Addiction Medicine

There is good news and bad news regarding the use of tobacco products by young people in the United States, according to the recently released findings from the 2021 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).¹ The use of cigarettes among high school students declined from 36.4% in 1997 to 6.0% in 2019.² However, young people have replaced cigarettes with other tobacco products, including electronic vapor products (EVPs). So we need to ask specifically about these products.

Known by many names. EVPs are referred to as e-cigarettes, vapes, hookah pens, and mods. They usually contain nicotine, which is highly addictive, can affect brain development, and may lead to smoking of cigarettes.³ The most common reasons young people say they use EVPs are feelings of anxiety, stress, and depression, as well as the “high” associated with nicotine use.⁴

Use of EVPs among youth. The YRBS, which includes a representative sample of public and private school students in grades 9 to 12 in the 50 states, categorizes the use of EVPs as

• ever use
• current use (≥ 1 use during the 30 days before the survey), and
• daily use (during the 30 days before the survey).

In 2021, 36.2% of young people reported ever use of EVPs (40.9% of females; 32.1% of males), 18% reported current use (21.4% of females; 14.9% of males), and 5% reported daily use (5.6% of females; 4.5% of males). Differences between racial and ethnic groups were minor, except for markedly lower rates in Asian youth (19.5% ever use, 5.5% current use, and 1.2% daily use).⁵

Current recommendations. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends education and brief counseling for school-age children and adolescents to prevent them from starting to use tobacco (including use of EVPs).⁶ The USPSTF also recommends tobacco cessation using behavioral interventions and/or pharmacotherapy for those ages 18 years and older.⁷

The USPSTF makes no recommendation on cessation for those younger than 18 years, citing weak evidence. However, it would be reasonable to offer behavioral interventions to younger current users. (Pharmacotherapy is not approved for use in children and adolescents.)

The take-home message. When we ask children and adolescents about use of tobacco products, we need to specifically mention EVPs and advise against their use.

There is good news and bad news regarding the use of tobacco products by young people in the United States, according to the recently released findings from the 2021 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).¹ The use of cigarettes among high school students declined from 36.4% in 1997 to 6.0% in 2019.² However, young people have replaced cigarettes with other tobacco products, including electronic vapor products (EVPs). So we need to ask specifically about these products.

Known by many names. EVPs are referred to as e-cigarettes, vapes, hookah pens, and mods. They usually contain nicotine, which is highly addictive, can affect brain development, and may lead to smoking of cigarettes.³ The most common reasons young people say they use EVPs are feelings of anxiety, stress, and depression, as well as the “high” associated with nicotine use.⁴

Use of EVPs among youth. The YRBS, which includes a representative sample of public and private school students in grades 9 to 12 in the 50 states, categorizes the use of EVPs as

• ever use
• current use (≥ 1 use during the 30 days before the survey), and
• daily use (during the 30 days before the survey).

In 2021, 36.2% of young people reported ever use of EVPs (40.9% of females; 32.1% of males), 18% reported current use (21.4% of females; 14.9% of males), and 5% reported daily use (5.6% of females; 4.5% of males). Differences between racial and ethnic groups were minor, except for markedly lower rates in Asian youth (19.5% ever use, 5.5% current use, and 1.2% daily use).⁵

Current recommendations. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends education and brief counseling for school-age children and adolescents to prevent them from starting to use tobacco (including use of EVPs).⁶ The USPSTF also recommends tobacco cessation using behavioral interventions and/or pharmacotherapy for those ages 18 years and older.⁷

The USPSTF makes no recommendation on cessation for those younger than 18 years, citing weak evidence. However, it would be reasonable to offer behavioral interventions to younger current users. (Pharmacotherapy is not approved for use in children and adolescents.)

The take-home message. When we ask children and adolescents about use of tobacco products, we need to specifically mention EVPs and advise against their use.

There is good news and bad news regarding the use of tobacco products by young people in the United States, according to the recently released findings from the 2021 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).¹ The use of cigarettes among high school students declined from 36.4% in 1997 to 6.0% in 2019.² However, young people have replaced cigarettes with other tobacco products, including electronic vapor products (EVPs). So we need to ask specifically about these products.

Known by many names. EVPs are referred to as e-cigarettes, vapes, hookah pens, and mods. They usually contain nicotine, which is highly addictive, can affect brain development, and may lead to smoking of cigarettes.³ The most common reasons young people say they use EVPs are feelings of anxiety, stress, and depression, as well as the “high” associated with nicotine use.⁴

Use of EVPs among youth. The YRBS, which includes a representative sample of public and private school students in grades 9 to 12 in the 50 states, categorizes the use of EVPs as

• ever use
• current use (≥ 1 use during the 30 days before the survey), and
• daily use (during the 30 days before the survey).

In 2021, 36.2% of young people reported ever use of EVPs (40.9% of females; 32.1% of males), 18% reported current use (21.4% of females; 14.9% of males), and 5% reported daily use (5.6% of females; 4.5% of males). Differences between racial and ethnic groups were minor, except for markedly lower rates in Asian youth (19.5% ever use, 5.5% current use, and 1.2% daily use).⁵

Current recommendations. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends education and brief counseling for school-age children and adolescents to prevent them from starting to use tobacco (including use of EVPs).⁶ The USPSTF also recommends tobacco cessation using behavioral interventions and/or pharmacotherapy for those ages 18 years and older.⁷

The USPSTF makes no recommendation on cessation for those younger than 18 years, citing weak evidence. However, it would be reasonable to offer behavioral interventions to younger current users. (Pharmacotherapy is not approved for use in children and adolescents.)

The take-home message. When we ask children and adolescents about use of tobacco products, we need to specifically mention EVPs and advise against their use.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved extended-release injection buprenorphine (Brixadi, Braeburn) for the treatment of moderate to severe opioid use disorder (OUD).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The medication comes in two formulations: a weekly and a monthly version. The weekly treatment is indicated in patients who have initiated treatment with a single dose of transmucosal buprenorphine or who are already being treated with the drug. The monthly version is for patients already receiving buprenorphine.

“Buprenorphine is an important treatment option for opioid use disorder. Today’s approval expands dosing options and provides people with opioid use disorder a greater opportunity to sustain long-term recovery,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, in a release. “The FDA will continue to take the critical steps necessary to pursue efforts that advance evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders, which is a strategic priority under the FDA’s Overdose Prevention Framework,” Dr. Califf added.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that patients receiving medication for OUD have their risk for all-cause mortality cut by 50%.

In its release, the FDA said that it remains committed to increasing treatment options for OUD. Earlier this month, the agency issued a joint letter with SAMHSA to underscore the importance of counseling and other services as part of a comprehensive treatment plan the disorder. It also emphasized that receiving buprenorphine should not be contingent on participating in such services.

Brixadi is approved in both weekly and monthly subcutaneous injectable formulations at varying doses, including lower doses that may be appropriate for patients who do not tolerate higher doses of extended-release buprenorphine that are currently available.

The drug will be available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program and administered only by health care providers in a health care setting.

The most common adverse reactions associated with the drug include injection-site pain, headache, constipation, nausea, injection-site erythema, injection-site pruritus, insomnia, and urinary tract infections. The FDA reports that such side effects occur in at least 5% of patients.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved extended-release injection buprenorphine (Brixadi, Braeburn) for the treatment of moderate to severe opioid use disorder (OUD).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The medication comes in two formulations: a weekly and a monthly version. The weekly treatment is indicated in patients who have initiated treatment with a single dose of transmucosal buprenorphine or who are already being treated with the drug. The monthly version is for patients already receiving buprenorphine.

“Buprenorphine is an important treatment option for opioid use disorder. Today’s approval expands dosing options and provides people with opioid use disorder a greater opportunity to sustain long-term recovery,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, in a release. “The FDA will continue to take the critical steps necessary to pursue efforts that advance evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders, which is a strategic priority under the FDA’s Overdose Prevention Framework,” Dr. Califf added.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that patients receiving medication for OUD have their risk for all-cause mortality cut by 50%.

In its release, the FDA said that it remains committed to increasing treatment options for OUD. Earlier this month, the agency issued a joint letter with SAMHSA to underscore the importance of counseling and other services as part of a comprehensive treatment plan the disorder. It also emphasized that receiving buprenorphine should not be contingent on participating in such services.

Brixadi is approved in both weekly and monthly subcutaneous injectable formulations at varying doses, including lower doses that may be appropriate for patients who do not tolerate higher doses of extended-release buprenorphine that are currently available.

The drug will be available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program and administered only by health care providers in a health care setting.

