ArticleAddiction science & clinical practice2025
Prescribed medications for patients with amphetamine-type stimulant use disorder seen in rural-serving Pacific Northwest primary care clinics.
Article in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmphetamine-type stimulant use and overdoses have increased sharply across the US in recent years, largely driven by methamphetamine. Increased access to treatments for amphetamine-type stimulant use disorder (AT-StUD), including in primary care settings, is needed to mitigate these problems, yet effective behavioral treatments are often inaccessible and there are no FDA-approved medications for AT-StUD. In the current study, we characterize how often patients with clinically documented AT-StUD in predominantly rural-serving Pacific Northwest primary care clinics received medications that have been conditionally recommended in practice guidelines for treatment of AT-StUD.
methodsElectronic health record data from 23 primary care clinics in the Pacific Northwest US were obtained through the Data QUEST network. Adult patients with clinically documented "other stimulant abuse" or "other stimulant dependence" diagnoses typically reflecting AT-StUD between 01/2017 and 12/2021 were included. Prescription records were used to identify orders for bupropion, mirtazapine, topiramate, naltrexone-bupropion combination, methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, and modafinil. Statistical analyses quantified the percentage of patients with medication orders placed within one year after any documented AT-StUD diagnosis.
resultsPatients (N = 963) were predominantly female (53.3%), White (81.7%), and non-Hispanic (70.5%). In total, 14.3% of patients received orders for a non-stimulant medication conditionally recommended in practice guidelines; 2.7% received orders for a stimulant medication. Consistent with clinical guidelines, medications were more often prescribed when patients had documented co-occurring disorders for which the medications could also be effective.
conclusionsIn this sample of rural-serving primary care clinics, approximately 1 in 7 primary care patients with AT-StUD received orders for medications with preliminary evidence of effectiveness. Efforts are needed to increase access to AT-StUD treatments within primary care. These efforts could include training health professionals to consider judicious use of pharmacotherapy consistent with clinical guidelines, increasing capacity for behavioral health services including contingency management, and continuing research on pharmacologic agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.