IMPORTANCE: Evidence suggests that opioid prescribing was reduced nationally following the 2016 release of the Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain by the US Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC). State-to-state variability in postguideline changes has not been quantified and could point to further avenues for reducing opioid-related harms. OBJECTIVE: To estimate state-level changes in opioid dispensing following the 2016 CDC Guideline release and explore state-to-state heterogeneity in those changes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study included information on opioid prescriptions for US individuals between 2012 and 2018 from an administrative database. Serial cross-sections of monthly opioid dispensing trajectories in each US state and the District of Columbia were analyzed using segmented regression to characterize preguideline dispensing trajectories and to estimate how those trajectories changed following the 2016 guideline release. Data were analyzed January to March 2023. EXPOSURE: The March 2016 CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four measures of opioid dispensing: opioid dispensing rate per 100 000 persons, long-acting opioid dispensing rate per 100 000 persons, high-dose (90 or more morphine milligram equivalents [MME] per day) dispensing rate per 100 000 persons, and average per capita MME. All measures were calculated monthly, from January 2012 through December 2018. RESULTS: Data from approximately 58 900 retail pharmacies were included in analysis, representing approximately 92% of US retail prescriptions. The overall monthly dispensing rate in the US in early 2012 was approximately 7000 per 100 000 population. Following the 2016 guideline release, the already-decreasing slope accelerated nationally for the overall dispensing rate (preguideline slope, -23.19; postguideline slope, -48.97; change in slope, 25.97 [95% CI, 18.67-32.95]), long-acting dispensing rate (preguideline slope, -1.03; postguideline slope, -5.94; change in slope, 4.90 [95% CI, 4.26-5.55]), high-dose dispensing (preguideline slope, -3.52; postguideline slope, -7.63; change in slope, 4.11 [95% CI, 3.49-4.73]), and per-capita MME (preguideline slope, -0.22; postguideline slope, -0.58; change in slope, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.30-0.42]). For all outcomes, nearly all states showed analogous acceleration of an already-decreasing slope, but there was substantial state-to-state heterogeneity. Slope changes (preguideline - postguideline slope) ranged from 9.15 (Massachusetts) to 74.75 (Mississippi) for overall dispensing, 1.88 (Rhode Island) to 13.41 (Maine) for long-acting dispensing, 0.71 (District of Columbia) to 13.68 (Maine) for high-dose dispensing, and 0.06 (Hawaii) to 0.91 (Arkansas) for per capita MME. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The 2016 CDC Guideline release was associated with broad reductions in prescription opioid dispensing, and those changes showed substantial geographic variability. Determining the factors associated with these state-level differences may inform further improvements to ensure safe prescribing practices.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an urgent need existed for near-real-time data collection to better understand how individual beliefs and behaviors, state and local policies, and organizational practices influenced health outcomes. We describe the processes, methods, and lessons learned during the development and pilot testing of an innovative rapid data collection process we developed to inform decision-making during the COVID-19 public health emergency. We used a fully integrated mixed-methods approach to develop a structured process for triangulating quantitative and qualitative data from traditional (cross-sectional surveys, focus groups) and nontraditional (social media listening) sources. Respondents included students, parents, teachers, and key school personnel (eg, nurses, administrators, mental health providers). During the pilot phase (February-June 2021), data from 12 cross-sectional and sector-based surveys (n = 20 302 participants), 28 crowdsourced surveys (n = 26 820 participants), 10 focus groups (n = 64 participants), and 11 social media platforms (n = 432 754 503 responses) were triangulated with other data to support COVID-19 mitigation in schools. We disseminated findings through internal dashboards, triangulation reports, and policy briefs. This pilot demonstrated that triangulating traditional and nontraditional data sources can provide rapid data about barriers and facilitators to mitigation implementation during an evolving public health emergency. Such a rapid feedback and continuous improvement model can be tailored to strengthen response efforts. This approach emphasizes the value of nimble data modernization efforts to respond in real time to public health emergencies.

This cross-sectional study uses data from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health to estimate the receipt of medication for opioid use disorder among US adults with past-year opioid use disorder. | eng

