Surge in Deaths Involving Co-Use of Stimulants Plus Opioids
Drug-related deaths involving co-use of stimulants and opioids has surged in the US and Canada, with a higher annual rise in drug-related mortality than use of opioids or stimulants alone, a new study showed. Researchers said the findings point to a 'silent epidemic' that warrant action by policymakers to increase awareness.
METHODOLOGY:
US data regarding opioid and stimulant overdose-related trends for unintentional and intentional deaths from 1999 to 2021 were collected from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Canadian data on opioid (2016-2022) and stimulant (2018-2022) overdose-related trends for unintentional and intentional deaths were obtained from the Public Health Agency of Canada and Alberta Substance Use Surveillance System.
Google Trends relative search interest (RSI) was used to measure public interest over time (2004-present) for search terms related to opioids and psychostimulants.
Opioid- and stimulant-related death trends and the potential relationship between RSI and drug-related deaths were evaluated.
TAKEAWAY:
Deaths involving the use of both opioids and stimulants surged in the US, with the annual percent change (APC) increasing from 10.03 for 1999-2006 to 31.99 for 2013-2021. The APC for co-use deaths in Canada for 2018-2022 was 21.38.
In the US, deaths related to opioid use alone increased in the US from an APC of 11.07 for 1999-2006 to 26.05 for 2019-2021, while deaths related to stimulant use alone rose from 11.65 for 1999-2006 to 26.24 for 2013-2021. In Canada, the APCs were 17.60 for opioid-related deaths for 2016-2022 and 18.24 for stimulant-related deaths for 2018-2022.
Google search trends did not correlate with the APCs as opioids had a higher overall RSI vs stimulants.
The highest peak of opioid-related search interest occurred in 2016 in the US and 2015 in Canada, while cocaine-related searches peaked in 2004 and 2005, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
'There is a need for increased awareness and understanding of the evolving nature of the opioid crisis and the deleterious effects of stimulant co-involvement, especially among the general population,' the investigators wrote.
'These findings are a call to action for public health policymakers to develop strategies for addressing both opioid and stimulant use epidemics simultaneously,' they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Yutong Li, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. It was published online on July 16 in PLOS Mental Health.
LIMITATIONS:
Key limitations included insufficient data from Canada because collection only started in 2016, not accounting for substance use beyond opioid and stimulant co-involvement and potential discrepancies between recorded data and actual substance use, which may have led to underestimation of prevalence and overdose incidents. Regional variations in substance use trends and reporting inconsistency were not fully accounted for in national-level data. Additionally, the continuously evolving landscape of substance use, with new synthetic drugs and contaminants, may not have been adequately captured in surveillance data.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Alberta Innovates, Canada Research Chairs program, Institute for Advancements in Mental Health, Mental Health Foundation, Mental Health Research Canada, MITACS Accelerate program, Simon & Martina Sochatsky Fund for Mental Health, Howard Berger Memorial Schizophrenia Research Fund, Abraham & Freda Berger Memorial Endowment Fund, Alberta Synergies in Alzheimer's and Related Disorders program, the University Hospital Foundation, and the University of Alberta. The investigators reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
17 minutes ago
- CBS News
Penn doctor calls RFK Jr.'s cuts to mRNA vaccine research bad for science
The scientific community is criticizing Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after he announced he's cutting millions from research for the technology that created the COVID-19 vaccines. The vaccine technology, mRNA, was created in Philadelphia. Researchers said it has broad potential to fight many infections and possibly even cancer. But Kennedy disagrees. "mRNA technology poses more risks than benefits," Kennedy said in his announcement on Tuesday. "As the pandemic showed us, mRNA vaccines don't perform well against viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract," he added. But many in the scientific community dispute that, saying the technology first used to create the COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective. "It certainly did decrease mortality associated with COVID. They're also using it for potential treatment of cancer. To no longer fund this research is not a scientific approach," Dr. Bobby Mukkamala, the president of the American Medical Association, said. "It's not a step forward in science," he added. mRNA technology works by getting the body to produce a fragment of a virus, which then sets off the body's immune response. Unlike traditional vaccines, which can take years to develop, mRNA is fast. "We can very quickly design new mRNA vaccines to be specifically matched to what's circulating," Dr. Scott Hensley, of the University of Pennsylvania, said in 2024. CBS News Philadelphia spoke with Hensley, an immunologist at Penn, last year when the mRNA was being researched for bird flu. He called Kennedy's decision to cut funding bad for science on Wednesday. "Science is what moves the world forward," Dr. Drew Weissman, a doctor at Penn, said in 2023. Hensley and Weissman were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2023 for discovering how to modify mRNA. In announcing the research funding cut for mRNA, Kennedy said the money would go to what he calls better vaccine research. Kennedy said his focus is on a universal vaccine that mimics "natural immunity." Doctors said people need to understand that this cutback will not impact the vaccines that are currently available.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Novo Nordisk Ramps Up U.S. Legal Fight Over Wegovy, Ozempic Copies
