Robert L. DuPont

Five year outcomes in a cohort study of physicians treated for substance use disorders in the United States

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of US state physician health programmes in treating physicians with substance use disorders. Design Five year, longitudinal, cohort study. Setting Purposive sample of 16 state physician health programmes in the United States. Participants 904 physicians consecutively admitted to one of the 16 programmes from September 1995 to September 2001. Main outcome measures Completion of the programme, continued alcohol and drug misuse (regular urine tests), and occupational status at five years. Results 155 of 802 physicians (19.3%) with known outcomes failed the programme, usually early during treatment. Of the 647 (80.7%) who completed treatment and resumed practice under supervision and monitoring, alcohol or drug misuse was detected by urine testing in 126 (19%) over five years; 33 (26%) of these had a repeat positive test result. At five year follow-up, 631 (78.7%) physicians were licensed and working, 87 (10.8%) had their licences revoked, 28 (3.5%) had retired, 30 (3.7%) had died, and 26 (3.2%) had unknown status. Conclusion About three quarters of US physicians with substance use disorders managed in this subset of physician health programmes had favourable outcomes at five years. Such programmes seem to provide an appropriate combination of treatment, support, and sanctions to manage addiction among physicians effectively.

Characteristics and Motives of College Students Who Engage in Nonmedical Use of Methylphenidate

Methylphenidate (MPH) has a long history of being an effective medication for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Recently, the nonmedical use of MPH has increased, particularly among college students. To investigate this, we surveyed 2,087 students regarding MPH misuse. Of 2,087 respondents, 110 (5.3%) used MPH nonmedically at least once. Most obtained MPH free from a friend, acquaintance, or family member. Misuse of Ritalin(R) occurred four times more frequently than Concerta. Among Ritalin abusers, Intranasal use was reported more often than oral. Students reported using MPH nonmedically for recreational reasons as well as to improve academic performance.

How are addicted physicians treated? A national survey of physician health programs

INTRODUCTION Physicians with substance use disorders receive care that is qualitatively different from and reputedly more effective than that offered to the general population, yet there has been no national study of this distinctive approach. To learn more about the national system of Physician Health Programs (PHPs) that manage the care of addicted physicians, we surveyed all 49 state PHP medical directors (86% responded) to characterize their treatment, support, and monitoring regimens. RESULTS PHPs do not provide substance abuse treatment. Under authority from state licensing boards, state laws, and contractual agreements, they promote early detection, assessment, evaluation, and referral to abstinence-oriented (usually) residential treatment for 60 to 90 days. This is followed by 12-step-oriented outpatient treatment. Physicians then receive randomly scheduled urine monitoring, with status reports issued to employers, insurers, and state licensing boards for (usually) 5 or more years. Outcomes are very positive, with only 22% of physicians testing positive at any time during the 5 years and 71% still licensed and employed at the 5-year point. CONCLUSION Addicted physicians receive an intensity, duration, and quality of care that is rarely available in most standard addiction treatments: (a) intensive and prolonged residential and outpatient treatment, (b) 5 years of extended support and monitoring with significant consequences, and (c) involvement of family, colleagues, and employers in support and monitoring. Although not available to the general public now, several aspects of this continuing care model could be adapted and used for the general population.

Nonmedical prescription stimulant use among college students: why we need to do something and what we need to do.

ABSTRACT This article summarizes recent research findings on nonmedical use of prescription stimulants and outlines a multi-pronged strategic approach for responding to this unique problem among college students. Students, health professionals, parents, the pharmaceutical industry, and institutions of higher education all play roles in this response. Moreover, the academic community should view the translation of research findings as an important responsibility that can help dispel the myths often perpetuated in the media. The nonmedical use of prescription stimulants is a complex behavior and should be viewed in the larger context of alcohol and drug involvement among young adults. Strategies to reduce nonmedical use of prescription stimulants might have direct application to the abuse of other prescription drugs, including opiates.

Marijuana and tobacco: A major connection?

Abstract Smoking among teens and college students is a significant public health challenge. Tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol continue to be the most commonly abused drugs by teens and young adults. Educational efforts have resulted in increased awareness of the mortality and morbidity attributed to smoking, second-hand smoke, and prenatal exposure to tobacco. Short- and long-term consequences of marijuana use are well documented in the literature, but they have received less wide spread attention. Even less well known is the relationship between these substances. Does use of one lead to use of the other? Are there synergistic and/or antagonistic effects when these substances are used together? We need answers to these questions to understand the prevalence of use and the impact of these drugs on our nations youth and young adults. The gateway theory of drug use is often used to describe the progression from using alcohol or tobacco, to marijuana, and later use of other drugs like MDMA, cocaine, and heroin. While tobacco use does commonly precede marijuana use, we propose that marijuana may be a “gateway drug” to tobacco smoking. Our research with university students is suggesting that cigarette-smoking initiation often follows or coincides with marijuana use.

Anesthesiologists with substance use disorders: a 5-year outcome study from 16 state physician health programs.

BACKGROUND:Anesthesiologists have a higher rate of substance use disorders than other physicians, and their prognoses and advisability to return to anesthesiology practice after treatment remain controversial. Over the past 25 yr, physician health programs (PHPs), created under authority of state medical regulatory boards, have become primary resources for management and monitoring of physicians with substance abuse and other mental health disorders. METHODS:We conducted a 5-yr, longitudinal, cohort study involving 904 physicians consecutively admitted to 1 of 16 state PHPs between 1995 and 2001. This report analyzed a subset of the data involving the 102 anesthesiologists among the subjects and compared them with other physicians. The main outcome measures included relapse (defined as any unauthorized addictive substance use, including alcohol), return to anesthesiology practice, disciplinary actions, physician death, and patient harm. RESULTS:Anesthesiologists were significantly less likely to enroll in a PHP because of alcohol abuse (odds ratio [OR] 0.4 [confidence interval {CI}: 0.2–0.6], P < 0.001) and much more likely to enroll because of opioid abuse (OR 2.8 [CI: 1.7–4.4], P < 0.001). Anesthesiologists had a higher rate of IV drug use, 41% vs 10% (OR 6.3 [CI: 3.8–10.7], P < 0.001). During similar periods of monitoring, anesthesiologists received more drug tests, 101 vs 82 (mean difference = 19 [CI: 3–35], P = 0.02); however, anesthesiologists were less likely to fail at least one drug test during monitoring, 11% vs 23% (OR 0.4 [CI: 0.2–0.9], P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference among rates of program completion, disciplinary actions, return to practice, or deaths, and there was no report of significant patient harm from relapse in any record. CONCLUSIONS:Anesthesiologists in our sample treated and monitored for substance disorders under supervision of PHPs had excellent outcomes similar to other physicians, with no higher mortality, relapse rate, or disciplinary rate and no evidence in their records of patient harm. It is postulated that differences of study design account for contradictory conclusions from other reports.

Benzodiazepines and anxiety disorders: a review for the practicing physician.

ABSTRACT Objectives and scope: The objective of this article is to briefly review for practicing clinicians differences among the benzodiazepines (BZDs) that are commonly used to treat anxiety, the efficacy of BZDs in various anxiety disorders, and potential safety issues associated with BZDs, including adverse events, tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal. Methodology: Information for this review was obtained using literature searches through PubMed (1966–2004), Google, and the Food and Drug Administration Catalog of Approved Drugs. Data sources were searched for information regarding anxiety disorders and the safety and efficacy of BZDs. Wherever possible and appropriate, information from randomized controlled trials was given priority. Findings: Benzodiazepines have demonstrated efficacy in treating patients with anxiety disorders, with varying degrees of efficacy. Use of BZDs is advantageous because they have a quick onset of action and are generally well tolerated. Extended-release formulations of BZDs may be particularly advantageous in some patients with anxiety as they allow for maximization of a drugs therapeutic window with consistent serum drug concentrations. Conclusions: BZDs remain a mainstay in the treatment of anxiety, as both monotherapy and adjunctive therapy. Factors to consider prior to prescribing a BZD include the patients diagnosis, as well as drug characteristics, including the potential for interactions with other drugs, the risk of dependence and withdrawal, and the required frequency of dosing.

Prescription Drug Abuse: An Epidemic Dilemma

Abstract The nonmedical use of prescribed controlled substances has become a major public health problem. This article reviews the extent of prescription drug abuse reflected in drug overdose deaths, youth drug use and drug-impaired driving. Efforts to reduce illegal, nonmedical use of prescribed controlled drugs must be balanced so as not to interfere with appropriate medical use of these medicines. Future policy options include identifying and expanding leadership in the research and medical communities, creation of a national public education campaign, development of abuse-resistant drug formulas, increasing prescription drug monitoring programs and enforcement efforts, establishing effective drugged driving laws, and improving substance abuse treatment.

The Need for Drugged Driving Per Se Laws: A Commentary

Objective: Triggered by the new federal commitment announced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONCDP) to encourage states to enact drugged driving per se laws, this article reviews the reasons to establish such laws and the issues that may arise when trying to enforce them. Methods: A review of the state of drunk driving per se laws and their implications for drugged driving is presented, with a review of impaired driving enforcement procedures and drug testing technology. Results: Currently, enforcement of drugged driving laws is an adjunct to the enforcement of laws regarding alcohol impairment. Drivers are apprehended when showing signs of alcohol intoxication and only in the relatively few cases where the blood alcohol concentration of the arrested driver does not account for the observed behavior is the possibility of drug impairment pursued. In most states, the term impaired driving covers both alcohol and drug impairment; thus, driver conviction records may not distinguish between the two different sources of impairment. As a result, enforcement statistics do not reflect the prevalence of drugged driving. Conclusions: Based on the analysis presented, this article recommends a number of steps that can be taken to evaluate current drugged driving enforcement procedures and to move toward the enactment of drug per se laws.

The Mirage of Impairing Drug Concentration Thresholds: A Rationale for Zero Tolerance Per Se Driving under the Influence of Drugs Laws

Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Drivers with measurable quantities of potentially impairing illicit or prescription drugs in their body fluids are multiple times more likely to be involved in motor vehicle crashes than those without such drugs in their bodies. Drug-related impairment, however, cannot be inferred solely on the basis of the presence of drugs in biological fluids. Thus, for more than a quarter century, there has been a search for drug blood concentrations that are the equivalent of the 0.08 g/dL threshold for alcohol-impaired driving in the United States. We suggest that such equivalents are a mirage, and cannot be determined due to variable drug tolerance, lack of consistent relationships between drug blood concentrations and impairment, innumerable drug combinations and multiple other factors. Thus, while the idea of determining impairing drug concentrations is attractive, it is ultimately unattainable, and withholding drugged driving legislation pending the acquisition of such data is tantamount to a plan for inaction with regard to an important and growing public health and safety problem. We propose specific legislation to address alcohol- and drug-impaired driving in the United States.