IMPORTANCE: Buprenorphine remains underused in treating opioid use disorder, despite its effectiveness. During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the US government implemented prescribing flexibilities to support continued access. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether buprenorphine-involved overdose deaths changed after implementing these policy changes and highlight characteristics and circumstances of these deaths. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used data from the State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System (SUDORS) to assess overdose deaths in 46 states and the District of Columbia occurring July 2019 to June 2021. Data were analyzed from March 7, 2022, to June 30, 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Buprenorphine-involved and other opioid-involved overdose deaths were examined. Monthly opioid-involved overdose deaths and the percentage involving buprenorphine were computed to assess trends. Proportions and exact 95% CIs of drug coinvolvement, demographics, and circumstances were calculated by group. RESULTS: During July 2019 to June 2021, 32 jurisdictions reported 8 111 total overdose deaths and 74 474 opioid-involved overdose deaths, including 1955 buprenorphine-involved overdose deaths, accounting for 2.2% of all drug overdose deaths and 2.6% of opioid-involved overdose deaths. Median (IQR) age was similar for buprenorphine-involved overdose deaths (41 [34-55] years) and other opioid-involved overdose deaths (40 [31-52] years). A higher proportion of buprenorphine-involved overdose decedents, compared with other opioid-involved decedents, were female (36.1% [95% CI, 34.2%-38.2%] vs 29.1% [95% CI, 28.8%-29.4%]), non-Hispanic White (86.1% [95% CI, 84.6%-87.6%] vs 69.4% [95% CI, 69.1%-69.7%]), and residing in rural areas (20.8% [95% CI, 19.1%-22.5%] vs 11.4% [95% CI, 11.2%-11.7%]). Although monthly opioid-involved overdose deaths increased, the proportion involving buprenorphine fluctuated but did not increase during July 2019 to June 2021. Nearly all (92.7% [95% CI, 91.5%-93.7%]) buprenorphine-involved overdose deaths involved at least 1 other drug; higher proportions involved other prescription medications compared with other opioid-involved overdose deaths (eg, anticonvulsants: 18.6% [95% CI, 17.0%-20.3%] vs 5.4% [95% CI, 5.2%-5.5%]) and a lower proportion involved illicitly manufactured fentanyls (50.2% [95% CI, 48.1%-52.3%] vs 85.3% [95% CI, 85.1%-85.5%]). Buprenorphine decedents were more likely to be receiving mental health treatment than other opioid-involved overdose decedents (31.4% [95% CI, 29.3%-33.5%] vs 13.3% [95% CI, 13.1%-13.6%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that actions to facilitate access to buprenorphine-based treatment for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic were not associated with an increased proportion of overdose deaths involving buprenorphine. Efforts are needed to expand more equitable and culturally competent access to and provision of buprenorphine-based treatment.

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Pain affects the lives of millions of Americans and potentially reduces their level of function, mental health, and quality of life. Yet limited access to pain treatments and lack of clarity regarding the evidence supporting pain treatments prevent many people with pain from accessing the full range of potentially helpful therapies.1 Furthermore, there are persistent disparities in pain management according to race or ethnic group, gender, socioeconomic status, and population density, among other factors.2 Opioids continue to be commonly used to treat pain, despite evidence that their short-term benefits are small and despite limited evidence of long-term benefits.2,3

In 2020, nearly 92 000 drug overdose deaths occurred in the United States.1 Provisional estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that overdose deaths continued to rise in 2021.2 The rise in opioid overdose deaths can be described in the following 3 waves3: (1) increase in deaths involving prescription opioids starting in the late 1990s,4 (2) increase in deaths involving heroin starting in 2010,5 and (3) increase in deaths involving synthetic opioids, predominantly illicitly manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (IMFs), starting in 2013.6,7 Synthetic opioids remain the primary driver of overdose deaths.2,8