The most common adverse reactions associated with the drug include injection-site pain, headache, constipation, nausea, injection-site erythema, injection-site pruritus, insomnia, and urinary tract infections. The FDA reports that such side effects occur in at least 5% of patients.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved extended-release injection buprenorphine (Brixadi, Braeburn) for the treatment of moderate to severe opioid use disorder (OUD).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The medication comes in two formulations: a weekly and a monthly version. The weekly treatment is indicated in patients who have initiated treatment with a single dose of transmucosal buprenorphine or who are already being treated with the drug. The monthly version is for patients already receiving buprenorphine.

“Buprenorphine is an important treatment option for opioid use disorder. Today’s approval expands dosing options and provides people with opioid use disorder a greater opportunity to sustain long-term recovery,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, in a release. “The FDA will continue to take the critical steps necessary to pursue efforts that advance evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders, which is a strategic priority under the FDA’s Overdose Prevention Framework,” Dr. Califf added.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that patients receiving medication for OUD have their risk for all-cause mortality cut by 50%.

In its release, the FDA said that it remains committed to increasing treatment options for OUD. Earlier this month, the agency issued a joint letter with SAMHSA to underscore the importance of counseling and other services as part of a comprehensive treatment plan the disorder. It also emphasized that receiving buprenorphine should not be contingent on participating in such services.

Brixadi is approved in both weekly and monthly subcutaneous injectable formulations at varying doses, including lower doses that may be appropriate for patients who do not tolerate higher doses of extended-release buprenorphine that are currently available.

The drug will be available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program and administered only by health care providers in a health care setting.

The most common adverse reactions associated with the drug include injection-site pain, headache, constipation, nausea, injection-site erythema, injection-site pruritus, insomnia, and urinary tract infections. The FDA reports that such side effects occur in at least 5% of patients.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The surge in drug overdose deaths in the United States during the first 2 years of the pandemic appears to have stabilized, according to newly released figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overdose deaths in 2022 totaled an estimated 109,680 people, which is 2% more than the 107,573 deaths in 2021, according to the figures. But the 2022 total is still a record for the third straight year.

Public health officials are now in a hopeful position. If the 2022 data represents a peak, then the country will see deaths decline toward pre-pandemic levels. If overdose deaths instead have reached a plateau, it means that the United States will sustain the nearly 20% leap that came amid a deadly increase in drug use in 2020 and 2021.

“The fact that it does seem to be flattening out, at least at a national level, is encouraging,” Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, PhD, MPH, told The Associated Press. “But these numbers are still extraordinarily high. We shouldn’t suggest the crisis is in any way over.”

The newly released figures from the CDC are considered estimates because some states may still send updated 2022 information later this year.

Although the number of deaths from 2021 to 2022 was stable on a national level, the picture varied more widely at the state level. More than half of U.S. states saw increases, while deaths in 23 states decreased, and just one – Iowa – had the same number of overdose deaths in 2021 and 2022.

The states with the highest counts in 2022 were:

• California: 11,978 deaths
• Florida: 8,032 deaths
• Texas: 5,607 deaths
• Pennsylvania: 5,222 deaths
• Ohio: 5,103 deaths

Synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and tramadol, account for most drug overdose deaths, according to a December 2022 report from the CDC. 

State officials told The AP that they believe the plateau in overdose deaths is in part due to educational campaigns to warn the public about the dangers of drug use, as well as from expanded addiction treatment and increased access to the overdose-reversal medicine naloxone. 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The surge in drug overdose deaths in the United States during the first 2 years of the pandemic appears to have stabilized, according to newly released figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overdose deaths in 2022 totaled an estimated 109,680 people, which is 2% more than the 107,573 deaths in 2021, according to the figures. But the 2022 total is still a record for the third straight year.

Public health officials are now in a hopeful position. If the 2022 data represents a peak, then the country will see deaths decline toward pre-pandemic levels. If overdose deaths instead have reached a plateau, it means that the United States will sustain the nearly 20% leap that came amid a deadly increase in drug use in 2020 and 2021.

“The fact that it does seem to be flattening out, at least at a national level, is encouraging,” Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, PhD, MPH, told The Associated Press. “But these numbers are still extraordinarily high. We shouldn’t suggest the crisis is in any way over.”

The newly released figures from the CDC are considered estimates because some states may still send updated 2022 information later this year.

Although the number of deaths from 2021 to 2022 was stable on a national level, the picture varied more widely at the state level. More than half of U.S. states saw increases, while deaths in 23 states decreased, and just one – Iowa – had the same number of overdose deaths in 2021 and 2022.

The states with the highest counts in 2022 were:

• California: 11,978 deaths
• Florida: 8,032 deaths
• Texas: 5,607 deaths
• Pennsylvania: 5,222 deaths
• Ohio: 5,103 deaths

Synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and tramadol, account for most drug overdose deaths, according to a December 2022 report from the CDC. 

State officials told The AP that they believe the plateau in overdose deaths is in part due to educational campaigns to warn the public about the dangers of drug use, as well as from expanded addiction treatment and increased access to the overdose-reversal medicine naloxone. 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The surge in drug overdose deaths in the United States during the first 2 years of the pandemic appears to have stabilized, according to newly released figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overdose deaths in 2022 totaled an estimated 109,680 people, which is 2% more than the 107,573 deaths in 2021, according to the figures. But the 2022 total is still a record for the third straight year.

Public health officials are now in a hopeful position. If the 2022 data represents a peak, then the country will see deaths decline toward pre-pandemic levels. If overdose deaths instead have reached a plateau, it means that the United States will sustain the nearly 20% leap that came amid a deadly increase in drug use in 2020 and 2021.

“The fact that it does seem to be flattening out, at least at a national level, is encouraging,” Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, PhD, MPH, told The Associated Press. “But these numbers are still extraordinarily high. We shouldn’t suggest the crisis is in any way over.”

The newly released figures from the CDC are considered estimates because some states may still send updated 2022 information later this year.

Although the number of deaths from 2021 to 2022 was stable on a national level, the picture varied more widely at the state level. More than half of U.S. states saw increases, while deaths in 23 states decreased, and just one – Iowa – had the same number of overdose deaths in 2021 and 2022.

The states with the highest counts in 2022 were:

• California: 11,978 deaths
• Florida: 8,032 deaths
• Texas: 5,607 deaths
• Pennsylvania: 5,222 deaths
• Ohio: 5,103 deaths

Synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and tramadol, account for most drug overdose deaths, according to a December 2022 report from the CDC. 

State officials told The AP that they believe the plateau in overdose deaths is in part due to educational campaigns to warn the public about the dangers of drug use, as well as from expanded addiction treatment and increased access to the overdose-reversal medicine naloxone. 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

Recently, my family had a conversation about the volume of news reports on overdose deaths from the illicit use of opioid drugs—a phenomenon that is complex and stems from many factors. We decided, as a family, that we could have a small impact on the problem. How? By carrying naloxone with us and administering it if we encounter a person with potential opioid overdose. Our decision was made possible by the recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of naloxone nasal spray for over-the-counter use.¹ At a cost of about $50 for 2 nasal sprays, we decided it would be a reasonable price to pay to potentially save a life.

The CDC encourages clinicians to find a balance of the potential benefits and harms and to avoid inflexibility.

Prescribing opioids in clinical practice is a different side of the problem. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that prescription opioids account for about one-quarter of opioid overdose deaths.² This is not trivial, and much effort has gone into addressing how clinicians can do better by their patients. There are training programs and risk-mitigation strategies for opioid prescribing. States have developed prescribing registries to identify patients who receive controlled substances from multiple prescribers, at higher-than-recommended doses, and too early in the pain management process. These efforts have reduced the number of opioid prescriptions and rates of high-dose prescribing (> 90 morphine milligram equivalents). However, that hasn’t translated into a reduction in the number of deaths.²

The article by Posen et al³ in this issue further reminded me how trends in health care, including opioid prescribing, are like a pendulum—swinging from one extreme to the other before eventually centering. I recall conversations with colleagues about how often we undertreated pain—and then later, how relieved we were when new approaches to pain management, using newer opiates, emerged and were reported to be much safer, even for long-term use. We now know the rest of that story: more prescriptions, higher doses, longer duration, addiction, death, and deception by manufacturers.

In our efforts to prevent addiction and decrease opioid deaths, we tried to get patients off opioids completely, thereby increasing demand for addiction therapy, including medication-assisted recovery. This also drove many of our patients to seek opioids from nefarious suppliers, resulting in even more deaths from fentanyl-laced drugs.

At least one positive has arisen from the “no more opioids” movement: We have re-evaluated their true effect on managing pain. Initially, we were told opioids were safe and highly effective—and, having few tools to help our patients, we were ­Pollyanna-ish in accepting this. But many recent studies have demonstrated that using opioids for pain is no more effective than using other analgesics.^4-9 In addition to overdose deaths and addiction, these studies show significantly higher rates of opioid discontinuation due to adverse effects.

