sites across 3 regions. Reported use of substances, their detection, and concordance between the two varied across regions. Methamphetamine use was reported and detected most frequently in BC (reported: 62.8%; detected: 72.2%) and Edmonton (58.3%; 68.8%). In Montreal, high concordance was also observed between reported (74.5%) and detected (86.5%) cocaine/crack use. Among those with fentanyl detected, the percentage of participants who used fentanyl unintentionally ranged from 36.1% in BC, 78.6% in Edmonton and 90.9% in Montreal. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to describe a feasible, scalable monitoring system for the unregulated drug supply that can contrast expected and actual drug use and compare trends across regions. The system used principles of flexibility, capacity-building and community participation in its design. Results are well-suited to meet the needs of PWUD and inform the local harm reduction services they rely on. Further standardization of the survey tool and knowledge mobilization is needed to expand the system to new jurisdictions.

Attributable fractions for substance use in relation to crime.

AIMS: Building upon an existing methodology and conceptual framework for estimating the association between the use of substances and crime, we calculated attributable fractions that estimate the proportion of crimes explained by alcohol and six other categories of psychoactive substances. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: Canadian federal correctional institutions. PARTICIPANTS: Canadian men (n = 27 803) and women (n = 1335) offenders who began serving a custodial sentence in a Canadian federal correctional institution between 2006 and 2016. MEASUREMENTS: Offenders completed the computerized assessment of substance abuse, a self-report tool designed to assess (1) whether the offence for which they were convicted would have occurred had they not been intoxicated from alcohol or another substance, (2) whether they committed the offence to support their alcohol or other substance use and (3) whether they were dependent on alcohol (alcohol dependence scale) or another substance (drug abuse screening test). Offences were grouped into four mutually exclusive categories: violent crimes, non-violent crimes, impaired driving and substance-defined crimes. This study focused on violent and non-violent crime categories. Substances assessed were: alcohol, cannabis, opioids, other central nervous system (CNS) depressants, cocaine, other CNS stimulants and other substances. FINDINGS: According to offender self-report, 42% of all violent and non-violent crime would probably not have occurred if the perpetrator had not been under the influence of, or seeking, alcohol or other substances. Between 2006 and 2016, 20% of violent crimes and 7% of non-violent crimes in Canada were considered attributable to alcohol. In contrast, all other psychoactive substance categories combined were associated with 26% of all violent crime and 25% of non-violent crime during the same time-frame. CONCLUSIONS: Attributable fraction analyses show that more than 42% of Canadian crime resulting in a custodial sentence between 2006 and 2016 would probably not have occurred if the perpetrator had not been under the influence of or seeking alcohol or other drugs. Attributable fractions for alcohol and substance-related crime are a potentially useful resource for estimating the impact of alcohol and other substances on crime.

How High? Trends in Cannabis Use Prior to First Admission to Inpatient Psychiatry in Ontario, Canada, between 2007 and 2017.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the trends in cannabis use within 30 days of first admission to inpatient psychiatry in Ontario, Canada, between 2007 and 2017, and the characteristics of persons reporting cannabis use. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted for first-time admissions to nonforensic inpatient psychiatric beds in Ontario, Canada, between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2017, using data from the Ontario Mental Health Reporting System (N = 81,809). RESULTS: Across all years, 20.1% of patients reported cannabis use within 30 days of first admission. Use increased from 16.7% in 2007 to 25.9% in 2017, and the proportion with cannabis use disorders increased from 3.8% to 6.0%. In 2017, 47.9% of patients aged 18 to 24 and 39.2% aged 25 to 34 used cannabis, representing absolute increases of 8.3% and 10.7%, respectively. Increases in cannabis use were found across almost all diagnostic groups, with the largest increases among patients with personality disorders (15% increase), schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders (14% increase), and substance use disorders (14% increase). A number of demographic and clinical factors were significantly associated with cannabis use, including interactions between schizophrenia and gender (area under the curve = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: As medical cannabis policies in Canada have evolved, cannabis use reported prior to first admission to inpatient psychiatry has increased. The findings of this study establish a baseline for evaluating the impact of changes in cannabis-related policies in Ontario on cannabis use prior to admission to inpatient psychiatry.

Psychotic disorder and cannabis use: Canadian hospitalization trends, 2006-2015. / Troubles psychotiques et consommation de cannabis : évolution des hospitalisations au Canada, 2006-2015.

