SCIENCE NEWS  from research organizations
Date:July 16, 2019
Source:Boston University School of Medicine
Summary:
A first-of-its-kind study has found that people entering treatment for heroin use most often called themselves 'addicts,' but preferred that others called them 'people who use drugs.'

A first-ever study to ask people who use heroin what they want to be called finds "people first" language often best, and language suggesting misuse or dependence generally worst.
In the ongoing opioid crisis, many researchers and clinicians now use "person first" terms such as "person with substance use disorder" instead of loaded labels like "addict," but little research has focused on the language preferences of this population. Now, a first-of-its-kind study by researchers from the Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) and the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS), published in the journal Addiction, has found that people entering treatment for heroin use most often called themselves "addicts," but preferred that others called them "people who use drugs."
"In the end, researchers, clinicians, and families should not automatically use the same terms that people who use heroin call themselves, but instead ask about preferences," says senior study author Dr. Michael Stein, professor and chair of health law, policy & management at BUSPH. "Of course, most people just want to be called by their name."
The researchers surveyed 263 people undergoing in-patient evaluation and withdrawal symptom management at the Stanley Street Treatment and Resources program (SSTAR) in Fall River, Massachusetts. The terms that the most respondents never wanted to be called were "heroin misuser" and "heroin-dependent," and most did not like slang terms such as "junkie."
"Persons who use heroin often complain about interactions with healthcare providers, due at least in part to the unfortunate language providers use -- which is taken, sometimes rightly, as a sign of disrespect," Stein says. "Such antagonism can't be good for clinical outcomes."

TO CONTINUE READING: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190716151355.htm?fbclid=IwAR1ElpgAzfbLLWlbfN3I_ZPVbS-RdHlF__YPvZpbuIsNbTgCV01qfrZ1Cdk

By John Wiesman and Carl Schmid
Special to The Times 

​The consequences of the hepatitis C virus can be devastating if people are unable to access treatment. Left untreated, they can experience irreversible liver damage, cirrhosis, liver cancer and even death. Thankfully, investments in pharmaceutical research have led to new oral medications that allows individuals to be cured in as little as eight weeks, with few to no side effects. These medications have become more affordable as the price continues to drop due to competition.
Here in Washington, we know all too well the impact of hepatitis C. From 2010 to 2016, the number of reports of new infections (acute cases) rose by more than 280% statewide, with most occurring among young persons who inject drugs. Nationwide, cases of hepatitis rose by 350% during that same time period. These are upsetting statistics, but we know how to change this trend.
The World Health Organization and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine have released reports showing that eliminating viral hepatitis as a public-health threat is possible both globally and nationally, and not only saves lives, but also saves money in the long run. However, elimination requires concerted efforts by states and communities, and an investment in resources. The U.S. has recently demonstrated this with the federal effort of “Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America,” which hopes to reduce new HIV infections by 90% in 10 years. We need a similar initiative to eliminate hepatitis C.
In some state Medicaid programs, access to the medications that cure hepatitis C has been restricted to only those individuals who have progressed to more advanced liver disease. Not only is this against Medicaid policy, it causes undue harm. Treatment restrictions are a significant barrier to eliminating the virus nationally.
Washington state has heeded the call to eliminate hepatitis and is taking action. Last year, Gov. Jay Inslee called on the state to eliminate hepatitis C by 2030, following the same goal the World Health Organization set in 2016. A plan titled “Hep C Free Washington” seeks to eliminate hepatitis C in Washington state by 2030 and will be released in the next few weeks. This July, the state also took an enormous step in these efforts when it finalized a new contract with drug manufacturer AbbVie to bring resources to the state to eliminate the virus. Under the agreement, the state has a guaranteed net unit price up to a certain treatment threshold after which it pays a nominal price for an unlimited supply of hepatitis C treatments. A similar agreement was recently reached between Louisiana and a subsidiary of the drug manufacturer Gilead.
TO CONTINUE READING: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/a-bold-new-approach-to-eliminating-hepatitis-c-as-a-public-health-threat/

A & U
Americas Aids Magazine
June 24, 2019

Money Talks
The hepatitis community wants more federal dollars; hep a cases rising fast
by Larry Buhl