We certainly can manage most patients’ pain effectively with other approaches. For some, though—patients whose pain is not adequately controlled and/or interferes with their ability to function, and those who are terminally ill—opioid nihilism has had unintended consequences. Recognizing these issues, the CDC updated its guideline for prescribing opioids in 2022.¹⁰ Four areas were addressed: whether to initiate opioids; opioid selection and dosing; duration of therapy and need for follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. The CDC encourages clinicians to find a balance of the potential benefits and harms and to avoid inflexibility. Finally, the CDC encourages clinicians to identify and treat patients with opioid use disorders.

Clearly, opioid overuse and overdose result from complex medical, economic, and societal factors. Individual clinicians are well equipped to manage things “in their own backyards.” However, what we do can be perceived as a bandage for a much larger problem. Our public health system has the potential for greater impact, but the “cure” will require multimodal solutions addressing many facets of society and government.¹¹ At the very least, we should keep some naloxone close by and vote for political candidates who see broader solutions for addressing this life-and-death crisis.

Recently, my family had a conversation about the volume of news reports on overdose deaths from the illicit use of opioid drugs—a phenomenon that is complex and stems from many factors. We decided, as a family, that we could have a small impact on the problem. How? By carrying naloxone with us and administering it if we encounter a person with potential opioid overdose. Our decision was made possible by the recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of naloxone nasal spray for over-the-counter use.¹ At a cost of about $50 for 2 nasal sprays, we decided it would be a reasonable price to pay to potentially save a life.

The CDC encourages clinicians to find a balance of the potential benefits and harms and to avoid inflexibility.

Prescribing opioids in clinical practice is a different side of the problem. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that prescription opioids account for about one-quarter of opioid overdose deaths.² This is not trivial, and much effort has gone into addressing how clinicians can do better by their patients. There are training programs and risk-mitigation strategies for opioid prescribing. States have developed prescribing registries to identify patients who receive controlled substances from multiple prescribers, at higher-than-recommended doses, and too early in the pain management process. These efforts have reduced the number of opioid prescriptions and rates of high-dose prescribing (> 90 morphine milligram equivalents). However, that hasn’t translated into a reduction in the number of deaths.²

The article by Posen et al³ in this issue further reminded me how trends in health care, including opioid prescribing, are like a pendulum—swinging from one extreme to the other before eventually centering. I recall conversations with colleagues about how often we undertreated pain—and then later, how relieved we were when new approaches to pain management, using newer opiates, emerged and were reported to be much safer, even for long-term use. We now know the rest of that story: more prescriptions, higher doses, longer duration, addiction, death, and deception by manufacturers.

In our efforts to prevent addiction and decrease opioid deaths, we tried to get patients off opioids completely, thereby increasing demand for addiction therapy, including medication-assisted recovery. This also drove many of our patients to seek opioids from nefarious suppliers, resulting in even more deaths from fentanyl-laced drugs.

At least one positive has arisen from the “no more opioids” movement: We have re-evaluated their true effect on managing pain. Initially, we were told opioids were safe and highly effective—and, having few tools to help our patients, we were ­Pollyanna-ish in accepting this. But many recent studies have demonstrated that using opioids for pain is no more effective than using other analgesics.^4-9 In addition to overdose deaths and addiction, these studies show significantly higher rates of opioid discontinuation due to adverse effects.

We certainly can manage most patients’ pain effectively with other approaches. For some, though—patients whose pain is not adequately controlled and/or interferes with their ability to function, and those who are terminally ill—opioid nihilism has had unintended consequences. Recognizing these issues, the CDC updated its guideline for prescribing opioids in 2022.¹⁰ Four areas were addressed: whether to initiate opioids; opioid selection and dosing; duration of therapy and need for follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. The CDC encourages clinicians to find a balance of the potential benefits and harms and to avoid inflexibility. Finally, the CDC encourages clinicians to identify and treat patients with opioid use disorders.

Clearly, opioid overuse and overdose result from complex medical, economic, and societal factors. Individual clinicians are well equipped to manage things “in their own backyards.” However, what we do can be perceived as a bandage for a much larger problem. Our public health system has the potential for greater impact, but the “cure” will require multimodal solutions addressing many facets of society and government.¹¹ At the very least, we should keep some naloxone close by and vote for political candidates who see broader solutions for addressing this life-and-death crisis.

Recently, my family had a conversation about the volume of news reports on overdose deaths from the illicit use of opioid drugs—a phenomenon that is complex and stems from many factors. We decided, as a family, that we could have a small impact on the problem. How? By carrying naloxone with us and administering it if we encounter a person with potential opioid overdose. Our decision was made possible by the recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of naloxone nasal spray for over-the-counter use.¹ At a cost of about $50 for 2 nasal sprays, we decided it would be a reasonable price to pay to potentially save a life.

The CDC encourages clinicians to find a balance of the potential benefits and harms and to avoid inflexibility.

Prescribing opioids in clinical practice is a different side of the problem. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that prescription opioids account for about one-quarter of opioid overdose deaths.² This is not trivial, and much effort has gone into addressing how clinicians can do better by their patients. There are training programs and risk-mitigation strategies for opioid prescribing. States have developed prescribing registries to identify patients who receive controlled substances from multiple prescribers, at higher-than-recommended doses, and too early in the pain management process. These efforts have reduced the number of opioid prescriptions and rates of high-dose prescribing (> 90 morphine milligram equivalents). However, that hasn’t translated into a reduction in the number of deaths.²

The article by Posen et al³ in this issue further reminded me how trends in health care, including opioid prescribing, are like a pendulum—swinging from one extreme to the other before eventually centering. I recall conversations with colleagues about how often we undertreated pain—and then later, how relieved we were when new approaches to pain management, using newer opiates, emerged and were reported to be much safer, even for long-term use. We now know the rest of that story: more prescriptions, higher doses, longer duration, addiction, death, and deception by manufacturers.

In our efforts to prevent addiction and decrease opioid deaths, we tried to get patients off opioids completely, thereby increasing demand for addiction therapy, including medication-assisted recovery. This also drove many of our patients to seek opioids from nefarious suppliers, resulting in even more deaths from fentanyl-laced drugs.

At least one positive has arisen from the “no more opioids” movement: We have re-evaluated their true effect on managing pain. Initially, we were told opioids were safe and highly effective—and, having few tools to help our patients, we were ­Pollyanna-ish in accepting this. But many recent studies have demonstrated that using opioids for pain is no more effective than using other analgesics.^4-9 In addition to overdose deaths and addiction, these studies show significantly higher rates of opioid discontinuation due to adverse effects.

We certainly can manage most patients’ pain effectively with other approaches. For some, though—patients whose pain is not adequately controlled and/or interferes with their ability to function, and those who are terminally ill—opioid nihilism has had unintended consequences. Recognizing these issues, the CDC updated its guideline for prescribing opioids in 2022.¹⁰ Four areas were addressed: whether to initiate opioids; opioid selection and dosing; duration of therapy and need for follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. The CDC encourages clinicians to find a balance of the potential benefits and harms and to avoid inflexibility. Finally, the CDC encourages clinicians to identify and treat patients with opioid use disorders.

Clearly, opioid overuse and overdose result from complex medical, economic, and societal factors. Individual clinicians are well equipped to manage things “in their own backyards.” However, what we do can be perceived as a bandage for a much larger problem. Our public health system has the potential for greater impact, but the “cure” will require multimodal solutions addressing many facets of society and government.¹¹ At the very least, we should keep some naloxone close by and vote for political candidates who see broader solutions for addressing this life-and-death crisis.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced new action to address ongoing concerns about misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose of prescription stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

“The current prescribing information for some prescription stimulants does not provide up-to-date warnings about the harms of misuse and abuse, and particularly that most individuals who misuse prescription stimulants get their drugs from other family members or peers,” the FDA said in a drug safety communication.

Going forward, updated drug labels will clearly state that patients should never share their prescription stimulants with anyone, and the boxed warning will describe the risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose consistently for all medicines in the class, the FDA said.

The boxed warning will also advise heath care professionals to monitor patients closely for signs and symptoms of misuse, abuse, and addiction.

Patient medication guides will be updated to educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

The FDA encourages prescribers to assess patient risk of misuse, abuse, and addiction before prescribing a stimulant and to counsel patients not to share the medication.
 

Friends and family

A recent literature review by the FDA found that friends and family members are the most common source of prescription stimulant misuse and abuse (nonmedical use). Estimates of such use range from 56% to 80%.

Misuse/abuse of a patient’s own prescription make up 10%-20% of people who report nonmedical stimulant use.

Less commonly reported sources include drug dealers or strangers (4%-7% of people who report nonmedical use) and the Internet (1%-2%).

The groups at highest risk for misuse/abuse of prescription stimulants are young adults aged 18-25 years, college students, and adolescents and young adults who have been diagnosed with ADHD, the FDA said.