IMPORTANCE: In 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the evidence-based Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. How the release of this guideline coincided with changes in nonopioid pain medication prescribing rates remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in nonopioid pain medication prescribing after the 2016 CDC guideline release and to assess the heterogeneity in these changes as a function of patient demographic and clinical characteristics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study constructed 7 (4 preguideline and 3 postguideline) annual cohorts using claims data from the national Optum Clinformatics Data Mart Database for the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2018. The cohorts included adults with commercial insurance, no cancer or palliative care claims, and 2 years of continuous insurance enrollment. Individuals could qualify for inclusion in multiple cohorts. Each cohort covered a 2-year period, with year 1 as the baseline period used to calculate opioid exposure and other clinical characteristics and year 2 as the follow-up period used to calculate prescribing outcomes. Data were analyzed in March 2022. EXPOSURES: The CDC guideline, which was released in March 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was receipt of any nonopioid pain medication prescriptions (analgesics or antipyretics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) during the follow-up period. This postguideline prescribing pattern was compared with estimates based on the preguideline prescribing pattern, and then the differences were stratified by patient clinical characteristics (chronic pain, recent opioid exposure, substance use disorder, anxiety disorder, and mood disorder). RESULTS: A total of 15 879 241 individuals (2015 mean [SD] age, 50.2 [18.6] years; 8 298 271 female patients [52.3%]) qualified for inclusion in 1 or more cohorts. Logistic regression models showed that nonopioid pain medication prescribing odds were higher by 3.0% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.3%) in postguideline year 1, by 8.7% (95% CI, 8.3%-9.2%) in postguideline year 2, and by 9.7% (95% CI, 9.2%-10.3%) in postguideline year 3 than the preguideline pattern-based estimates. The magnitude of the postguideline departures from the preguideline pattern varied by several clinical characteristics (chronic pain, recent opioid exposure, anxiety disorder, and mood disorder). The largest departure was found among those with chronic pain, with postguideline prescribing being higher than estimated in postguideline year 2 (13.6%; 95% CI, 12.7%-14.6%) and postguideline year 3 (14.9%; 95% CI, 13.8%-16.0%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this study showed increases in nonopioid pain medication prescribing after the release of the 2016 CDC guideline, suggesting that the guideline may be associated with an increase in guideline-concordant care, but additional studies are needed to understand the role of other secular changes in the opioid policy landscape and other sources of nonopioid medication use.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis policies are rapidly changing in the United States, yet little is known about how this has affected cannabis-associated emergency department (ED) visits. METHODS: We studied trends in cannabis-associated ED visits and identified differences by visit characteristics. Cannabis-associated ED visits from 2006 to 2018 were identified from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's (HCUP) Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS). JoinPoint analysis was used to identify trends from 2006 to 2014, prior to medical coding changes in 2015, and Z-tests were used to compare annual rate changes from 2016 to 2018. Changes in rates from 2017 to 2018 were examined by visit characteristics. RESULTS: From 2006-2014, the rate of cannabis-associated ED visits increased, on average, 12.1% annually (p < 0.05), from 12.3 to 34.7 visits per 100,000 population. The rate increased 17.3% from 2016 to 2017 (p < 0.05) and 11.1% from 2017 to 2018 (p < 0.05). From 2017-2018, rates of visits increased for both males (8.7%; p < 0.05) and females (15.9%; p < 0.05). Patients 0-14 years and 25 years and older had significant rate increases from 2017 to 2018 as did the Midwest region (36.8%; p < 0.05), the Northeast (9.2%; p < 0.05), and the South (4.5%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis-associated ED visits are on the rise and subgroups are at increased risk. Some potential explanations for increases in cannabis-associated ED visits include increased availability of cannabis products, increased use, and diversity of products available in marketplaces. Strategies are needed to prevent youth initiation, limit potentially harmful use among adults, and ensure safe storage where cannabis use is legal.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Following emergency declarations related to COVID-19 in the United States, many states issued stay-at-home orders and designated essential business categories. Most states allowed medical and/or non-medical adult-use cannabis retailers to remain open. This study assesses changes in cannabis sales across Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington before and during the pandemic. METHODS: Pre-tax sales data from cannabis marketplaces in four states were analyzed to identify trends from January 2018-December 2020. Mean monthly sales and relative percent change in mean monthly sales were compared by state from April-December (coinciding with the pandemic) in 2018, 2019, and 2020. Differences were assessed using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney-U test. RESULTS: Mean monthly cannabis sales in all four states were higher during the pandemic period in 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. Sales reached a three-year peak in Washington in May 2020 and in Alaska, Colorado, and Oregon in July 2020. From April-December, the percent change in mean monthly sales from 2019 to 2020 was significantly higher than 2018-2019 in all four states, though Alaska saw similar increases between 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. CONCLUSION: To date, cannabis sales in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington have increased more during the COVID-19 pandemic than in the previous two years. In light of these increases, data monitoring by states and CDC is warranted to understand how patterns of use are changing, which populations are demonstrating changes in use, and how such changes may affect substance use and related public health outcomes.

The current overdose epidemic in the US that began in the late 1990s continues unabated. Since 2013, deaths involving synthetic opioids surged substantially, largely due to the rapid proliferation of illicitly manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (eg, acetylfentanyl, carfentanil).1,2 More recently, overdose deaths involving stimulants, such as methamphetamine and cocaine, have increased with and without opioid co-involvement.3,4 As illicitly manufactured fentanyl became more ubiquitous, drug overdose death rates increased in all age groups, among both sexes, across most races and ethnicities, within all urbanization levels, and in the majority of US states.1

Implications In this commentary, we describe the evidence-based approach used to identify the primary cause of EVALI and to curb the 2019 outbreak. We also discuss future research opportunities and public health practice considerations to prevent a resurgence of EVALI.

