Prescription opioid use is highly associated with risk of opioid-related death, with 1 of every 550 chronic opioid users dying within approximately 2.5 years of their first opioid prescription. Although gabapentin is widely perceived as safe, drug-induced respiratory depression has been described when gabapentin is used alone or in combination with other medications. Because gabapentin and opioids are both commonly prescribed for pain, the likelihood of co-prescription is high. However, no published studies have examined whether concomitant gabapentin therapy is associated with an increased risk of accidental opioid-related death in patients receiving opioids. The objective of this study was to investigate whether co-prescription of opioids and gabapentin is associated with an increased risk of accidental opioid-related mortality. We conducted a population-based nested case–control study among opioid users who were residents of Ontario, Canada, between August 1, 1997, and December 31, 2013, using administrative databases. Cases, defined as opioid users who died of an opioid-related cause, were matched with up to 4 controls who also used opioids on age, sex, year of index date, history of chronic kidney disease, and a disease risk index. After matching, we included 1,256 cases and 4,619 controls. The primary exposure was concomitant gabapentin use in the 120 days preceding the index date. A secondary analysis characterized gabapentin dose as low (<900 mg daily), moderate (900 to 1,799 mg daily), or high (≥1,800 mg daily). A sensitivity analysis examined the effect of concomitant nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use in the preceding 120 days. Overall, 12.3% of cases (155 of 1,256) and 6.8% of controls (313 of 4,619) were prescribed gabapentin in the prior 120 days. After multivariable adjustment, co-prescription of opioids and gabapentin was associated with a significantly increased odds of opioid-related death (odds ratio [OR] 1.99, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.47, p < 0.001; adjusted OR [aOR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.88, p < 0.001) compared to opioid prescription alone. In the dose–response analysis, moderate-dose (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.87, p < 0.001; aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.28, p = 0.024) and high-dose (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.08, p < 0.001; aOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.27, p = 0.015) gabapentin use was associated with a nearly 60% increase in the odds of opioid-related death relative to no concomitant gabapentin use. As expected, we found no significant association between co-prescription of opioids and NSAIDs and opioid-related death (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27, p = 0.113; aOR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.32, p = 0.083). In an exploratory analysis of patients at risk of combined opioid and gabapentin use, we found that 46.0% (45,173 of 98,288) of gabapentin users in calendar year 2013 received at least 1 concomitant prescription for an opioid. This study was limited to individuals eligible for public drug coverage in Ontario, we were only able to identify prescriptions reimbursed by the government and dispensed from retail pharmacies, and information on indication for gabapentin use was not available. Furthermore, as with all observational studies, confounding due to unmeasured variables is a potential source of bias. In this study we found that among patients receiving prescription opioids, concomitant treatment with gabapentin was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of opioid-related death. Clinicians should consider carefully whether to continue prescribing this combination of products and, when the combination is deemed necessary, should closely monitor their patients and adjust opioid dose accordingly. Future research should investigate whether a similar interaction exists between pregabalin and opioids.

Background: Given the ongoing opioid crisis in the United States (US), we investigated the opioid situation in Europe. The aims of the study are to provide an overview of trends in prescription opioid (PO) use and opioid-related adversities between 2010 and 2018 for different opioids in 19 European countries and to present a comparison with similar data from the US. Methods: A multisource database study with national data from 19 European countries evaluating trends between 2010 and 2018 in (a) PO consumption, (b) high-risk (HR) opioid users, (c) opioid-related hospital admissions, (d) opioid-related overdose deaths, (e) opioid use disorder treatment entries, and (f) patients in opioid substitution therapy (OST). Within and between-country comparisons and comparisons with data from the US were made. Results: There was considerable variation between European countries. Most countries showed increased PO consumption with the largest increase and the highest consumption in the United Kingdom (UK) compared to the rest of Europe and the US in 2018 (UK: 58,088 defined daily doses for statistical purposes/1000 population/day). In 2018, Scotland had the highest rates (per 100,000 population) of HR opioid users (16·2), opioid-related hospital admissions (118), opioid-related deaths (22·7), opioid use disorder treatment admissions (190), and OST patients (555) of all included European countries. These rates were similar or even higher than those in the US in 2018. Other countries with high rates of opioid-related adversities were Northern Ireland (synthetic and “other” opioids), Ireland (heroin and methadone), and England (all opioids). All other countries had no or little increase in opioid-related adversities. Conclusions: Apart from the British Isles and especially Scotland, there is no indication of an opioid crisis comparable to that in the US in the 19 European countries that were part of this study. More research is needed to identify drivers and develop interventions to stop the emerging opioid crisis in the UK and Ireland.