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, prescriptions for stimulants increased 10% among older children and adults.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced new action to address ongoing concerns about misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose of prescription stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

“The current prescribing information for some prescription stimulants does not provide up-to-date warnings about the harms of misuse and abuse, and particularly that most individuals who misuse prescription stimulants get their drugs from other family members or peers,” the FDA said in a drug safety communication.

Going forward, updated drug labels will clearly state that patients should never share their prescription stimulants with anyone, and the boxed warning will describe the risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose consistently for all medicines in the class, the FDA said.

The boxed warning will also advise heath care professionals to monitor patients closely for signs and symptoms of misuse, abuse, and addiction.

Patient medication guides will be updated to educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

The FDA encourages prescribers to assess patient risk of misuse, abuse, and addiction before prescribing a stimulant and to counsel patients not to share the medication.
 

Friends and family

A recent literature review by the FDA found that friends and family members are the most common source of prescription stimulant misuse and abuse (nonmedical use). Estimates of such use range from 56% to 80%.

Misuse/abuse of a patient’s own prescription make up 10%-20% of people who report nonmedical stimulant use.

Less commonly reported sources include drug dealers or strangers (4%-7% of people who report nonmedical use) and the Internet (1%-2%).

The groups at highest risk for misuse/abuse of prescription stimulants are young adults aged 18-25 years, college students, and adolescents and young adults who have been diagnosed with ADHD, the FDA said.

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, prescriptions for stimulants increased 10% among older children and adults.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced new action to address ongoing concerns about misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose of prescription stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

“The current prescribing information for some prescription stimulants does not provide up-to-date warnings about the harms of misuse and abuse, and particularly that most individuals who misuse prescription stimulants get their drugs from other family members or peers,” the FDA said in a drug safety communication.

Going forward, updated drug labels will clearly state that patients should never share their prescription stimulants with anyone, and the boxed warning will describe the risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose consistently for all medicines in the class, the FDA said.

The boxed warning will also advise heath care professionals to monitor patients closely for signs and symptoms of misuse, abuse, and addiction.

Patient medication guides will be updated to educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

The FDA encourages prescribers to assess patient risk of misuse, abuse, and addiction before prescribing a stimulant and to counsel patients not to share the medication.
 

Friends and family

A recent literature review by the FDA found that friends and family members are the most common source of prescription stimulant misuse and abuse (nonmedical use). Estimates of such use range from 56% to 80%.

Misuse/abuse of a patient’s own prescription make up 10%-20% of people who report nonmedical stimulant use.

Less commonly reported sources include drug dealers or strangers (4%-7% of people who report nonmedical use) and the Internet (1%-2%).

The groups at highest risk for misuse/abuse of prescription stimulants are young adults aged 18-25 years, college students, and adolescents and young adults who have been diagnosed with ADHD, the FDA said.

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, prescriptions for stimulants increased 10% among older children and adults.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medication-assisted recovery (MAR)—the preferred terminology for the service formerly known as medication­-assisted treatment—entails a comprehensive set of interventions for managing opioid use disorder (OUD), including medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Despite the benefits of MAR—reducing opioid use, opioid-related mortality, and health care costs^1-3—only 11% of patients with a diagnosis of OUD received MOUD in 2020.³

When medication-assisted recovery services are rendered in primary care, treatment retention improves by 25%—highlighting a role for family medicine clinicians in treating OUD.

Primary care physicians, including family physicians, are well positioned to provide MAR across the patient’s lifespan. However, many family medicine clinicians do not possess the logistical knowledge or resources to implement this service.⁴ In this article, we describe options for, and barriers to, MAR and societal issues that have an impact on the care of these patients.

Pathophysiology of OUD

Opioids relieve pain by stimulating μ-opioid receptors and activating the brain’s reward system. These pleasurable effects motivate repeated use.⁵ Frequent opioid exposure causes neuroadaptation, tolerance, and dependence. For patients with OUD who are misusing illicit or prescription opioids, periods of abstinence following neuroadaptation lead to withdrawal symptoms that vary in intensity, depending on the drug, dose, and duration of use. Upregulated noradrenergic tone and dopamine deficiency manifest as numerous signs and symptoms of withdrawal, including⁵:

• Physiologic: secretory (diaphoresis, rhinorrhea, lacrimation, vomiting, diarrhea) and stimulatory (mydriasis, piloerection, hypertension, tachycardia, insomnia)
• Psychological: pain, cravings, dysphoria, anxiety.

A single episode of opioid withdrawal is not directly life-threatening, but untreated episodes can progressively amplify negative feedback and reinforce continued opioid use.⁶ Left untreated, withdrawal can be terminal.

Image: Copyright Joe Gorman

Medication-assisted recovery: Effective intervention

MAR services that integrate medical, behavioral, and psychosocial programs can reduce mortality from OUD 2-fold.^7,8 A meta-analysis found that, when MAR services are rendered in primary care, treatment retention improves by 25% (number needed to treat [NNT] = 6) and ongoing illicit opioid use is reduced by 50% (NNT = 6), relative to care at a specialty clinic⁹—highlighting a role for family medicine clinicians in treating OUD.

All 3 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved MOUD (methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) reduce cravings; 2 (methadone and buprenorphine) mitigate withdrawal symptoms by activating the μ-opioid receptor; and naltrexone diminishes the reinforcing effects of use (TABLE^10-12). It is crucial to recognize the pharmacologic distinctions among MOUD because untreated withdrawal syndromes increase dropout from treatment programs and subsequent relapse.¹³

The Hx of medication-assisted recovery

To understand the landscape of MAR, it is important to understand the history of opioid treatment in the United States. In 1966, Congress passed the Narcotic Addiction Rehabilitation Act (NARA), which secured federal assistance by which state and local governments could develop drug treatment programs.¹⁴ NARA permitted legal offenders with OUD to be civilly committed to treatment programs, rather than prosecuted. However, limited resources and a burgeoning population led, instead, to low-cost outpatient programs saddled by strict requirements that lacked a basis for improving clinical outcomes.

Continue to: At the time NARA...

At the time NARA was passed by Congress, OUD was viewed—inaccurately—as a criminal problem, not a medical one. Subsequent legislation was crafted through that lens, which has placed a heavy burden on patients until today.¹⁴ Although medical understanding of OUD has advanced tremendously over the past 50 years, treatment remains siloed from mainstream medicine, even in primary care.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to MAR, and relapse is common. Patient-specific factors and the availability of resources should be considered when designing the most individualized, advantageous plan for MAR.

Methadone

Background. Methadone has the most extensive history for treating OUD and consistently has demonstrated efficacy.¹³ A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing methadone to nonpharmacotherapy alone found that methadone improved treatment retention by an absolute 57% (NNT = 2).¹⁰

Methadone was approved by the FDA for detoxification and maintenance treatment in the early 1970s, although the Narcotic Addict Treatment Act (NATA) of 1974 restricted dispensing of maintenance treatment to highly regulated clinics known as opioid treatment programs (OTPs).¹⁴ NATA required the treating physician to register with the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and to comply with conservative dosing regimens and observed dosing.

Over time, regulations evolved to give the physician greater flexibility in developing a care plan, allowing “take-home” doses, and improving patients’ access to care. Although access to methadone for the treatment of OUD remains limited to federally certified OTPs, regulations facilitate incorporation of a whole-person approach to care, including counseling, individual and group therapy, and toxicology testing.⁷

Continue to: Clinical considerations

Clinical considerations. Methadone requires slow titration. For patients starting methadone as an outpatient, federal law¹⁵ limits the initial dose to 30 mg and requires physician documentation when the first-day total dosage exceeds 40 mg. This dosing constraint makes it challenging to provide care because a daily dosage ≥ 60 mg has been found to produce, first, higher program retention (relative risk = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63) and, second, greater reduction in illicit opioid use (relative risk = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.16-2.18) than is seen in patients who receive a lower daily dosage.¹⁶

Due to a prolonged elimination half-life, methadone reaches steady-state in 3 to 5 days. Patients and their families should be educated that withdrawal symptoms might not feel fully managed in the first few days of therapy and that time is required to experience safely the regimen’s full effects.

Aggressive dose-titration during methadone induction can result in drug accumulation and respiratory depression. The risk for methadone-related mortality is highest in the first 2 weeks of therapy, mostly related to overdose potential if the drug is combined with other opioids.¹⁷

Buprenorphine

Background. The prescribing rate for buprenorphine, particularly in primary care, is accelerating.¹⁸ A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that¹¹:

• compared to placebo, buprenorphine, at any dosage, improves treatment retention by an absolute 21% to 28% (NNT = 4-5)
• patients receiving high-dose buprenorphine (≥ 16 mg/d) had fewer evident cases of illicit opioid use.

Unlike methadone, buprenorphine exerts partial agonism at the μ-opioid receptor, resulting in a so-called ceiling effect that significantly reduces the adverse effect profile, including respiratory depression and euphoria, relative to a full-agonist opioid, such as methadone.¹⁹

Continue to: Whereas accessing methadone...