Novo Nordisk (NOVO, Financials) expanded its U.S. legal campaign against makers of unapproved versions of semaglutide the active ingredient in its blockbuster weight?loss and diabetes drugs Wegovy and Ozempic. The Danish drugmaker said Tuesday it filed 14 new lawsuits; the targets include telehealth providers, compounding pharmacies, and medical spas accused of selling compounded semaglutide under the fake guise of personalization. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 1 Warning Sign with NVO. The suits name firms such as Prism Aesthetics, Mochi Health, and Fella Health; some have also appeared in Eli Lilly's (LLY, Financials) litigation over knockoff versions of its weight?loss drug Zepbound. Novo claims the defendants are steering patients toward compounded semaglutide that has not been approved by regulators; in some cases, the products allegedly contain illicit foreign?sourced active pharmaceutical ingredients. Compounders were temporarily allowed to produce semaglutide during a declared shortage; when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ended that allowance, some companies shifted to offering personalized versions outside the approved drug label. Novo argues the approach violates state laws on corporate practice of medicine; it also raises safety concerns, as the copies have not been proven effective. Industry groups pushed back; Scott Brunner, CEO of the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding, said Novo's claims misrepresent the work of legitimate, state?licensed pharmacies. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Retiree health care costs are climbing: What advisors need to know
Health care costs for retirees just keep rising. A 65-year-old retiring in 2025 can expect to spend $172,500 on health care costs and medical expenses throughout retirement, according to a new survey from Fidelity. Financial advisors say ignoring that number can be a costly decision for retirees. Since Fidelity began tracking retiree health care costs in 2002 — when the estimated expense for a 65-year-old was just $80,000 — projected costs have steadily climbed, far outpacing inflation. In the past year alone, Fidelity reported a 4% increase in total expected health care spending for retirees. READ MORE: A health care planning checklist for financial advisorsLong-term care costs can derail retirement plans. Here's how to manage themWhy protecting wealth starts with planning for health careSocial Security is changing — here's how advisors are preparing The estimate includes out-of-pocket prescription drug costs, Medicare premiums and other medical expenses, such as co-payments and deductibles. Researchers did not include potential costs from other health care-related expenses, including over-the-counter medications, most dental services and long-term care. Many retirees have found themselves ill-equipped to handle those costs, according to Shams Talib, head of Fidelity Workplace Consulting. "Year after year, so many Americans underestimate how much they'll need to save to cover health care costs in retirement," Talib said. "We recognize the impact health care costs can have on retirement savings. With the right tools and guidance, pre-retirees and retirees alike can take greater control of their financial futures by beginning the planning process as soon as possible." Clearing up Medicare misconceptions Financial advisors say one of the biggest impediments to planning for health care costs in retirement is a misconception about the role of Medicare. Namely, that it will cover more medical expenses than it does. "When I have these conversations with clients, especially those who are unprepared, the first step is just helping them slow down," said Melissa Cox, owner of Future-Focused Wealth in Dallas, Texas. "There's often a mix of embarrassment and fear. Many say, 'I didn't know this was something I needed to think about.' We walk through Medicare together, clarify what's covered and what isn't, and start looking at how their current financial picture can support a more realistic health care forecast." That picture can start to look very different depending on how short they are of covering estimated medical expenses. "Sometimes we have to pivot, adjust spending, reframe goals or revisit timelines, but that's okay," Cox said. "What matters most is giving people a sense of control over something that felt out of reach." Encourage clients to plan early Preparing for health care costs in retirement can be a relatively straightforward process as long as clients start early, advisors say. Near-retirees have several cost-effective options to help cover expenses, including Medigap, long-term care insurance and life insurance with care-related riders. But for older retirees seeking coverage later, the process becomes more complex and often more expensive. According to Andrew Crowell, vice chairman of wealth management for D.A. Davidson in New York City, waiting too long to sign up for certain plans can make them difficult to obtain at all. "I've had some clients recently, in good health but in their 70s, who were looking for a little extra coverage. … Both of them [were] denied coverage because they couldn't pass a cognition test," Crowell said. "I have perfectly lucid conversations with them all the time, but the test that they were given was an individual over the phone reading a long list of words, and then they were asked to repeat back as many of the words they remembered hearing in the short space, and they froze up. They stammered through a few of them, and the insurance just denied them on that, and they have no aches, no pains, no typical aging stuff." If those same clients had tried to sign up for policies in their 50s or 60s, the situation would have looked very different, Crowell said. "If we had done that in their 60s or in their 50s — young, healthy — they would have qualified for a great preferred rate premium, and it wouldn't be an issue," he said. "Now they can try to reapply, but you know they're going to have the jitters from the minute they reapply, and they're probably going to freeze up again just because of that." Crowell, who has been working in the industry for over 30 years, said insurance companies are becoming more cautious when assessing people due to increasing longevity. When it's too late to start early Starting early is one of the most effective strategies in financial planning — and health care planning is no exception. But even for clients who come to an advisor later in life, there are still viable options to manage rising medical costs. "When I work with clients who are unprepared for these costs, the conversation often shifts to what they value most in their retirement plan," said Beau Kemp, a financial advisor at SwitchPoint Financial Planning in Lehi, Utah. "If the plan goes from looking good to looking constrained with the increased health care costs, we have to make some adjustments." Exactly what those adjustments look like depends on the client's lifestyle preferences, Kemp said. Clients set on maintaining their current lifestyle may need to delay retirement as they build up their savings. Others who are more concerned with retiring at a specific age may have to scale back their spending to make room for medical costs. "I rarely decrease the projected medical expenses in a plan because these costs are largely out of our control," Kemp said. "The focus needs to be on what we can control and if a client is comfortable with those adjustments. The goal is to create a plan that provides both financial security and peace of mind."
