Search

Copyright of Religación: Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades is the property of Religacion: Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract Background Opioid overdose remains a public health crisis in diverse communities. Between 2019 and 2020, there was an almost 40% increase in drug fatalities primarily due to opioid analogues of both stimulants and opioids. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD; e.g., buprenorphine) are effective, evidence-based treatments that can be delivered in office-based primary care settings. We investigated disparities in the proportion of national prescribers who have obtained a waiver issued to prescribe MOUD by demographic characteristics. Methods Data for the secondary data analyses were obtained from the Drug Enforcement Administration that maintains data on waivered MOUD prescribers across the US. Proportion of waivered prescribers were examined by ZIP code, race and ethnicity composition, socioeconomic status, insurance, and urban–rural designation using generalized linear mixed effects models. Results Compared with predominantly Non-Hispanic White ZIP codes, other racially and ethnically diverse areas had a higher proportion of waivered buprenorphine prescribers. Differences in prescriber availability between predominant racial group was dependent on rurality based on the interaction found in our fitted model. In metropolitan areas, we found that predominantly Non-Hispanic White ZIP codes had a lower rate of waivered prescribers compared to predominantly Black/African American ZIP codes. Conclusions Our findings suggest that among AI/AN and Black/African American neighborhoods, availability of waivered prescribers may not be a primary barrier. However, availability of waivered prescribers and prescribing might potentially be an obstacle for Hispanic/Latinx and rural communities. Additional research to determine factors related to improving MOUD availability among diverse communities therefore remains vital to advancing health equity.

The rescheduling of cannabis, from the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), current most restrictive (Schedule 1) designation, would be an important step for cannabis research and researchers. We are researchers who have experience with cannabis research in pre-clinical, clinical, and policy domains, who represent a range of social science disciplines (e.g., Psychology, History). In this commentary, we share our perspectives on the history, policies, challenges and benefits of moving cannabis from the current Schedule 1 designation (similar to heroin) to the less restrictive Schedule III (similar to ketamine). The rescheduling has the potential to contribute in multiple ways to research on cannabis' effects on the brain and behavior, policies for regulating medicinal and recreational use, and the use of cannabis to treat health conditions such as chronic pain. While there is scientific evidence to support this rescheduling, there also are challenges and pushback for keeping the regulations as they currently exist. Although "the devil is in the details," we present our reasons to advocate for improving access to cannabis for research.

The Drug Enforcement Administration has provided a resource for parents, educators, and caregivers to help them raise drug-free young people, properly dispose of drugs, stay informed on top drug issues, and keep loved ones safe. This resource, a web site called Get Smart About Drugs, can help users understand what to look for when protecting their loved ones from substance misuse as well as generate awareness about drugs and paraphernalia, and national campaigns for drug and opioid abuse prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Opioid overdose remains a public health crisis in diverse communities. Between 2019 and 2020, there was an almost 40% increase in drug fatalities primarily due to opioid analogues of both stimulants and opioids. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD; e.g., buprenorphine) are effective, evidence-based treatments that can be delivered in office-based primary care settings. We investigated disparities in the proportion of national prescribers who have obtained a waiver issued to prescribe MOUD by demographic characteristics.Methods: Data for the secondary data analyses were obtained from the Drug Enforcement Administration that maintains data on waivered MOUD prescribers across the US. Proportion of waivered prescribers were examined by ZIP code, race and ethnicity composition, socioeconomic status, insurance, and urban-rural designation using generalized linear mixed effects models.Results: Compared with predominantly Non-Hispanic White ZIP codes, other racially and ethnically diverse areas had a higher proportion of waivered buprenorphine prescribers. Differences in prescriber availability between predominant racial group was dependent on rurality based on the interaction found in our fitted model. In metropolitan areas, we found that predominantly Non-Hispanic White ZIP codes had a lower rate of waivered prescribers compared to predominantly Black/African American ZIP codes.