Whereas accessing methadone is limited to OTPs, buprenorphine is available for office-based treatment. By hosting OUD treatment and primary care in the same place, primary care physicians can provide comprehensive medical care including and beyond OUD, thereby improving retention and managing comorbidity.²⁰

Integrated models involving support staff—eg, nurses, behavioral health providers, and pharmacists—have produced the greatest success with office-based treatment models.²¹ Office-based treatment normalizes OUD as a chronic disease managed by the primary care physician, enabling concurrent harm-reduction strategies; medication reconciliation; and convenient, regular prescribing intervals (eg, every 30 days).²²
Nevertheless, access to buprenorphine is limited. Because buprenorphine is a controlled substance, the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 prevents initial prescribing of buprenorphine without in-person evaluation. Telehealth consultations increased access to buprenorphine through temporary exceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, revised rules and regulations for telehealth visits for these controlled substances are forthcoming from the DEA as temporary exceptions for telehealth consultations come to an end. Additionally, prescribing buprenorphine for OUD requires that the treating physician undergo specific training and obtain qualifications, which have evolved over time through federal legislation.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) authorized what is known as an X-waiver, which allows physicians to prescribe controlled substances for office-based treatment of OUD, provided that:

• they are registered to do so with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the DEA
• they have had subspecialty training in addiction or completed an 8-hour training course
• they are able to refer patients to appropriate counseling and ancillary services.

DATA 2000 restricted patient panel sizes­ to 30 patients in the first year, expanding thereafter upon appropriate certification.

Although medical understanding of OUD has advanced tremendously over the past 50 years, treatment remains siloed from mainstream medicine, even in primary care.

The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) and the Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act of 2018 (the SUPPORT Act) collectively extended prescribing authority for MOUD to other qualifying practitioners (eg, advanced practice clinicians). Despite these attempts to expand access to services, the overdose death rate has continued to increase.

Continue to: To further expand access to MAR...

To further expand access to MAR, the US Department of Health and Human Services updated its practice guidelines in April 2021, allowing clinicians to bypass X-waiver training requirements by applying for a notification-of-intent (NOI) buprenorphine waiver.^a However, clinicians are still limited to prescribing buprenorphine for 30 patients at a time. Clinicians who undergo complete X-waiver training may prescribe for 100 patients in the first year and, if eligible, 275 patients thereafter.

In addition, as a component of the Consolidation Appropriations Act of 2023, Congress passed the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment Act of 2021, or MAT 2021, and Medication Access and Training Expansion Act of 2021, or MATE 2021. MAT eliminated the X-waiver, NOI, and restrictions on the number of patients for whom a provider could prescribe buprenorphine, under federal authority; however, restrictions within one’s state might limit the ability to prescribe buprenorphine. MATE 2021 is an educational requirement for licensing by the DEA (at application and renewal) that will require prescribers to complete 8 hours of training in substance use disorders starting in June 2023.

Patients and their families should be educated that withdrawal symptoms might not feel fully managed in the first few days of methadone therapy.

Use of the monthly injectable extended-release buprenorphine product^b is limited by an FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, which requires specialized training and certification by the prescriber, distributor, and administering clinician. REMS reduces buprenorphine accessibility due to time, cost, and regulatory barriers; although such restrictions have been instituted with the patient’s safety in mind, any limitation to buprenorphine prescribing, apart from controlled substance licensure, serves only to limit access to a primary component of MAR.

Clinical considerations. Due to the competitive nature of buprenorphine and its high affinity for the μ-opioid receptor, the drug can displace other opioid agonists and precipitate acute withdrawal. The withdrawal experience can thereby condition fear and disfavor toward buprenorphine among patients.

It is vital, therefore, that (1) patients’ expectations for treatment be managed appropriately and (2) the treating physician be prepared to provide additional buprenorphine for adequate maintenance doses and utilize adjunct comfort agents (clonidine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ondansetron) to manage acute withdrawal symptoms. Newer buprenorphine dosing strategies, such as micro-induction and macro-­induction, have emerged to curtail these risks.^23,24 This is an evolving area of MAR; newer low-threshold initiation strategies²⁵ (see “Low-threshold MOUD prescribing models,” in the text that follows) and evidence that supports micro-induction²⁶ might eliminate the practice of requiring active withdrawal for treatment.

Continue to: Regardless of the strategy...

Regardless of the strategy for dosing buprenorphine, it’s critical that patients be educated on how to initiate treatment outside a clinical setting, such as at home, where they occupy a familiar haven during a potentially uncomfortable time and can be as effective at initiation as they would be in a clinical setting, with no difference in precipitation of adverse effects.

At-home induction might be more appropriate for patients who are not yet in significant enough withdrawal while in the physician's office.²⁷ Guidance should be provided on dosing instructions, self-assessment of withdrawal­ symptoms, and, if applicable, patience with the slow-dissolving sublingual tablet or film formulation.

Naltrexone

Background. Naltrexone is available as an oral tablet and an extended-release, once-monthly intramuscular injection; the latter has demonstrated superiority in MAR.²⁸ Oral naltrexone has limited supporting evidence, is inferior to other MOUD options, and should not be used to treat OUD.⁷ Altogether, approval of naltrexone for OUD is controversial, due to potentially unethical trials and approval processes,²⁹ although a multicenter randomized controlled trial demonstrated the drug’s noninferiority with respect to treatment retention relative to buprenorphine.³⁰ Used over time, naltrexone does not relieve withdrawal symptoms but can reduce cravings.

Clinical considerations. There are numerous clinical barriers that limit the use of naltrexone.

First, patients should be abstinent from opioids for 7 to 14 days prior to starting therapy; usually, this means undergoing medically supervised withdrawal in a controlled environment. This is an obvious limitation for patients who are constrained financially—those who lack, or have inadequate, health insurance or are unable to be away from their job for an extended time.

Continue to: Second, because naltrexone...

Second, because naltrexone does not address withdrawal symptoms, supportive therapies should be incorporated into the treatment plan, including:

• clonidine for hyperadrenergic symptoms (anxiety, diaphoresis, hypertension)
• nonopioid analgesics for pain
• antiemetics, such as ondansetron and metoclopramide, for nausea or vomiting
• loperamide for diarrhea
• diphenhydramine for insomnia.

Third, patients taking naltrexone have a diminished response to opioids. This complicates pain management in the event of an emergent surgical procedure.

Last, when naltrexone wears off, patients are effectively opioid-naïve, which increases the risk for overdose in those who stop therapy abruptly.²⁹ The increased risk for overdose should be communicated to all patients with OUD who are being treated with naltrexone.

This nonopioid option is appealing to policymakers and is often prioritized in the criminal justice system; however, the decreased efficacy of naltrexone (compared to methadone and buprenorphine), potential for overdose, and challenges in initiating treatment are concerning and limit the drug’s use in many real-world settings.

Because naltrexone is not a controlled substance, regulations regarding maintaining inventory and distribution are more flexible.

Continue to: Overall, the cost-effectiveness...

Overall, the cost-effectiveness of intramuscular naltrexone is unclear. State-administered insurance programs vary in their requirements for coverage of naltrexone treatment.³¹

Comprehensive medication reconciliation is vital

Overall fragmentation of care within OTPs places patients at risk for adverse events, such as drug interactions.³² Under Title 42 of the US Code,³³ patients must provide written consent for an OTP provider to disclose their history of a substance use disorder. Allowing the patient to decide which medical providers can access their treatment records for an OUD benefits patient confidentiality but poses­ numerous issues worth exploring.

All prescribed controlled substances are recorded in the prescription drug monitoring program, or PDMP, a state-level electronic database accessible to health care professionals to inform prescribing decisions and identify drug interactions. The PDMP has substantially reduced opioid overprescribing and improved identification of patients at risk for overdose or misuse of opioids.

Buprenorphine, available for office-based treatment, has a so-called ceiling effect that reduces the adverse effect profile, including respiratory depression and euphoria.

Unlike all other controlled substances, however, prescriptions ordered by an OTP are not recorded in the PDMP (although there are recent exceptions to this scenario). Without such information, a physician might not have important information about the patient when making medical decisions—placing the patient at risk for harmful outcomes, such as drug–drug and drug–disease interactions.

For example: Methadone is associated with a prolonged QT interval,³⁴ increasing the risk for a fatal arrhythmia. Concurrent QT-prolonging medications, such as azithromycin and citalopram, further increase this risk.³⁵ Because methadone dispensing is isolated from the patient’s medical record, the clinician who prescribes MOUD has an incomplete patient history and could make a potentially fatal treatment decision.