Here’s the good news on federal funding for hepatitis research and treatment. In its 2020 budget proposal, the Trump Administration has requested a $53 million increase, from the current level of $5 million, to fund the infectious disease and opioids programs at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The bad news is the budget for the response to all forms of hepatitis, including hepatitis A, B and C, is flat, at $39 million. That’s not nearly enough, according to Frank Hood, Senior Policy Associate at The AIDS Institute. He’s calling on Congress to allocate the additional $95 million requested by the hepatitis community for CDC’s viral hepatitis programs, and says that the CDC needs massive funding to expand its work in prevention, education, and testing for individuals at risk of hepatitis C, surveillance of outbreaks, and linkage to care for those who need it.
“President Trump has kept the same level of funding [for hepatitis] flat for three years,” Hood told A&U. “Any budget increases were due to Congress. And we hope that with a Democratic House, that budget item will be increased.”
Not only are cases of hepatitis C rising throughout the country, new populations are being impacted. In 2016, there were 41,700 new cases of hepatitis C, a twenty-two percent increase from the prior year. Between 2010 and 2016, there was a 350-percent increase in new infections. Unlike previous outbreaks that affected baby boomers, the biggest increase in infections today are among people under forty years old with more than seventy percent of cases the result of injection drug use.
“One reason we need increased funding is linkage to care, and this funding can be used for harm reduction,” Hood said.
On harm reduction there has been a shift in recent years, Hood added. “To our surprise, there is brief but well-worded support for syringe programs. There isn’t a fear of backlash around this and other harm reduction programs, but we want to make sure they get up and running, and again, we need resources for them.”
TO CONTINUE READING:   https://aumag.org/2019/06/24/hep-community-we-need-more-federal-dollars/

NATURE
NEWS 
28 JUNE 2019Researchers around the country are scrambling to understand these outbreaks, but lack solid data on case numbers.
Sara Reardon

Opioid addiction kills tens of thousands of people every year in the United States and the trend shows no signs of slowing. Now, public-health officials are worried about a surge in bacterial and viral infections linked to opioid abuse that threatens to compound the crisis.
This surge includes in unprecedented rise in bacterial infections — including those caused by Staphylococcus aureus, a bacterium that’s frequently resistant to antibiotics — and a spike in new cases of HIV and hepatitis associated with injecting opioids that threatens to undo decades of progress in corralling these diseases.
Research groups around the country are working to understand, identify and treat these outbreaks. But the lack of solid data on the number of new cases, and where they’ll crop up next, as well as stigma associated with drug use that can prevent people with infections from seeking early treatment, is hindering efforts.
“This is like HIV all over again,” says Judith Feinberg, an infectious-disease physician at West Virginia University in Morgantown, comparing the current crisis to the HIV epidemic that dominated US public health efforts in the 1980-90s. “People are stigmatized; they don’t feel they deserve to live. They hear people say it’s a lifestyle choice.”
Over the past 20 years, the use of opioids, including prescription pain medications, heroin and synthetic drugs such as fentanyl, has skyrocketed in the United States. As of 2017, there were roughly 15 opioid-overdose-related deaths per 100,000 people in the country, compared with 3 per 100,000 in 1999, according to estimates from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
TO CONTINUE STORY: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02019-3

By Dan Levin
May 31st 2019, New York Times

Call them Generation O, the children growing up in families trapped in a relentless grip of addiction, rehab and prison.
PORTSMOUTH, Ohio — Layla Kegg’s mother, back home after three weeks who knows where, says she’s done with heroin, ready for rehab and wants to be part of her daughter’s life. But Layla has heard all of this before and doesn’t believe a single word.
Layla’s trust was broken long ago, after years of watching her mother cycle in and out of addiction and rehab. And now this latest discovery: “I found a needle in your purse the other day,” says Layla, seated at her grandmother’s kitchen table, her arms crossed. “And Mamaw found two more in the dryer.”
A pause, and then a fitful tumble of excuses from her mom: she doesn’t know why the needles were there; they were only syringes, actually, and not needles; she was keeping them for a friend.
Layla, 17, rolls her eyes and sighs.
“It’s almost like you want me to be using,” her mother pleads tearfully, in a voice children more often use with their parents. “Everything I do is never going to be good enough, so what’s the point.”

TO CONTINUE TO READ:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/opioid-children-addiction.html

By Abby Goodnough, New York Times, HEALTH
May 18, 2019

BALTIMORE -- Heroin has ravaged this city since the early 1960s, fueling desperation and crime that remain endemic in many neighborhoods. But lately, despite heroin’s long, deep history here, users say it has become nearly impossible to find.
Heroin’s presence is fading up and down the Eastern Seaboard, from New England mill towns to rural Appalachia, and in parts of the Midwest that were overwhelmed by it a few years back. It remains prevalent in many Western states, but even New York City, the nation’s biggest distribution hub for the drug, has seen less of it this year.
The diminishing supply should be a victory for public health and law enforcement alike. Instead, in cities like Baltimore, longtime users who managed to survive decades injecting heroin are now at far higher risk of dying from an overdose. That is because synthetic fentanyl, a deadlier drug that is much cheaper to produce and distribute than heroin, has all but replaced it.
The dramatic rise of fentanyl, which can be 50 times stronger than heroin, has been well documented. But its effect on many older, urban users of heroin, who had been able to manage their addiction for years, has been less noticed. The shift from heroin to fentanyl in cities has contributed to surging overdose deaths among older people and African-Americans and deeply unnerved many like William Glen Miller Sr., who first tried heroin as a 13-year-old in West Baltimore.
TO CONTINUE READING: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/health/heroin-fentanyl-deaths-baltimore.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=