INTRODUCTION: Given the recent and impending changes to the legal status of nonmedical cannabis use in Canada, understanding the effects of cannabis use on the health care system is important for evaluating the impact of policy change. The aim of this study was to examine pre-legalization trends in hospitalizations for mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of cannabis, according to demographics factors and clinical conditions. METHODS: We assessed the total number of inpatient hospitalizations for psychiatric conditions with a primary diagnosis of a mental or behavioural disorder due to cannabis use (ICD-10-CA code F12) from the Hospital Mental Health Database for ten years spanning 2006 to 2015, inclusive. We included hospitalizations from all provinces and territories except Quebec. Rates (per 100 000 persons) and relative proportions of hospitalizations by clinical condition, age group, sex and year are reported. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2015, the rate of cannabis-related hospitalizations in Canada doubled. Of special note, however, is that hospitalizations during this time period for those with the clinical condition code "mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids, psychotic disorder" (F12.5) tripled, accounting for almost half (48%) of all cannabis-related hospitalizations in 2015. CONCLUSION: Further research is required to investigate the reasons for the increase in hospitalizations for cannabis-related psychotic disorder. The introduction of high-potency cannabinoid products and synthetic cannabinoids into the illicit market are considered as possible factors.

Estimation of the impacts of substance use on workplace productivity: a hybrid human capital and prevalence-based approach applied to Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Policy makers require evidence-based estimates of the economic costs of substance use-attributable lost productivity to set strategies aimed at reducing substance use-related harms. Building on a study by Rehm et al. (2006), we provide estimates of workplace costs using updated methods and data sources. METHODS: We estimated substance use-attributable productivity losses due to premature mortality, long-term disability, and presenteeism/absenteeism in Canada between 2007 and 2014. Lost productivity was estimated using a hybrid prevalence and incidence approach. Substance use prevalence data were drawn from three national self-report surveys. Premature mortality data were from the Canadian Vital Statistics Death Database, and long-term disability and workplace interference data were from the Canadian Community Health Survey. RESULTS: In 2014, the total cost of lost productivity due to substance use was $15.7 billion, or approximately $440 per Canadian, an increase of 8% from 2007. Substances responsible for the greatest economic costs were alcohol (38% of per capita costs), tobacco (37%), opioids (12%), other central nervous system (CNS) depressants (4%), other CNS stimulants (3%), cannabis (2%), cocaine (2%), and finally other psychoactive substances (2%). CONCLUSION: In 2014, alcohol and tobacco represent three quarters of substance use-related lost productivity costs in Canada, followed by opioids. These costs provide a valuable baseline that can be used to assess the impact of future substance use policy, practice, and other interventions, especially important given Canada's opioid crisis and recent cannabis legalization.

Lessons learned from the opioid crisis across the pillars of the Canadian drugs and substances strategy.

BACKGROUND: Canada is facing an urgent challenge to reduce the harms associated with opioids: from January 2016 to December of 2018, more than 11,500 individuals lost their lives due to opioid related harms. This review examines responses to the opioid crisis thus far, the lessons learned from these initiatives and the knowledge gaps that still need to be addressed across the four pillar model adopted by the CDSS. METHODS: A search of peer-reviewed literature was conducted in PubMed and PsycNet, and grey literature was retrieved from reputable substance use and health organizations to determine responses to the opioid crisis and related outcomes between 2013 and 2019. Findings related to actions, outcomes and unintended consequences across the categories of prevention, treatment, harm reduction, enforcement and the evidence base were included and synthesized into a narrative review on lessons learned. RESULTS: The opioid crisis is a result of multiple, complex interrelated factors. Many physicians may not feel competent to appropriately treat pain and/or addiction. Pushes for opioid deprescribing have resulted in some individuals using illicit opioids as treatment. A range of effective and accessible pharmacological and psychological treatments are still required. When regulations are barriers, unsanctioned actions, such as overdose prevention sites, may be enacted by individuals to respond to urgent public health needs. A nimble response with evolving enforcement perspectives can aid individuals experiencing harms from opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: There is no one size fits all response to this crisis, and consideration should be given to the unique needs of different communities and populations, as well as the broader impact of harms on families, communities, and society. A situation so multifaceted requires both immediate and long-term strategies implemented concurrently in order to address the differing and on-going needs of Canadians experiencing opioid harms. The expertise of individuals and families affected by the opioid crisis must be included in consultations and decisions related to different strategies, to ensure responses are not stigmatizing, that they will be effective and acceptable and that unintended consequences are quickly recognized and mitigated.