Current state of cannabis use, policies, and research across sixteen countries : cross-country comparisons and international perspectives

INTRODUCTION : Varying public views on cannabis use across countries may explain the variation in the prevalence of use, policies, and research in individual countries, and global regulation of cannabis. This paper aims to describe the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research across sixteen countries. METHODS : PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for studies published from 2010 to 2020. Searches were conducted using the relevant country of interest as a search term (e.g., “Iran”), as well as relevant predefined keywords such as “cannabis,” “marijuana,” “hashish,” “bhang “dual diagnosis,” “use,” “addiction,” “prevalence,” “co-morbidity,” “substance use disorder,” “legalization” or “policy” (in English and non-English languages). These keywords were used in multiple combinations to create the search string for studies’ titles and abstracts. Official websites of respective governments and international organizations were also searched in English and non-English languages (using countries national languages) to identify the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research in each of those countries. RESULTS : The main findings were inconsistent and heterogeneous reporting of cannabis use, variation in policies (e.g., legalization), and variation in intervention strategies across the countries reviewed. European countries dominate the cannabis research output indexed on PubMed, in contrast to Asian countries (Thailand, Malaysia, India, Iran, and Nepal). CONCLUSIONS : Although global cannabis regulation is ongoing, the existing heterogeneities across countries in terms of policies and epidemiology can increase the burden of cannabis use disorders disproportionately and unpredictably. There is an urgent need to develop global strategies to address these cross-country barriers to improve early detection, prevention, and interventions for cannabis use and related disorders.The Indian Council of Medical Research.https://www.scielo.br/j/trendsam2023Family Medicin

The Impact of stigma on treatment services for people with substance use disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic-perspectives of NECPAM members.

Stigma is a mark of shame, disgrace, or disapproval which results in an individual being rejected, discriminated against, and excluded from society. Stigma toward individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) affects the emotional, mental, and physical health of individuals. People with SUD are often viewed as unpredictable, dangerous, and morally responsible for their condition. These prejudiced and discriminatory views of the community may lead to reduced access to care, inability to make decisions regarding treatment, and forced or coerced treatment. Further, stigma negatively affects the policies and programs intended for the management of substance use and other addictive disorders....

Human polyomavirus 7-associated pruritic rash and viremia in transplant recipients

Human polyomavirus 7 (HPyV7) is one of 11 HPyVs recently discovered through genomic sequencing technologies. Two lung transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy developed pruritic, brown plaques on the trunk and extremities showing a distinctive epidermal hyperplasia with virus-laden keratinocytes containing densely packed 36-45-nm icosahedral capsids. Rolling circle amplification and gradient centrifugation testing were positive for encapsidated HPyV7 DNA in skin and peripheral blood specimens from both patients, and HPyV7 early and capsid proteins were abundantly expressed in affected tissues. We describe for the first time that HPyV7 is associated with novel pathogenicity in some immunosuppressed individuals

Responding to COVID-19: emerging practices in addiction medicine in 17 countries.

Contains fulltext : 232789.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)6 p

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially