Medical Cannabis Legalization: No Contribution to Rising Stimulant Rates in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: There has been a pronounced increase in the use of Schedule II stimulants to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States over the last two decades. Interestingly, chronic medical cannabis (MC) use can present with cognitive impairments that resemble ADHD symptoms. This study aimed to determine if MC legalization increased prescription stimulant distribution. METHODS: Information on the distribution of methylphenidate, amphetamine, and lisdexamfetamine for 2006 to 2021 was extracted from the Drug Enforcement Administration's comprehensive database and the three-year population-corrected slopes of stimulant distribution before and after MC program implementation were compared. RESULTS: We found a significant main effect of time (p<0.001); however, contrary to the hypothesis, the sales status of states' MC, did not influence slopes of distribution (p=0.391). There was a significantly large interaction effect of time and MC sales status on slopes of distribution (p<0.001). Slopes of distribution rates of stimulants were significantly lower in states that proceeded to legalize MC prior to MC program implementation than those states that did not (p=0.022). After MC program implementation, however, the distribution rates of the Schedule II stimulants were not significantly different when comparing states with MC sales to those without (p=0.355). DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that MC program legalization did not contribute to certain states having rapid increases in Schedule II stimulant distribution rates over time. Other factors, including the liberalization of the adult ADHD diagnostic criteria in the DSM-5 and the introduction of Binge Eating Disorder, also likely contributed to elevations in stimulant distribution.

Rise of escitalopram and the fall of citalopram.

Introduction: Citalopram and escitalopram are among the most used medications and are key treatments for many psychiatric disorders. Previous findings suggest citalopram and escitalopram prescription rates are changing because of the patent for citalopram ending as opposed to evidence of a clear therapeutic advantage, which is called evergreening. This retrospective study focuses on characterizing the chronologic and geographic variation in the use of citalopram and escitalopram among US Medicaid and Medicare patients. We hypothesized that prescription rates of citalopram will decrease with a concurrent increase in escitalopram, consistent with evergreening. Methods: Citalopram and escitalopram prescription rates and costs per state were obtained from the Medicaid State Drug Utilization Database and Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data. Annual prescription rates outside a 95% confidence interval were considered significantly different from the average. Results: Overall, a decreasing trend for citalopram and an increasing trend for escitalopram prescription rates were noted in both Medicare and Medicaid patients. Cost differences between generic and brand were noted for both drugs, with generic forms being cheaper compared to the brand-name version. Discussion: Despite limited evidence suggesting that citalopram and escitalopram have any meaningful differences in therapeutic or adverse effects, there exists a noticeable decline in the use of citalopram that cooccurred with an increase in escitalopram prescribing, consistent with our hypothesis. Moreover, among these general pharmacoepidemiologic trends exists significant geographic variability. There was disproportionate spending (relative to their use) on the brand versions of these medicines compared to their generic forms.

Specialty-type and state-level variation in paroxetine use among older adult patients.

Introduction: Paroxetine is an older "selective" serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that is notable for its lack of selectivity, resulting in a cholinergic adverse-effect profile, especially among older adults (65+). Methods: Paroxetine prescription rates and costs per state were ascertained from the Medicare Specialty Utilization and Payment Data. States' annual prescription rate, corrected per thousand Part D enrollees, outside 95% confidence interval were considered significantly different from the average. Results: There was a steady decrease in paroxetine prescriptions (-34.52%) and spending (-16.69%) from 2015-2020 but a consistent, five-fold state-level difference. From 2015-2020, Kentucky (194.9, 195.3, 182.7, 165.1, 143.3, 132.5) showed significantly higher prescriptions rates relative to the national average, and Hawaii (42.1, 37.9, 34.3, 31.7, 27.7, 26.6) showed significantly lower prescription rates. North Dakota was often a frequent elevated prescriber of paroxetine (2016: 170.7, 2018: 143.3), relative to the average. Neuropsychiatry and geriatric medicine frequently prescribed the largest amount of paroxetine prescriptions, relative to the number of providers in that specialty, from 2015-2020. Discussion: Despite the American Geriatrics Society prohibition against paroxetine use in the older adults and many effective treatment alternatives, paroxetine was still commonly used in this population, especially in Kentucky and North Dakota and by neuropsychiatry and geriatric medicine. These findings provide information on the specialty types and states where education and policy reform would likely have the greatest impact on improving adherence to the paroxetine prescription recommendations.