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that among AI/AN and Black/African American neighborhoods, availability of waivered prescribers may not be a primary barrier. However, availability of waivered prescribers and prescribing might potentially be an obstacle for Hispanic/Latinx and rural communities. Additional research to determine factors related to improving MOUD availability among diverse communities therefore remains vital to advancing health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Turkish public hospitals have been subjected to health care reform because of increasing cost pressure, inequities in access to health care, poor quality of care and limited patient responsiveness in the last three decades. This study investigates the impact of recent hospital reforms on the efficiency of public hospitals. Methods The study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the efficiency of Turkish hospitals by using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). The estimation of efficiency of 669 public hospitals of Turkey is performed by an output-oriented model of DEA under the assumption of variable return-to-scale by using data collected from the Ministry of Health (MoH) over the period 2013–17. Results The average efficiency score is equal to 0.83 for all MoH hospitals. Considering the hospital type, the efficiency scores of training and research hospitals are higher than those of the general and branch hospitals. In addition, considering the hospital size, huge-scale hospitals have the highest efficiency score in all years. Moreover, overcrowded regions such as Marmara and South-eastern Anatolia regions had higher efficiency scores than other geographical regions. Conclusions The results indicate that recent health reforms did not significantly enhance hospital efficiency. Thus, policymakers and managers should take the necessary precautions to increase hospital efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The cephalosporin nitric oxide (NO)-donor prodrug DEA-C3D ('DiEthylAmin-Cephalosporin-3'-Diazeniumdiolate') has been shown to initiate the dispersal of biofilms formed by the Pseudomonas aeruginosa laboratory strain PAO1. In this study, we investigated whether DEA-C3D disperses biofilms formed by clinical cystic fibrosis (CF) isolates of P. aeruginosa and its effect in combination with two antipseudomonal antibiotics, tobramycin and colistin, in vitro.Methods: β-Lactamase-triggered release of NO from DEA-C3D was confirmed using a gas-phase chemiluminescence detector. MICs for P. aeruginosa clinical isolates were determined using the broth microdilution method. A crystal violet staining technique and confocal laser scanning microscopy were used to evaluate the effects of DEA-C3D on P. aeruginosa biofilms alone and in combination with tobramycin and colistin.Results: DEA-C3D was confirmed to selectively release NO in response to contact with bacterial β-lactamase. Despite lacking direct, cephalosporin/β-lactam-based antibacterial activity, DEA-C3D was able to disperse biofilms formed by three P. aeruginosa clinical isolates. Confocal microscopy revealed that DEA-C3D in combination with tobramycin produces similar reductions in biofilm to DEA-C3D alone, whereas the combination with colistin causes near complete eradication of P. aeruginosa biofilms in vitro.Conclusions: DEA-C3D is effective in dispersing biofilms formed by multiple clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa and could hold promise as a new adjunctive therapy to patients with CF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: From 1999 to 2010, the annual number of US deaths due to opioid overdose increased about 400% as the number of opioids prescribed yearly also increased by approximately 400%. Over this period, hydrocodone combination products drove the opioid epidemic, as they became the most frequently prescribed medication in the United States. Our objective was to determine if the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) 2014 policy change – which made it more difficult to prescribe hydrocodone combination products by moving them from Schedule III to Schedule II – reduced the total amount of opioid prescriptions as intended. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal analysis of the 10 most populous US states, beginning at the time each state began collecting data on opioid prescribing, and concluding at the end of 2016. The exposure was the DEA-mandated October 6, 2014 hydrocodone combination product schedule change. Results: After the DEA's schedule change for hydrocodone combination products, the total number of opioids prescribed each year per 100 people did not substantially change in California, Florida, Michigan, or New York. Although prescription rates dropped for hydrocodone combination products (CA: 43.2, 35.0; MI: 66.8, 55.6; NY: 20.8, 15.1), the reduction was commensurately counteracted by increased rates for tramadol (CA: 0.2, 9.9; MI: 0.1, 17.3; NY: 0.0, 7.6) and oxycodone (CA: 8.7, 9.7; MI: 10.3, 11.9; NY: 18.1, 18.8). Surprisingly, the other 6 states assessed had no viable mechanism in place for assessing state-wide opioid prescription totals, routinely expunged collected data, or only instituted a reporting mechanism toward the end of our study. Conclusion: Total opioid prescriptions were relatively unchanged following the 2014 DEA-mandated schedule change, however, physicians did change their prescribing habits by substituting tramadol for hydrocodone combination products. This substitution of similar medications for hydrocodone suggests alternative approaches are needed to reduce total US opioid prescription rates. Additionally, the current lack of standardized prescription reporting by states makes detailed opioid prescription analysis alarmingly difficult and insufficient to guide policy or monitor the impact of policy changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In January 2012, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) classified carisoprodol as a Schedule IV controlled substance at the US federal level. We aimed to examine the effect of this policy on the use of carisoprodol in a commercially-insured population.Methods: This interrupted time series study included individuals with musculoskeletal disorders in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database between December 2009 and February 2014. We used comparative segmented linear regression to assess changes in the proportions of patients who filled/newly filled carisoprodol each month.Results: A total of 13.3 million patients were included. 