BACKGROUND: Since August, 2019, US public health officials have been investigating a national outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). A spectrum of histological patterns consistent with acute to subacute lung injury has been seen in biopsies; however, autopsy findings have not been systematically characterised. We describe the pathological findings in autopsy and biopsy tissues submitted to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the evaluation of suspected EVALI. METHODS: Between Aug 1, 2019, and Nov 30, 2019, we examined lung biopsy (n=10 individuals) and autopsy (n=13 individuals) tissue samples received by the CDC, submitted by 16 US states, from individuals with: a history of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use; respiratory, gastrointestinal, or constitutional symptoms; and either pulmonary infiltrates or opacities on chest imaging, or sudden death from an undetermined cause. We also reviewed medical records, evaluated histopathology, and performed infectious disease testing when indicated by histopathology and clinical history. FINDINGS: 21 cases met surveillance case definitions for EVALI, with a further two cases of clinically suspected EVALI evaluated. All ten lung biopsies showed histological evidence of acute to subacute lung injury, including diffuse alveolar damage or organising pneumonia. These patterns were also seen in nine of 13 (69%) autopsy cases, most frequently diffuse alveolar damage (eight autopsies), but also acute and organising fibrinous pneumonia (one autopsy). Additional pulmonary pathology not necessarily consistent with EVALI was seen in the remaining autopsies, including bronchopneumonia, bronchoaspiration, and chronic interstitial lung disease. Three of the five autopsy cases with no evidence of, or a plausible alternative cause for acute lung injury, had been classified as confirmed or probable EVALI according to surveillance case definitions. INTERPRETATION: Acute to subacute lung injury patterns were seen in all ten biopsies and most autopsy lung tissues from individuals with suspected EVALI. Acute to subacute lung injury can have numerous causes; however, if it is identified in an individual with a history of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use, and no alternative cause is apparent, a diagnosis of EVALI should be strongly considered. A review of autopsy tissue pathology in suspected EVALI deaths can also identify alternative diagnoses, which can enhance the specificity of public health surveillance efforts. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

BACKGROUND: As of January 7, 2020, a total of 2558 hospitalized patients with nonfatal cases and 60 patients with fatal cases of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) had been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). METHODS: In a national study, we compared the characteristics of patients with fatal cases of EVALI with those of patients with nonfatal cases to improve the ability of clinicians to identify patients at increased risk for death from the condition. Health departments reported cases of EVALI to the CDC and included, when available, data from medical-record abstractions and patient interviews. Analyses included all the patients with fatal or nonfatal cases of EVALI that were reported to the CDC as of January 7, 2020. We also present three case reports of patients who died from EVALI to illustrate the clinical characteristics common among such patients. RESULTS: Most of the patients with fatal or nonfatal cases of EVALI were male (32 of 60 [53%] and 1666 of 2498 [67%], respectively). The proportion of patients with fatal or nonfatal cases was higher among those who were non-Hispanic white (39 of 49 [80%] and 1104 of 1818 [61%], respectively) than among those in other race or ethnic groups. The proportion of patients with fatal cases was higher among those 35 years of age or older (44 of 60 [73%]) than among those younger than 35 years, but the proportion with nonfatal cases was lower among those 35 years of age or older (551 of 2514 [22%]). Among the patients who had an available medical history, a higher proportion of those with fatal cases than those with nonfatal cases had a history of asthma (13 of 57 [23%] vs. 102 of 1297 [8%]), cardiac disease (26 of 55 [47%] vs. 115 of 1169 [10%]), or a mental health condition (32 of 49 [65%] vs. 575 of 1398 [41%]). A total of 26 of 50 patients (52%) with fatal cases had obesity. Half the patients with fatal cases (25 of 54 [46%]) were seen in an outpatient setting before hospitalization or death. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic conditions, including cardiac and respiratory diseases and mental health conditions, were common among hospitalized patients with EVALI.

Since entering the U.S. marketplace in 2007, e-cigarette, or vaping, products have evolved into a diverse class of inhaled aerosol devices. Earlier generations of these products were disposable, resembled conventional cigarettes in shape, and were designed to deliver nicotine to the user. Newer generations are rechargeable, don’t resemble conventional cigarettes, and can be used to deliver various substances, including nicotine and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana).1 The U.S. markets for both nicotine- and THC-containing vaping products have dramatically expanded. Recently, there has been an unprecedented increase in the use of nicotine-containing products by young people (see graph).2 Simultaneously, an increasing number of U.S. states have legalized marijuana use, a shift that coincided with changes in the public perception of risk, the availability of a wide variety of products containing THC or cannabidiol (CBD, a nonpsychoactive ingredient in marijuana), and increases in marijuana use among adults, especially young adults.3

BACKGROUND: The causative agents for the current national outbreak of electronic-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) have not been established. Detection of toxicants in bronchoalveolar-lavage (BAL) fluid from patients with EVALI can provide direct information on exposure within the lung. METHODS: BAL fluids were collected from 51 patients with EVALI in 16 states and from 99 healthy participants who were part of an ongoing study of smoking involving nonsmokers, exclusive users of e-cigarettes or vaping products, and exclusive cigarette smokers that was initiated in 2015. Using the BAL fluid, we performed isotope dilution mass spectrometry to measure several priority toxicants: vitamin E acetate, plant oils, medium-chain triglyceride oil, coconut oil, petroleum distillates, and diluent terpenes. RESULTS: State and local health departments assigned EVALI case status as confirmed for 25 patients and as probable for 26 patients. Vitamin E acetate was identified in BAL fluid obtained from 48 of 51 case patients (94%) in 16 states but not in such fluid obtained from the healthy comparator group. No other priority toxicants were found in BAL fluid from the case patients or the comparator group, except for coconut oil and limonene, which were found in 1 patient each. Among the case patients for whom laboratory or epidemiologic data were available, 47 of 50 (94%) had detectable tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or its metabolites in BAL fluid or had reported vaping THC products in the 90 days before the onset of illness. Nicotine or its metabolites were detected in 30 of 47 of the case patients (64%). CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin E acetate was associated with EVALI in a convenience sample of 51 patients in 16 states across the United States. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.).

CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and public health and clinical stakeholders are investigating a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) (1). CDC has published recommendations for health care providers regarding EVALI (2-4). Recently, researchers from Utah and New York published proposed diagnosis and treatment algorithms for EVALI (5,6). EVALI remains a diagnosis of exclusion because, at present, no specific test or marker exists for its diagnosis, and evaluation should be guided by clinical judgment. Because patients with EVALI can experience symptoms similar to those associated with influenza or other respiratory infections (e.g., fever, cough, headache, myalgias, or fatigue), it might be difficult to differentiate EVALI from influenza or community-acquired pneumonia on initial assessment; EVALI might also co-occur with respiratory infections. This report summarizes recommendations for health care providers managing patients with suspected or known EVALI when respiratory infections such as influenza are more prevalent in the community than they have been in recent months (7). Recommendations include 1) asking patients with respiratory, gastrointestinal, or constitutional symptoms about the use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products; 2) evaluating those suspected to have EVALI with pulse oximetry and obtaining chest imaging, as clinically indicated; 3) considering outpatient management for clinically stable EVALI patients who meet certain criteria; 4) testing patients for influenza, particularly during influenza season, and administering antimicrobials, including antivirals, in accordance with established guidelines; 5) using caution when considering prescribing corticosteroids for outpatients, because this treatment modality has not been well studied among outpatients, and corticosteroids could worsen respiratory infections; 6) recommending evidence-based treatment strategies, including behavioral counseling, to help patients discontinue using e-cigarette, or vaping, products; and 7) emphasizing the importance of annual influenza vaccination for all persons aged >/=6 months, including patients who use e-cigarette, or vaping products.

CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and multiple public health and clinical partners are investigating a national outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). Based on data collected as of October 15, 2019, 86% of 867 EVALI patients reported using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing products in the 3 months preceding symptom onset (1). Analyses of THC-containing product samples by FDA and state public health laboratories have identified potentially harmful constituents in these products, such as vitamin E acetate, medium chain triglyceride oil (MCT oil), and other lipids (2,3) (personal communication, D.T. Heitkemper, FDA Forensic Chemistry Center, November 2019). Vitamin E acetate, in particular, might be used as an additive in the production of e-cigarette, or vaping, products; it also can be used as a thickening agent in THC products (4). Inhalation of vitamin E acetate might impair lung function (5-7).

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the White House declared a public health emergency to address the opioid crisis (Hargan, 2017). On average, 192 Americans died from drug overdoses each day in 2017; 130 (67%) of those died specifically because of opioids (Scholl et al., 2019). Since 2013, there have been significant increases in overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids - particularly those involving illicitly-manufactured fentanyl. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) estimates that 75% of all opioid identifications are illicit fentanyls (DEA, 2018b). Laboratories are routinely asked to confirm which fentanyl or other opioids are involved in an overdose or encountered by first responders. It is critical to identify and classify the types of drugs involved in an overdose, how often they are involved, and how that involvement may change over time. Health care providers, public health professionals, and law enforcement officers need to know which opioids are in use to treat, monitor, and investigate fatal and non-fatal overdoses. By knowing which drugs are present, appropriate prevention and response activities can be implemented. Laboratory testing is available for clinically used and widely recognized opioids. However, there has been a rapid expansion in new illicit opioids, particularly fentanyl analogs that may not be addressed by current laboratory capabilities. In order to test for these new opioids, laboratories require reference standards for the large number of possible fentanyls. To address this need, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed the Traceable Opioid Material( section sign) Kits product line, which provides over 150 opioid reference standards, including over 100 fentanyl analogs. These kits were designed to dramatically increase laboratory capability to confirm which opioids are on the streets and causing deaths. The kits are free to U.S based laboratories in the public, private, clinical, law enforcement, research, and public health domains.

On September 6, 2019, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr). As of August 27, 2019, 215 possible cases of severe pulmonary disease associated with the use of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) products (e.g., devices, liquids, refill pods, and cartridges) had been reported to CDC by 25 state health departments. E-cigarettes are devices that produce an aerosol by heating a liquid containing various chemicals, including nicotine, flavorings, and other additives (e.g., propellants, solvents, and oils). Users inhale the aerosol, including any additives, into their lungs. Aerosols produced by e-cigarettes can contain harmful or potentially harmful substances, including heavy metals such as lead, volatile organic compounds, ultrafine particles, cancer-causing chemicals, or other agents such as chemicals used for cleaning the device (1). E-cigarettes also can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive component of cannabis, or other drugs; for example, "dabbing" involves superheating substances that contain high concentrations of THC and other plant compounds (e.g., cannabidiol) with the intent of inhaling the aerosol. E-cigarette users could potentially add other substances to the devices. This report summarizes available information and provides interim case definitions and guidance for reporting possible cases of severe pulmonary disease. The guidance in this report reflects data available as of September 6, 2019; guidance will be updated as additional information becomes available.

The evolving US opioid crisis is complex and requires myriad different interventions. These include reducing opioid overprescribing and curtailing the supply of illicit opioids, overdose rescue interventions, and treatment and recovery support services for those with opioid use disorders. To date, more distal primary prevention strategies that have an evidence base are underutilized. Yet, the impact of early environments on later substance use disorder risk is increasingly well understood, including knowledge of the mechanistic linkages between brain development and subsequent risk behaviors. Applying this developmental framework to prevention shows promise, and some middle-school interventions have demonstrated significant reductions in prescription opioid misuse. Reducing these risks of initial misuse of opioids may be the "ounce of prevention" that makes a substantial difference in a society now reeling from the worst drug crisis our country has seen. The challenge is to continue to develop and test promising distal interventions and to support implementation fidelity through frameworks that ensure their cultural appropriateness and sustainability. In addition, research is needed to develop new prevention strategies for adults, including patients with pain at risk for transitioning from prescription to illicit opioids.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive mandatory use laws for prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have been implemented in a number of states to help address the opioid overdose epidemic. These laws may reduce opioid-related overdose deaths by increasing prescribers' use of PDMPs and reducing high-risk prescribing behaviors. METHODS: We used state PDMP data to examine the effect of these mandates on prescriber registration, use of the PDMP, and on prescription-based measures of patient risk in three states-Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia-that implemented mandates between 2010 and 2015. We conducted comparative interrupted time series analyses to examine changes in outcome measures after the implementation of mandates in the mandate states compared to control states. RESULTS: Mandatory use laws increased prescriber registration and utilization of the PDMP in the mandate states compared to controls. The multiple provider episode rate, rate of opioid prescribing, rate of overlapping opioid prescriptions, and rate of overlapping opioid/benzodiazepine prescriptions decreased in Kentucky and Ohio. Nevertheless, the magnitude of changes in these measures varied among mandates states. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that PDMP mandates have the potential to reduce risky opioid prescribing practices. Variation in the laws may explain why the effectiveness varied between states.

Importance: Despite epidemic rates of addiction and death from prescription opioids in the United States, suggesting the importance of providing alternatives to opioids in the treatment of pain, little is known regarding how payers' coverage policies may facilitate or impede access to such treatments. Objective: To examine coverage policies for 5 nonpharmacologic approaches commonly used to treat acute or chronic low back pain among commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, plus an additional 6 treatments among Medicaid plans. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 15 commercial, 15 Medicaid, and 15 Medicare Advantage health plans for the 2017 calendar year in 16 states representing more than half of the US population. Interviews were conducted with 43 senior medical and pharmacy health plan executives from representative plans. Main Outcomes and Measures: Medical necessity and coverage status for the treatments examined, as well as the use of utilization management tools and cost-sharing magnitude and structure. Results: Commercial and Medicare insurers consistently regarded physical and occupational therapy as medically necessary, but policies varied for other therapies examined. Payers most commonly covered physical therapy (98% [44 of 45 plans]), occupational therapy (96% [43 of 45 plans]), and chiropractic care (89% [40 of 45 plans]), while transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (67% [10 of 15 plans]) and steroid injections (60% [9 of 15 plans]) were the most commonly covered among the therapies examined for Medicaid plans only. Despite evidence in the literature to support use of acupuncture and psychological interventions, these therapies were either not covered by plans examined (67% of all plans [30 of 45] did not cover acupuncture) or lacked information about coverage (80% of Medicaid plans [12 of 15] lacked information about coverage of psychological interventions). Utilization management tools, such as prior authorization, were common, but criteria varied greatly with respect to which conditions and what quantity and duration of services were covered. Interviewees represented 6 Medicaid managed care organizations, 2 Medicare Advantage or Part D plans, 9 commercial plans, and 3 trade organizations (eg, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association). Interviews with plan executives indicated a low level of integration between the coverage decision-making processes for pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for chronic pain. Conclusions and Relevance: Wide variation in coverage of nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain may be driven by the absence of best practices, the administrative complexities of developing and revising coverage policies, and payers' economic incentives. Such variation suggests an important opportunity to improve the accessibility of services, reduce opioid use, and ultimately improve the quality of care for individuals with chronic, noncancer pain while alleviating the burden of opioid addiction and overdose.