Continue to: Diversion is unlikely

Diversion is unlikely

Health care providers often express concern about diversion in MOUD. However, misuse and diversion rates of methadone and buprenorphine have declined steadily since 2011, and, in fact, are actually lower than the diversion rate of prescription antibiotics.³⁶

Regardless, diversion of buprenorphine should not be a concern for physicians prescribing MOUD. Although a prescriber might worry about manipulation of the formulation of buprenorphine for intravenous administration, addition of naloxone to buprenorphine in tablet form diminishes the potential for overdose. Additionally, the ceiling effect of buprenorphine limits the likelihood of significant respiratory depression and euphoria.

Should buprenorphine reach a patient for whom it was not prescribed, it is highly unlikely that an overdose would result. Rather, the medication would protect against the effects of illicit opioids and relieve withdrawal symptoms. Most people with OUD who have misused buprenorphine have done so to relieve withdrawal symptoms,³⁷ not to experience intoxication.

Health care deserts

So-called health care deserts in parts of the United States are an ongoing problem that disproportionately affects lower-income and segregated Black and Hispanic communities³⁸—communities that shoulder the highest burden of OUD and OUD-related mortality³⁹ and whose populace is in greatest need of MAR. Even when health care is accessible in such a desert, some clinicians and pharmacies refuse to prescribe or dispense MOUD because of the accompanying stigma of OUD.

Prescribing buprenorphine for OUD requires that the treating physician undergo specific training, including subspecialty training in addiction or an 8-hour training course.

A MAR desert, like a pharmacy desert, is a geographic region—one without access to a MAR or an OTP provider, thereby preventing patients from reaching appropriate care; for some patients, having to travel to the nearest provider can render treatment inaccessible.⁴⁰

Continue to: Efforts are in place to identify...

Efforts are in place to identify areas at greatest need of OUD-related medical services, such as heat maps that identify areas of increased utilization of emergency medical services for opioid overdose. State-run programs have been implemented to increase access, such as the Illinois Helpline (https://helplineil.org) that provides support and resources for patients, friends, family, and providers.

Novel solutions

Key strategies to increase access to care and slow the opioid epidemic include low-threshold prescribing of MOUD and mobile OTPs.⁴¹

Low-threshold MOUD prescribing models. Adoption of one of these models in a medical practice that provides MAR might increase absolute enrollment. A low-threshold prescribing model involves⁴²:

• same-day treatment
• leniency with respect to abstinence periods and a concomitant substance use disorder
• enhanced accessibility to MOUD through nontraditional medical settings.

Do not use oral naltrexone to treat OUD; this route of administration has limited supporting evidence.

Low-threshold prescribing is flexible in regard to patients’ needs and bypasses many of the barriers discussed in this article. Impressive multicenter success has been achieved by the CA Bridge program in California (https://cabridge.org), including an increase in recognition of OUD, treatment initiations, and outpatient engagement.²⁵

The cost-effectiveness of low-threshold MOUD prescribing programs remains to be determined.

Mobile OTPs. In July 2021, the DEA authorized a mobile component to existing OTP registrants that is permitted to dispense methadone and buprenorphine. Mobile units are physically separate from the OTP but have similar functions, depending on available space. Services that cannot be provided on the mobile unit of an OTP must be available at its brick-and-mortar location.⁷ Logistically, OTP registrants no longer need a separate registration to implement a mobile unit, thus expanding care to patients in underserved or remote areas who often encounter barriers to access.⁴³

Conclusion

Understanding the distinct clinical and accessibility benefits and limitations among available MOUD is essential for prescribing clinicians. Accessing treatment is limited by federal regulation, stigma, and the existence of health care deserts that limit access to necessary care for patients with OUD. Newer harm-reduction models, such as low-threshold prescribing and mobile OTPs, represent progress, but many patients remain untreated.

a At buprenorphine.samhsa.gov/forms/select-practitioner-type.php

b Sold under the brand name Sublocade.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jennie B. Jarrett, PharmD, MMedEd, Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Illinois Chicago College of Pharmacy, 833 South Wood Street (MC 886), Chicago, IL 60612; [email protected]

Medication-assisted recovery (MAR)—the preferred terminology for the service formerly known as medication­-assisted treatment—entails a comprehensive set of interventions for managing opioid use disorder (OUD), including medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Despite the benefits of MAR—reducing opioid use, opioid-related mortality, and health care costs^1-3—only 11% of patients with a diagnosis of OUD received MOUD in 2020.³

When medication-assisted recovery services are rendered in primary care, treatment retention improves by 25%—highlighting a role for family medicine clinicians in treating OUD.

Primary care physicians, including family physicians, are well positioned to provide MAR across the patient’s lifespan. However, many family medicine clinicians do not possess the logistical knowledge or resources to implement this service.⁴ In this article, we describe options for, and barriers to, MAR and societal issues that have an impact on the care of these patients.

Pathophysiology of OUD

Opioids relieve pain by stimulating μ-opioid receptors and activating the brain’s reward system. These pleasurable effects motivate repeated use.⁵ Frequent opioid exposure causes neuroadaptation, tolerance, and dependence. For patients with OUD who are misusing illicit or prescription opioids, periods of abstinence following neuroadaptation lead to withdrawal symptoms that vary in intensity, depending on the drug, dose, and duration of use. Upregulated noradrenergic tone and dopamine deficiency manifest as numerous signs and symptoms of withdrawal, including⁵:

• Physiologic: secretory (diaphoresis, rhinorrhea, lacrimation, vomiting, diarrhea) and stimulatory (mydriasis, piloerection, hypertension, tachycardia, insomnia)
• Psychological: pain, cravings, dysphoria, anxiety.

A single episode of opioid withdrawal is not directly life-threatening, but untreated episodes can progressively amplify negative feedback and reinforce continued opioid use.⁶ Left untreated, withdrawal can be terminal.

Image: Copyright Joe Gorman

Medication-assisted recovery: Effective intervention

MAR services that integrate medical, behavioral, and psychosocial programs can reduce mortality from OUD 2-fold.^7,8 A meta-analysis found that, when MAR services are rendered in primary care, treatment retention improves by 25% (number needed to treat [NNT] = 6) and ongoing illicit opioid use is reduced by 50% (NNT = 6), relative to care at a specialty clinic⁹—highlighting a role for family medicine clinicians in treating OUD.

All 3 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved MOUD (methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) reduce cravings; 2 (methadone and buprenorphine) mitigate withdrawal symptoms by activating the μ-opioid receptor; and naltrexone diminishes the reinforcing effects of use (TABLE^10-12). It is crucial to recognize the pharmacologic distinctions among MOUD because untreated withdrawal syndromes increase dropout from treatment programs and subsequent relapse.¹³

The Hx of medication-assisted recovery

To understand the landscape of MAR, it is important to understand the history of opioid treatment in the United States. In 1966, Congress passed the Narcotic Addiction Rehabilitation Act (NARA), which secured federal assistance by which state and local governments could develop drug treatment programs.¹⁴ NARA permitted legal offenders with OUD to be civilly committed to treatment programs, rather than prosecuted. However, limited resources and a burgeoning population led, instead, to low-cost outpatient programs saddled by strict requirements that lacked a basis for improving clinical outcomes.

Continue to: At the time NARA...

At the time NARA was passed by Congress, OUD was viewed—inaccurately—as a criminal problem, not a medical one. Subsequent legislation was crafted through that lens, which has placed a heavy burden on patients until today.¹⁴ Although medical understanding of OUD has advanced tremendously over the past 50 years, treatment remains siloed from mainstream medicine, even in primary care.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to MAR, and relapse is common. Patient-specific factors and the availability of resources should be considered when designing the most individualized, advantageous plan for MAR.

Methadone

Background. Methadone has the most extensive history for treating OUD and consistently has demonstrated efficacy.¹³ A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing methadone to nonpharmacotherapy alone found that methadone improved treatment retention by an absolute 57% (NNT = 2).¹⁰

Methadone was approved by the FDA for detoxification and maintenance treatment in the early 1970s, although the Narcotic Addict Treatment Act (NATA) of 1974 restricted dispensing of maintenance treatment to highly regulated clinics known as opioid treatment programs (OTPs).¹⁴ NATA required the treating physician to register with the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and to comply with conservative dosing regimens and observed dosing.

Over time, regulations evolved to give the physician greater flexibility in developing a care plan, allowing “take-home” doses, and improving patients’ access to care. Although access to methadone for the treatment of OUD remains limited to federally certified OTPs, regulations facilitate incorporation of a whole-person approach to care, including counseling, individual and group therapy, and toxicology testing.⁷

Continue to: Clinical considerations

Clinical considerations. Methadone requires slow titration. For patients starting methadone as an outpatient, federal law¹⁵ limits the initial dose to 30 mg and requires physician documentation when the first-day total dosage exceeds 40 mg. This dosing constraint makes it challenging to provide care because a daily dosage ≥ 60 mg has been found to produce, first, higher program retention (relative risk = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63) and, second, greater reduction in illicit opioid use (relative risk = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.16-2.18) than is seen in patients who receive a lower daily dosage.¹⁶

Due to a prolonged elimination half-life, methadone reaches steady-state in 3 to 5 days. Patients and their families should be educated that withdrawal symptoms might not feel fully managed in the first few days of therapy and that time is required to experience safely the regimen’s full effects.

