Search

Background: Nearly one-half of Americans have been exposed to at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE) before turning 18, contributing to a broad array of problems spanning physical health, mental and behavioral health, and psychosocial functioning., Methods: This was a cross-sectional, survey research study, using 2018 data from a state adolescent health surveillance system, i.e., Maryland Youth Risk Behavior Survey/Youth Tobacco Survey. The population-based sample of Maryland high school students (n = 41,091) is representative at the state and county levels. The outcome variables included five binary measures of ACEs (i.e., food insecurity, parental substance use/gambling, parental mental illness, family member in jail/prison, and caregiver verbal abuse), and number of ACEs. The main exposure variable, area-level socioeconomic disadvantage, was assessed at the county level using a continuous measure of the area deprivation index (ADI). Additional covariates included: rural county status, age, race/ethnicity, sex, and sexual or gender minority (SGM) status. We used mixed-effect multivariate logistic regression to estimate the odds of ACEs in association with socioeconomic deprivation. Models were adjusted for all covariates., Results: County-level ADI was associated with 3 of the 5 ACES [i.e., food insecurity (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.07-1.13), parental substance use/gambling (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.07), and incarceration of a family member (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09-1.19)]; and with having at least one ACE (i.e., OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.05-1.10). Odds of reporting at least one ACE were higher among girls, older adolescents (i.e., aged 16 and ≥ 17 relative to those aged ≤ 14 years), and among SGM, Black, and Latinx students (all ORs > 1.20)., Conclusions: ACEs greatly increase risk for adolescent risk behaviors. We observed an increased likelihood of adversity among youth in more deprived counties and among Black, Latinx, or SGM youth, suggesting that social and structural factors play a role in determining the adversity that youth face. Therefore, efforts to address structural factors (e.g., food access, family financial support, imprisonment as a sanction for criminal behavior) could be a critical strategy for primary prevention of ACEs and promoting adolescent health., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The substances driving the overdose epidemic in the United States have changed over time. Since 2013, fentanyl-analogues have become the primary opioids driving the epidemic. Recently, polysubstance related deaths have come to the forefront of the epidemic. Therefore, we explored trends in polysubstance involvement in overdose fatalities in Maryland between 2003 and 2019., Methods: We used records for the Maryland Office of the Chief Medical Examiner between 2003 and 2019. First, we assessed trends in the number of drugs (1, 2, 3+) involved in overdose fatalities over time. Then, we assessed linear and quadratic trends in nine substance categories using logistic regression., Results: Overtime, the proportion of overdose deaths involving one (ß=-0.28, p < 0.001) or two (ß=-0.14, p < 0.001) drugs decreased, while deaths involving three or more drugs increased (ß = 0.31, p < 0.001). The involvement of most drugs decreased over the study period. Only cocaine (linear ß=-0.08, p < 0.001; quadratic ß = 0.29, p < 0.001) and fentanyl (linear ß = 1.67, p < 0.001; quadratic ß = 0.75, p < 0.0001) showed significant increases over time. Post hoc analyses showed that cocaine involvement only increased in the presence of fentanyl (linear ß = 1.41, p < 0.001; quadratic ß = 0.70, p < 0.001) and decreased when fentanyl was not present (linear ß=-0.81, p < 0.001; quadratic ß=-0.31, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Polysubstance involvement in overdose fatalities has become more common over time in Maryland. Most individual substances became less common over time, while cocaine and fentanyl involvement increased. Unintentional fentanyl consumption through contaminated cocaine may be an increasingly important driver of deaths in Maryland, indicating the importance of implementing widespread harm reduction programs, especially drug checking., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fentanyl has caused rapid increases in US and Canadian overdose deaths, yet its presence in illicit drugs is often unknown to consumers. This study examined the validity in identifying the presence of fentanyl of three portable devices that could be used in providing drug checking services and drug supply surveillance: fentanyl test strips, a hand-held Raman Spectrometer, and a desktop Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectrometer., Methods: In Fall 2017, we first undertook an assessment of the limits of detection for fentanyl, then tested the three devices' sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing fentanyl in street-acquired drug samples. Utilizing test replicates of standard fentanyl reference material over a range of increasingly lower concentrations, we determined the lowest concentration reliably detected. To establish the sensitivity and specificity for fentanyl, 210 samples (106 fentanyl-positive, 104 fentanyl-negative) previously submitted by law enforcement entities to forensic laboratories in Baltimore, Maryland, and Providence, Rhode Island, were tested using the devices. All sample testing followed parallel and standardized protocols in the two labs., Results: The lowest limit of detection (0.100 mcg/mL), false negative (3.7%), and false positive rate (9.6%) was found for fentanyl test strips, which also correctly detected two fentanyl analogs (acetyl fentanyl and furanyl fentanyl) alone or in the presence of another drug, in both powder and pill forms. While less sensitive and specific for fentanyl, the other devices conveyed additional relevant information including the percentage of fentanyl and presence of cutting agents and other drugs., Conclusion: Devices for fentanyl drug checking are available and valid. Drug checking services and drug supply surveillance should be considered and researched as part of public health responses to the opioid overdose crisis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)