Importance: Despite unprecedented injuries and deaths from prescription opioids, little is known regarding medication coverage policies for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain among US insurers. Objective: To assess medication coverage policies for 62 products used to treat low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of health plan documents from 15 Medicaid, 15 Medicare Advantage, and 20 commercial health plans in 2017 from 16 US states representing more than half the US population and 20 interviews with more than 43 senior medical and pharmacy health plan executives from representative plans. Data analysis was conducted from April 2017 to January 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Formulary coverage, utilization management, and patient out-of-pocket costs. Results: Of the 62 products examined, 30 were prescription opioids and 32 were nonopioid analgesics, including 10 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 10 antidepressants, 6 muscle relaxants, 4 anticonvulsants, and 2 topical analgesics. Medicaid plans covered a median of 19 opioids examined (interquartile range [IQR], 12-27; median, 63%; IQR, 40%-90%) and a median of 22 nonopioids examined (IQR, 21-27; median, 69%; IQR, 66%-83%). Medicare Advantage plans covered similar proportions (median [IQR], opioids: 17 [15-22]; 57% [50%-73%]; nonopioids: 22 [22-26]; 69% [69%-81%]), while commercial plans covered more opioids (median [IQR], 23 [21-25]; 77% [70%-84%]) and nonopioids (median [IQR], 26 [24-27]; 81% [74%-85%]). Utilization management strategies were common for opioids in Medicaid plans (median [IQR], 15 [11-20] opioids; 91% [74%-97%]), Medicare Advantage plans (median [IQR], 15 [9-18] opioids; 100% [100%-100%]), and commercial plans (median [IQR], 16 [11-20] opioids; 74% [53%-94%]), generally relying on 30-day quantity limits rather than prior authorization. Step therapy was especially uncommon. Many of the nonopioids examined also were subject to utilization management, especially quantity limits (24%-32% of products across payers) and prior authorization (median [IQR], commercial plans: 2 [0-3] nonopioids; 9% [0%-11%]; Medicare Advantage plans: 4 [3-5] nonopioids; 19% [10%-23%]; Medicaid plans: 6 [1-13] nonopioids; 38% [2%-52%]). Among commercial plans, the median plan placed 18 opioids (74%) and 20 nonopioids (81%) in tier 1, which was associated with a median out-of-pocket cost of $10 (IQR, $9-$10) per 30-day supply. Key informant interviews revealed an emphasis on increasing opioid utilization management and identifying high-risk prescribers and patients, rather than promoting comprehensive strategies to improve treatment of chronic pain or better integrating pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic alternatives to opioids. Conclusions and Relevance: Given the effect of coverage policies on drug utilization and health outcomes, these findings provide an important opportunity to evaluate how formulary placement, utilization management, copayments, and integration of nonpharmacologic treatments can be optimized to improve pain care while reducing opioid-related injuries and deaths.

Sports and recreation-related (SRR) activities are common in the United States. Beyond the benefits to health, SRR activities can create new friendships, give people a sense of belonging, foster teamwork and other leadership skills, and develop sportsmanship and a respect for rules that govern play. Public awareness about the risk of concussion has grown as the long-term consequences of traumatic brain injury (TBI) have become better known, and likely explains the increasing concussion incidence rates. Currently, surveillance systems capture SRR concussions among high school and college athletes participating in sanctioned sports. National estimates of SRR TBI presenting to an emergency department also exist. Persons under the age of 19 sustain a majority of SRR concussions. Concussion risk is greatest for boys in contact/collision sports like football, ice hockey, and lacrosse, and is more likely to occur in competition versus practice settings. Girls have elevated concussion rates in gender-comparable sports. Despite better data, concussions are still underreported, undermanaged, and often not properly identified. This is especially true for concussions occurring outside organized sports, in nonsport recreational activities, and for concussions either not seen or evaluated in nonemergency department settings. A new surveillance system proposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention aims to fill the gap.

INTRODUCTION: From 2015 to 2016, opioid overdose deaths increased 27.7%, indicating a worsening of the opioid overdose epidemic and highlighting the importance of rapid data collection, analysis, and dissemination. METHODS: Emergency department (ED) syndromic and hospital billing data on opioid-involved overdoses during July 2016-September 2017 were examined. Temporal trends in opioid overdoses from 52 jurisdictions in 45 states were analyzed at the regional level and by demographic characteristics. To assess trends based on urban development, data from 16 states were analyzed by state and urbanization level. RESULTS: From July 2016 through September 2017, a total of 142,557 ED visits (15.7 per 10,000 visits) from 52 jurisdictions in 45 states were suspected opioid-involved overdoses. This rate increased on average by 5.6% per quarter. Rates increased across demographic groups and all five U.S. regions, with largest increases in the Southwest, Midwest, and West (approximately 7%-11% per quarter). In 16 states, 119,198 ED visits (26.7 per 10,000 visits) were suspected opioid-involved overdoses. Ten states (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) experienced significant quarterly rate increases from third quarter 2016 to third quarter 2017, and in one state (Kentucky), rates decreased significantly. The highest rate increases occurred in large central metropolitan areas. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: With continued increases in opioid overdoses, availability of timely data are important to inform actions taken by EDs and public health practitioners. Increases in opioid overdoses varied by region and urbanization level, indicating a need for localized responses. Educating ED physicians and staff members about appropriate services for immediate care and treatment and implementing a post-overdose protocol that includes naloxone provision and linking persons into treatment could assist EDs with preventing overdose.