Aggressive dose-titration during methadone induction can result in drug accumulation and respiratory depression. The risk for methadone-related mortality is highest in the first 2 weeks of therapy, mostly related to overdose potential if the drug is combined with other opioids.¹⁷

Buprenorphine

Background. The prescribing rate for buprenorphine, particularly in primary care, is accelerating.¹⁸ A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that¹¹:

• compared to placebo, buprenorphine, at any dosage, improves treatment retention by an absolute 21% to 28% (NNT = 4-5)
• patients receiving high-dose buprenorphine (≥ 16 mg/d) had fewer evident cases of illicit opioid use.

Unlike methadone, buprenorphine exerts partial agonism at the μ-opioid receptor, resulting in a so-called ceiling effect that significantly reduces the adverse effect profile, including respiratory depression and euphoria, relative to a full-agonist opioid, such as methadone.¹⁹

Continue to: Whereas accessing methadone...

Whereas accessing methadone is limited to OTPs, buprenorphine is available for office-based treatment. By hosting OUD treatment and primary care in the same place, primary care physicians can provide comprehensive medical care including and beyond OUD, thereby improving retention and managing comorbidity.²⁰

Integrated models involving support staff—eg, nurses, behavioral health providers, and pharmacists—have produced the greatest success with office-based treatment models.²¹ Office-based treatment normalizes OUD as a chronic disease managed by the primary care physician, enabling concurrent harm-reduction strategies; medication reconciliation; and convenient, regular prescribing intervals (eg, every 30 days).²²
Nevertheless, access to buprenorphine is limited. Because buprenorphine is a controlled substance, the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 prevents initial prescribing of buprenorphine without in-person evaluation. Telehealth consultations increased access to buprenorphine through temporary exceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, revised rules and regulations for telehealth visits for these controlled substances are forthcoming from the DEA as temporary exceptions for telehealth consultations come to an end. Additionally, prescribing buprenorphine for OUD requires that the treating physician undergo specific training and obtain qualifications, which have evolved over time through federal legislation.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) authorized what is known as an X-waiver, which allows physicians to prescribe controlled substances for office-based treatment of OUD, provided that:

• they are registered to do so with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the DEA
• they have had subspecialty training in addiction or completed an 8-hour training course
• they are able to refer patients to appropriate counseling and ancillary services.

DATA 2000 restricted patient panel sizes­ to 30 patients in the first year, expanding thereafter upon appropriate certification.

Although medical understanding of OUD has advanced tremendously over the past 50 years, treatment remains siloed from mainstream medicine, even in primary care.

The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) and the Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act of 2018 (the SUPPORT Act) collectively extended prescribing authority for MOUD to other qualifying practitioners (eg, advanced practice clinicians). Despite these attempts to expand access to services, the overdose death rate has continued to increase.

Continue to: To further expand access to MAR...

To further expand access to MAR, the US Department of Health and Human Services updated its practice guidelines in April 2021, allowing clinicians to bypass X-waiver training requirements by applying for a notification-of-intent (NOI) buprenorphine waiver.^a However, clinicians are still limited to prescribing buprenorphine for 30 patients at a time. Clinicians who undergo complete X-waiver training may prescribe for 100 patients in the first year and, if eligible, 275 patients thereafter.

In addition, as a component of the Consolidation Appropriations Act of 2023, Congress passed the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment Act of 2021, or MAT 2021, and Medication Access and Training Expansion Act of 2021, or MATE 2021. MAT eliminated the X-waiver, NOI, and restrictions on the number of patients for whom a provider could prescribe buprenorphine, under federal authority; however, restrictions within one’s state might limit the ability to prescribe buprenorphine. MATE 2021 is an educational requirement for licensing by the DEA (at application and renewal) that will require prescribers to complete 8 hours of training in substance use disorders starting in June 2023.

Patients and their families should be educated that withdrawal symptoms might not feel fully managed in the first few days of methadone therapy.

Use of the monthly injectable extended-release buprenorphine product^b is limited by an FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, which requires specialized training and certification by the prescriber, distributor, and administering clinician. REMS reduces buprenorphine accessibility due to time, cost, and regulatory barriers; although such restrictions have been instituted with the patient’s safety in mind, any limitation to buprenorphine prescribing, apart from controlled substance licensure, serves only to limit access to a primary component of MAR.

Clinical considerations. Due to the competitive nature of buprenorphine and its high affinity for the μ-opioid receptor, the drug can displace other opioid agonists and precipitate acute withdrawal. The withdrawal experience can thereby condition fear and disfavor toward buprenorphine among patients.

It is vital, therefore, that (1) patients’ expectations for treatment be managed appropriately and (2) the treating physician be prepared to provide additional buprenorphine for adequate maintenance doses and utilize adjunct comfort agents (clonidine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ondansetron) to manage acute withdrawal symptoms. Newer buprenorphine dosing strategies, such as micro-induction and macro-­induction, have emerged to curtail these risks.^23,24 This is an evolving area of MAR; newer low-threshold initiation strategies²⁵ (see “Low-threshold MOUD prescribing models,” in the text that follows) and evidence that supports micro-induction²⁶ might eliminate the practice of requiring active withdrawal for treatment.

Continue to: Regardless of the strategy...

Regardless of the strategy for dosing buprenorphine, it’s critical that patients be educated on how to initiate treatment outside a clinical setting, such as at home, where they occupy a familiar haven during a potentially uncomfortable time and can be as effective at initiation as they would be in a clinical setting, with no difference in precipitation of adverse effects.

At-home induction might be more appropriate for patients who are not yet in significant enough withdrawal while in the physician's office.²⁷ Guidance should be provided on dosing instructions, self-assessment of withdrawal­ symptoms, and, if applicable, patience with the slow-dissolving sublingual tablet or film formulation.

Naltrexone

Background. Naltrexone is available as an oral tablet and an extended-release, once-monthly intramuscular injection; the latter has demonstrated superiority in MAR.²⁸ Oral naltrexone has limited supporting evidence, is inferior to other MOUD options, and should not be used to treat OUD.⁷ Altogether, approval of naltrexone for OUD is controversial, due to potentially unethical trials and approval processes,²⁹ although a multicenter randomized controlled trial demonstrated the drug’s noninferiority with respect to treatment retention relative to buprenorphine.³⁰ Used over time, naltrexone does not relieve withdrawal symptoms but can reduce cravings.

Clinical considerations. There are numerous clinical barriers that limit the use of naltrexone.

First, patients should be abstinent from opioids for 7 to 14 days prior to starting therapy; usually, this means undergoing medically supervised withdrawal in a controlled environment. This is an obvious limitation for patients who are constrained financially—those who lack, or have inadequate, health insurance or are unable to be away from their job for an extended time.

Continue to: Second, because naltrexone...

Second, because naltrexone does not address withdrawal symptoms, supportive therapies should be incorporated into the treatment plan, including:

• clonidine for hyperadrenergic symptoms (anxiety, diaphoresis, hypertension)
• nonopioid analgesics for pain
• antiemetics, such as ondansetron and metoclopramide, for nausea or vomiting
• loperamide for diarrhea
• diphenhydramine for insomnia.

Third, patients taking naltrexone have a diminished response to opioids. This complicates pain management in the event of an emergent surgical procedure.

Last, when naltrexone wears off, patients are effectively opioid-naïve, which increases the risk for overdose in those who stop therapy abruptly.²⁹ The increased risk for overdose should be communicated to all patients with OUD who are being treated with naltrexone.

This nonopioid option is appealing to policymakers and is often prioritized in the criminal justice system; however, the decreased efficacy of naltrexone (compared to methadone and buprenorphine), potential for overdose, and challenges in initiating treatment are concerning and limit the drug’s use in many real-world settings.

Because naltrexone is not a controlled substance, regulations regarding maintaining inventory and distribution are more flexible.

Continue to: Overall, the cost-effectiveness...

Overall, the cost-effectiveness of intramuscular naltrexone is unclear. State-administered insurance programs vary in their requirements for coverage of naltrexone treatment.³¹

Comprehensive medication reconciliation is vital

Overall fragmentation of care within OTPs places patients at risk for adverse events, such as drug interactions.³² Under Title 42 of the US Code,³³ patients must provide written consent for an OTP provider to disclose their history of a substance use disorder. Allowing the patient to decide which medical providers can access their treatment records for an OUD benefits patient confidentiality but poses­ numerous issues worth exploring.

