BackgroundStimulants are considered the first-line treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in the US and they are used in other indications. Stimulants are also diverted for non-medical purposes. Ethnic and regional differences in ADHD diagnosis and in stimulant use have been identified in earlier research. The objectives of this report were to examine the pharmacoepidemiological pattern of these controlled substances over the past decade and to conduct a regional analysis.MethodsData (drug weights) reported to the US Drug Enforcement Administration’s Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System for four stimulants (amphetamine, methylphenidate, lisdexamfetamine, and methamphetamine) were obtained from 2006 to 2016 for Unites States/Territories. Correlations between state level use (mg/person) and Hispanic population were completed.ResultsAmphetamine use increased 2.5 fold from 2006 to 2016 (7.9 to 20.0 tons). Methylphenidate use, at 16.5 tons in 2006, peaked in 2012 (19.4 tons) and subsequently showed a modest decline (18.6 tons in 2016). The consumption per municipality significantly increased 7.6% for amphetamine and 5.5% for lisdexamfetamine but decreased 2.7% for methylphenidate (all p < .0005) from 2015 to 2016. Pronounced regional differences were also observed. Lisdexamfetamine use in 2016 was over thirty-fold higher in the Southern US (43.8 mg/person) versus the Territories (1.4 mg/person). Amphetamine use was about one-third lower in the West (48.1 mg/person) relative to the Northeastern (75.4 mg/person, p < .05) or the Midwestern (69.9 mg/person, p ≤ .005) states. States with larger Hispanic populations had significantly lower methylphenidate (r(49) = -0.63), lisdexamfetamine (B, r(49) = -0.49), and amphetamine (r(49) = -0.43) use.ConclusionsTotal stimulant usage doubled in the last decade. There were dynamic changes but also regional disparities in the use of stimulant medications. Future research is needed to better understand the reasons for the sizable regional and ethnic variations in use of these controlled substances.

Background: Methadone is an evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) and pain management. Methadone for OUD may be difficult for some patients to access, particularly those in rural areas. Objective: The purpose of this study was to characterize methadone distribution patterns between 2017 and 2019 across the United States. Methods: The US Drug Enforcement Administration’s Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System was used to acquire the number of opioid treatment programs (OTPs) per state and methadone distribution weight in grams. Methadone distributions by weight, corrected for state population and number of OTPs, were compared from 2017 to 2019 between states, within regions, and nationally. Results: The national distribution of methadone increased +12.3% for OTPs but decreased −34.6% for pain. Whereas all states saw a decrease in pain distribution, the Northeast showed a significantly smaller decrease than all other regions. Additionally, the majority of states experienced an increase in distribution for OTPs, and most states demonstrated a relatively stable or increasing number of OTPs, with an +11.5% increase nationally. The number of OTPs per 100K state population ranged from 2.1 in Rhode Island to 0.0 in Wyoming. Conclusion and Relevance: Although methadone distribution for OUD was increasing in the United States, the pronounced regional disparities identified warrant further consideration to improve patient access to this evidence-based pharmacotherapy, particularly in the Midwest and West regions. Greater implementation of telehealth and involvement of primary care into opioid treatment practice offer possible solutions to eliminating geographical treatment barriers.

No abstract

An appreciable subset of biomedical authors have patents and have received remuneration from medical product companies and this information is not disclosed to readers. These findings indicate that full transparency of financial pCoI should become a standard practice among the authors of biomedical educational materials.