OBJECTIVES: To assess trends in cocaine overdose deaths and examine the role opioids play in these deaths. METHODS: We used data on drug overdose deaths in the United States from 2000 to 2015 collected in the National Vital Statistics System to calculate annual rates and numbers of cocaine-related overdose deaths overall and deaths both involving and not involving opioids. We assessed statistically significant changes in trends with joinpoint regression. RESULTS: Rates of cocaine-related overdose deaths increased significantly from 1.26 to 2.50 per 100 000 population from 2000 to 2006, declined to 1.35 in 2010, and increased to 2.13 in 2015. Cocaine-related overdose deaths involving opioids increased from 0.37 to 0.91 from 2000 to 2006, declined to 0.57 in 2010, and then increased to 1.36 in 2015. Cocaine-related overdose deaths not involving opioids increased from 0.89 to 1.59 from 2000 to 2006 and then declined to 0.78 in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Opioids, primarily heroin and synthetic opioids, have been driving the recent increase in cocaine-related overdose deaths. This corresponds to the growing supply and use of heroin and illicitly manufactured fentanyl in the United States.

BACKGROUND: During the previous century the average lifespan in the United States (US) increased by over 30 years, with much of this increase attributed to public health initiatives. This report examines further gains that might be achieved through reduced occurrence of injury-related death. METHODS: US life tables and injury death rate data were used to estimate potential increases in life expectancy assuming various reductions in the rate of fatal injuries. Corresponding numbers of deaths potentially averted annually were also estimated; unit (per death) medical and lifetime work loss costs were employed to estimate total costs potentially averted annually. RESULTS: Through elimination of injury as a cause of death, average US life expectancy at birth could be increased by approximately 1.5 years, with notable variations by sex, ethnicity, and race. More conservatively, average life expectancy at birth could be increased by 0.41 years assuming that the national injury death rate could be brought into line with the lowest state-specific rate. Under this more conservative but plausible assumption, an estimated 48,400 injury deaths and $61 billion in medical and work loss costs would be averted annually. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in life expectancy of the magnitude considered in this report are arguably attainable based on long-term historical reductions in the US injury death rate, as well as significant continuing reductions seen in other developed countries. Contemporary evidence-based interventions can play an important role in reducing injury-related deaths, such as those due to drug overdoses and older adult falls, as well as suicides.

Meara et al. (July 7 issue)1 conclude that state laws such as those supporting prescription-drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) do not reduce hazardous opioid use or nonfatal overdose. These conclusions may cause clinicians and policymakers to discount the value of PDMPs. In addition, the findings of the study diverge from those of other recent studies assessing the effect of PDMPs.2-4 Patrick et al., using a more rigorous design to account for the specific features of PDMPs, found that these programs were associated with declines in deaths from opioid overdose.3 Bao et al., using a nationally representative sample — not only Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities — found a 30% decline in the prescribing of Schedule II opioids after the implementation of PDMPs.4 The decision by Meara et al. to include multiple laws regarding controlled substances in a single analysis presupposes that each law within a category is identical. Categorizing laws as enacted or not enacted ignores heterogeneity across laws of the same type. It is the components of a law and the implementation and enforcement of those components that matter. The null findings of the study may be a by-product of these methodologic choices. Additional investigation is needed to further evaluate the effects of PDMPs and other state-level interventions.

Use of the prescription opioid methadone for treatment of pain, as opposed to treatment of opioid use disorder (e.g., addiction), has been identified as a contributor to the U.S. opioid overdose epidemic. Although methadone accounted for only 2% of opioid prescriptions in 2009 (1), it was involved in approximately 30% of overdose deaths. Beginning with 2006 warnings from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), efforts to reduce methadone use for pain have accelerated (2,3). The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and CDC analyzed methadone distribution, reports of diversion (the transfer of legally manufactured methadone into illegal markets), and overdose deaths during 2002-2014. On average, the rate of grams of methadone distributed increased 25.1% per year during 2002-2006 and declined 3.2% per year during 2006-2013. Methadone-involved overdose deaths increased 22.1% per year during 2002-2006 and then declined 6.5% per year during 2006-2014. During 2002-2006, rates of methadone diversion increased 24.3% per year; during 2006-2009, the rate increased at a slower rate, and after 2009, the rate declined 12.8% per year through 2014. Across sex, most age groups, racial/ethnic populations, and U.S. Census regions, the methadone overdose death rate peaked during 2005-2007 and declined in subsequent years. There was no change among persons aged ≥65 years, and among persons aged 55-64 years the methadone overdose death rate continued to increase through 2014. Additional clinical and public health policy changes are needed to reduce harm associated with methadone use for pain, especially among persons aged ≥55 years.