Background.Frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption are metrics commonly used to measure alcohol consumption behaviors. Epidemiological studies indicate that these alcohol consumption measures are differentially associated with (mental) health outcomes and socioeconomic status (SES). The current study aims to elucidate to what extent genetic risk factors are shared between frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption, and how these alcohol consumption measures are genetically associated with four broad phenotypic categories: (i) SES; (ii) substance use disorders; (iii) other psychiatric disorders; and (iv) psychological/personality traits.Methods.Genome-Wide Association analyses were conducted to test genetic associations with alcohol consumption frequency (N= 438 308) and alcohol consumption quantity (N= 307 098 regular alcohol drinkers) within UK Biobank. For the other phenotypes, we used genome-wide association studies summary statistics. Genetic correlations (r_g) between the alcohol measures and other phenotypes were estimated using LD score regression.Results.We found a substantial genetic correlation between the frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption (r_g= 0.52). Nevertheless, both measures consistently showed opposite genetic correlations with SES traits, and many substance use, psychiatric, and psychological/personality traits. High alcohol consumption frequency was genetically associated with high SES and low risk of substance use disorders and other psychiatric disorders, whereas the opposite applies for high alcohol consumption quantity.Conclusions.Although the frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption show substantial genetic overlap, they consistently show opposite patterns of genetic associations with SES-related phenotypes. Future studies should carefully consider the potential influence of SES on the shared genetic etiology between alcohol and adverse (mental) health outcomes.

The recreational use of nitrous oxide (N₂O) has increased over the years. At the same time, more N₂O intoxications are presented to hospitals. The incidental use of N₂O is relatively harmless, but heavy, frequent and chronic use comes with considerable health risks. Most importantly, N₂O can inactivate the co-factor cobalamin, which, in turn, leads to paresthesia’s, partial paralysis and generalized demyelinating polyneuropathy. In some patients, these disorders are irreversible. Several metabolic cascades have been identified by which N₂O can cause harmful effects. Because these effects mostly occur after prolonged use, it raises the question of whether N₂O has addictive properties, explaining its prolonged and frequent use at high dose. Several lines of evidence for N₂O’s dependence liability can be found in the literature, but the underlying mechanism of action remains controversial. N₂O interacts with the opioid system, but N₂O also acts as an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, by which it can cause dopamine disinhibition. In this narrative review, we provide a detailed description of animal and human evidence for N₂O-induced abuse/dependence and for N₂O-induced neurotoxicity.

Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a risk factor for the development of substance abuse and substance use disorders (SUD) in adolescence and (early) adulthood. ADHD and SUD also frequently co-occur in treatment-seeking adolescents, which complicates diagnosis and treatment, and is associated with poor treatment outcomes. In this study, we provide a systematic review of controlled studies on the effectiveness of pharmacological, psychosocial, and complementary treatments of ADHD in adolescents with and without comorbid SUD. In addition, we review the longitudinal association between pharmacotherapy for childhood ADHD and the development of SUD in adolescence and early adulthood. We conducted a systematic review of the research literature published since 2000 using Medline, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases to select randomized clinical trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence from each study was rated using the SIGN grading system. Based on the limited evidence available, strong clinical recommendations are not justified, but provisionally, we conclude that stimulant treatment in children with ADHD may prevent the development of SUD in adolescence or young adulthood, that high-dose stimulant treatment could be an effective treatment for adolescents with ADHD and SUD comorbidity, that cognitive behavior therapy might have a small beneficial effect in these patients, and that alternative treatments are probably not effective. More studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions that will allow for strong clinical recommendations.