APR 25 2019 • 12:15 AM EDT  UPDATED THU, APR 25 2019 • 10:49 AM EDT
Berkeley Lovelace Jr.@BERKELEYJR

KEY POINTS

• The nationwide opioid epidemic has led to a sharp increase in the death rate for overdoses by teens and young adults, according to a new study.
• Most of those deaths were from the use of opioids, both prescription and illicit, such as heroin, the researchers say.

HEALTH AND SCIENCEMore millennials, Gen Z are dying of opioid overdoses, researchers sayPUBLISHED THU, APR 25 2019 • 12:15 AM EDT  UPDATED THU, APR 25 2019 • 10:49 AM EDT
Berkeley Lovelace Jr.@BERKELEYJR
KEY POINTS

• The nationwide opioid epidemic has led to a sharp increase in the death rate for overdoses by teens and young adults, according to a new study.
• Most of those deaths were from the use of opioids, both prescription and illicit, such as heroin, the researchers say.

Attorney General Maura Healey hugs Paula Haddad, whose son Jordan died from opioids at the age of 26, as Healey entered the courthouse at Suffolk Superior Court in Boston for a status update on the Attorney General’s suit against Purdue Pharma on Jan. 25, 2019.
Suzanne Kreiter | Boston Globe | Getty ImagesThe nationwide opioid epidemic has led to a sharp increase in the death rate for overdoses by teens and young adults, according to a study published Thursday.
Death rates from drug overdoses for people ages 15 to 24 rose by 19.75% from 2006 to 2015, according to a study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Researchers at the nonprofit Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland reviewed millennial and Gen Z mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
During the study period, 36,422 adolescents and young adults in the United States died of drug poisoning.
Most of the deaths from drug overdoses were from opioids, prescription and illicit drugs like heroin, the researchers said. Death rates from opioid use rose by an average of 4.8% annually over the same time period, with an even steeper increase of 15.4% a year between 2013 and 2015.

TO CONTINUE READING: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/more-millennials-gen-z-are-dying-of-opioid-overdoses-researchers-say.html

Erin C. Wilson ,Caitlin Turner ,Jess Lin ,Willi McFarland ,Katie Burk ,Henry Fisher Raymond

Posted on March 4, 2019Researchers assessed hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence among transwomen in San Francisco via performing a cross-sectional survey. Further, they assessed the indicators of engagement in HCV care. They interviewed a total of 315 transwomen who were then tested for HCV antibodies. Outcomes revealed an overall HCV seroprevalence of 23.6%. Transwomen who had injected drugs (48.2% vs 9.9%), smoked crack or methamphetamine (30.8% vs 12.5%), used intranasal drugs (28.4% vs 15.8%), and had been incarcerated (27.9% vs 9.9%) displayed significantly higher HCV seroprevalence. Overall, transwomen are at high risk for HCV infection, but many in San Francisco do have access to testing and treatment services, which may allow for HCV control and elimination.
Source:  MD LINX

​TO CONTINUE READING:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jvh.13089
​

By Joel Wolfram August 13, 2018 WHYY Listen Live. Morning Edition

Addiction researchers at the University of Pennsylvania say it’s time to stop using “addict” and “alcoholic” when talking about people with substance use disorders. The recommendation comes out of a new study that found the terms are associated with a strong negative bias.
Researchers studied how people responded to several addiction-related terms including “addict,” “alcoholic,” and “substance abuser.” Those terms elicited the strongest negative biases of the lot, said lead study author Robert D. Ashford.
“Terms that seem to label the person — and invoke the negative attitudes toward the person rather than the disease — those are the ones that have the higher levels of bias,” said Ashford, a research assistant at the University of Pennsylvania and doctoral candidate in health policy at the University of the Sciences.
Participants were asked questions about their willingness to associate with people depicted in fictional vignettes who were described with such terms. But the study also used a word-association task to test whether any “implicit bias” was lurking in the language.
“So ‘implicit’ is … think of ‘subconscious,’ what’s going on in the recesses of my mind that I may not be consciously aware of,” Ashford explained.
TO CONTINUE READING:
​https://whyy.org/articles/dont-call-people-addicts-penn-researchers-say/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=evergreen&fbclid=IwAR1uaN2nnPkP4blZs6BmG9WexQ4wDf-crGOnRVycSDKMLE6n4OUtJEe2frI