No abstract

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.

Purpose Buprenorphine is an opioid partial agonist used to treat opioid use disorder. While several policy changes have attempted to increase buprenorphine availability, access remains well below optimal levels. This study characterized how buprenorphine utilization in the United States has changed over time and whether there are regional disparities in distribution of the medication. Methods The amount of buprenorphine distributed from 2007 to 2017 was obtained from the Drug Enforcement Administration's Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System. Data were expressed as the percent change and milligrams per person in each state. The formulations and cost for prescriptions covered by Medicaid (2008 to 2018) were also examined. Results Buprenorphine distributed to pharmacies increased about 7‐fold (476.8 to 3179.9 kg) while the quantities distributed to hospitals grew 5‐fold (18.6 to 97.6 kg) nationally from 2007 to 2017. Buprenorphine distribution per person was almost 20‐fold higher in Vermont (40.4 mg/person) relative to South Dakota (2.1 mg/person). There was a strong association between the number of physicians authorized to prescribe buprenorphine and distribution per state (r[49] = +0.94, P < .0005). The buprenorphine/naloxone sublingual film (Suboxone) was the predominant formulation (92.6% of 0.31 million Medicaid prescriptions) in 2008 but accounted for less than three‐fifth (57.3% of 6.56 million prescriptions) in 2018. Conclusions Although buprenorphine availability has substantially increased over the last decade, distribution was very nonhomogeneous across the United States.

There is no organised training and service for CAMH in Nigeria. A 3-day course in child mental health aimed at multidisciplinary health professionals was developed and evaluated to inform future training. Developing the course involved multi-professional consultation. Course evaluation involved the completion of questionnaires by delegates (present from 5 of the 6 geopolitical zones of Nigeria) before and after the training. Training needs expressed include skills to manage CAMH problems in their own context, greater understanding of normal child development and strategies to train others. Most participants reported that their expectations were met and would affect their practice especially with regard to collaboration.