29 states with no scheduling prior to the DEA classification had lower baseline prevalence of carisoprodol use compared to 17 states that had scheduled carisoprodol individually before 2010 (11.0 vs. 21.1 patients with fills per 1000 patients). The federal scheduling was associated with an immediate decline (-1.12 per 1000 patients, p < 0.01) and decreasing trend in prevalence (-0.07 per 1000 patients per month, p = 0.02). This effect was not modified by existing state-level scheduling status. During the first, second, third, and fourth 6-month periods after federal scheduling, the relative difference between observed and predicted prevalence was 7.8%, 10.5%, 13.4%, and 19.8%. Similar patterns were observed for carisoprodol initiation. Overall, declining use was more pronounced among younger age groups and patients with injury.Conclusions: Schedule IV controlled substance classification at the federal level was associated with a moderate reduction in the dispensing of carisoprodol regardless of whether scheduling was already present at the state level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In October 2014, the Drug Enforcement Administration in the U.S. reclassified hydrocodone combination products (HCPs) from Schedule III to Schedule II, initiating one of the most significant and controversial regulatory changes for opioids in recent national history. The aim of the present study was to determine community pharmacist opinions on the effect of the rescheduling of HCPs on their personal practice. A web-based pilot survey was emailed to a convenience sample through online newsletters of professional pharmacy organizations in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia in April/May 2015. A total of 62 surveys were initiated, yielding 56 complete responses. More than 75% of respondents noted increases in their workload as a result of the rescheduling of HCPs. Opinions regarding the intended outcomes of rescheduling were only weakly positive, with only 37.5% of respondents believing it has increased safety and 44.6% of respondents believing it has lessened abuse/diversion. For overall attitudes regarding the rescheduling, respondents were split between positive (26.8%), neutral (26.8%) and negative (46.4%). These initial data suggest that pharmacists have encountered barriers in practice resulting from the rescheduling. Further expanded work is necessary to verify these results from the small sample, and to assess the intended effects of the rescheduling upon the safe and effective use of hydrocodone.

Kratom is a traditional drug from Southeast Asia that has been an emerging new substance in the United States. On August 30, 2016, the DEA announced the intention to emergency schedule kratom into Schedule I. To support this decision, the DEA cited an increase in drug seizures of kratom and an increase in calls to poison control concerning kratom. However, a short time later, on October 12, 2016, the DEA withdrew the intent to schedule kratom after public and congressional backlash. The withdrawal by the DEA was somewhat unprecedented. To better understand both decisions, the current article examines the evidence the DEA cited to support their decision to emergency schedule kratom and the degree and type of media coverage of kratom to determine if a media-driven drug panic occurred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opioids have become a mainstay of treatment for pain in the United States, with over 250 million prescription issued in 2012 alone. The increased prescribing of these medications has also contributed to the unintended consequence of a widening prevalence of abuse and misuse, and therefore safety has become a top agenda item for both government and health care providers alike. The move toward new abuse-deterrent formulation technologies, enhanced regulatory requirements from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and developments in national/state policies have worked together to target a goal of promoting safer clinician prescribing, pharmacy dispensing and patient use of opioids. Hydrocodone in particular, as the most widely prescribed opioid product, has recently been subject to a myriad of changes, both through the federal rescheduling of hydrocodone-combination products (HCPs) to Schedule II, as well as the introduction of two new extended-release formulations to the USA market. These efforts represent a first step toward tackling the opioid harms epidemic, although continuing follow-up through research and policy implementation is needed to see any measureable impact on safety in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]