All prescribed controlled substances are recorded in the prescription drug monitoring program, or PDMP, a state-level electronic database accessible to health care professionals to inform prescribing decisions and identify drug interactions. The PDMP has substantially reduced opioid overprescribing and improved identification of patients at risk for overdose or misuse of opioids.

Buprenorphine, available for office-based treatment, has a so-called ceiling effect that reduces the adverse effect profile, including respiratory depression and euphoria.

Unlike all other controlled substances, however, prescriptions ordered by an OTP are not recorded in the PDMP (although there are recent exceptions to this scenario). Without such information, a physician might not have important information about the patient when making medical decisions—placing the patient at risk for harmful outcomes, such as drug–drug and drug–disease interactions.

For example: Methadone is associated with a prolonged QT interval,³⁴ increasing the risk for a fatal arrhythmia. Concurrent QT-prolonging medications, such as azithromycin and citalopram, further increase this risk.³⁵ Because methadone dispensing is isolated from the patient’s medical record, the clinician who prescribes MOUD has an incomplete patient history and could make a potentially fatal treatment decision.

Continue to: Diversion is unlikely

Diversion is unlikely

Health care providers often express concern about diversion in MOUD. However, misuse and diversion rates of methadone and buprenorphine have declined steadily since 2011, and, in fact, are actually lower than the diversion rate of prescription antibiotics.³⁶

Regardless, diversion of buprenorphine should not be a concern for physicians prescribing MOUD. Although a prescriber might worry about manipulation of the formulation of buprenorphine for intravenous administration, addition of naloxone to buprenorphine in tablet form diminishes the potential for overdose. Additionally, the ceiling effect of buprenorphine limits the likelihood of significant respiratory depression and euphoria.

Should buprenorphine reach a patient for whom it was not prescribed, it is highly unlikely that an overdose would result. Rather, the medication would protect against the effects of illicit opioids and relieve withdrawal symptoms. Most people with OUD who have misused buprenorphine have done so to relieve withdrawal symptoms,³⁷ not to experience intoxication.

Health care deserts

So-called health care deserts in parts of the United States are an ongoing problem that disproportionately affects lower-income and segregated Black and Hispanic communities³⁸—communities that shoulder the highest burden of OUD and OUD-related mortality³⁹ and whose populace is in greatest need of MAR. Even when health care is accessible in such a desert, some clinicians and pharmacies refuse to prescribe or dispense MOUD because of the accompanying stigma of OUD.

Prescribing buprenorphine for OUD requires that the treating physician undergo specific training, including subspecialty training in addiction or an 8-hour training course.

A MAR desert, like a pharmacy desert, is a geographic region—one without access to a MAR or an OTP provider, thereby preventing patients from reaching appropriate care; for some patients, having to travel to the nearest provider can render treatment inaccessible.⁴⁰

Continue to: Efforts are in place to identify...

Efforts are in place to identify areas at greatest need of OUD-related medical services, such as heat maps that identify areas of increased utilization of emergency medical services for opioid overdose. State-run programs have been implemented to increase access, such as the Illinois Helpline (https://helplineil.org) that provides support and resources for patients, friends, family, and providers.

Novel solutions

Key strategies to increase access to care and slow the opioid epidemic include low-threshold prescribing of MOUD and mobile OTPs.⁴¹

Low-threshold MOUD prescribing models. Adoption of one of these models in a medical practice that provides MAR might increase absolute enrollment. A low-threshold prescribing model involves⁴²:

• same-day treatment
• leniency with respect to abstinence periods and a concomitant substance use disorder
• enhanced accessibility to MOUD through nontraditional medical settings.

Do not use oral naltrexone to treat OUD; this route of administration has limited supporting evidence.

Low-threshold prescribing is flexible in regard to patients’ needs and bypasses many of the barriers discussed in this article. Impressive multicenter success has been achieved by the CA Bridge program in California (https://cabridge.org), including an increase in recognition of OUD, treatment initiations, and outpatient engagement.²⁵

The cost-effectiveness of low-threshold MOUD prescribing programs remains to be determined.

Mobile OTPs. In July 2021, the DEA authorized a mobile component to existing OTP registrants that is permitted to dispense methadone and buprenorphine. Mobile units are physically separate from the OTP but have similar functions, depending on available space. Services that cannot be provided on the mobile unit of an OTP must be available at its brick-and-mortar location.⁷ Logistically, OTP registrants no longer need a separate registration to implement a mobile unit, thus expanding care to patients in underserved or remote areas who often encounter barriers to access.⁴³

Conclusion

Understanding the distinct clinical and accessibility benefits and limitations among available MOUD is essential for prescribing clinicians. Accessing treatment is limited by federal regulation, stigma, and the existence of health care deserts that limit access to necessary care for patients with OUD. Newer harm-reduction models, such as low-threshold prescribing and mobile OTPs, represent progress, but many patients remain untreated.

a At buprenorphine.samhsa.gov/forms/select-practitioner-type.php

b Sold under the brand name Sublocade.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jennie B. Jarrett, PharmD, MMedEd, Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Illinois Chicago College of Pharmacy, 833 South Wood Street (MC 886), Chicago, IL 60612; [email protected]

Medication-assisted recovery (MAR)—the preferred terminology for the service formerly known as medication­-assisted treatment—entails a comprehensive set of interventions for managing opioid use disorder (OUD), including medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Despite the benefits of MAR—reducing opioid use, opioid-related mortality, and health care costs^1-3—only 11% of patients with a diagnosis of OUD received MOUD in 2020.³

When medication-assisted recovery services are rendered in primary care, treatment retention improves by 25%—highlighting a role for family medicine clinicians in treating OUD.

Primary care physicians, including family physicians, are well positioned to provide MAR across the patient’s lifespan. However, many family medicine clinicians do not possess the logistical knowledge or resources to implement this service.⁴ In this article, we describe options for, and barriers to, MAR and societal issues that have an impact on the care of these patients.

Pathophysiology of OUD

Opioids relieve pain by stimulating μ-opioid receptors and activating the brain’s reward system. These pleasurable effects motivate repeated use.⁵ Frequent opioid exposure causes neuroadaptation, tolerance, and dependence. For patients with OUD who are misusing illicit or prescription opioids, periods of abstinence following neuroadaptation lead to withdrawal symptoms that vary in intensity, depending on the drug, dose, and duration of use. Upregulated noradrenergic tone and dopamine deficiency manifest as numerous signs and symptoms of withdrawal, including⁵:

• Physiologic: secretory (diaphoresis, rhinorrhea, lacrimation, vomiting, diarrhea) and stimulatory (mydriasis, piloerection, hypertension, tachycardia, insomnia)
• Psychological: pain, cravings, dysphoria, anxiety.

A single episode of opioid withdrawal is not directly life-threatening, but untreated episodes can progressively amplify negative feedback and reinforce continued opioid use.⁶ Left untreated, withdrawal can be terminal.

Image: Copyright Joe Gorman

Medication-assisted recovery: Effective intervention

MAR services that integrate medical, behavioral, and psychosocial programs can reduce mortality from OUD 2-fold.^7,8 A meta-analysis found that, when MAR services are rendered in primary care, treatment retention improves by 25% (number needed to treat [NNT] = 6) and ongoing illicit opioid use is reduced by 50% (NNT = 6), relative to care at a specialty clinic⁹—highlighting a role for family medicine clinicians in treating OUD.

All 3 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved MOUD (methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) reduce cravings; 2 (methadone and buprenorphine) mitigate withdrawal symptoms by activating the μ-opioid receptor; and naltrexone diminishes the reinforcing effects of use (TABLE^10-12). It is crucial to recognize the pharmacologic distinctions among MOUD because untreated withdrawal syndromes increase dropout from treatment programs and subsequent relapse.¹³

The Hx of medication-assisted recovery

To understand the landscape of MAR, it is important to understand the history of opioid treatment in the United States. In 1966, Congress passed the Narcotic Addiction Rehabilitation Act (NARA), which secured federal assistance by which state and local governments could develop drug treatment programs.¹⁴ NARA permitted legal offenders with OUD to be civilly committed to treatment programs, rather than prosecuted. However, limited resources and a burgeoning population led, instead, to low-cost outpatient programs saddled by strict requirements that lacked a basis for improving clinical outcomes.

Continue to: At the time NARA...

At the time NARA was passed by Congress, OUD was viewed—inaccurately—as a criminal problem, not a medical one. Subsequent legislation was crafted through that lens, which has placed a heavy burden on patients until today.¹⁴ Although medical understanding of OUD has advanced tremendously over the past 50 years, treatment remains siloed from mainstream medicine, even in primary care.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to MAR, and relapse is common. Patient-specific factors and the availability of resources should be considered when designing the most individualized, advantageous plan for MAR.

Methadone

Background. Methadone has the most extensive history for treating OUD and consistently has demonstrated efficacy.¹³ A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing methadone to nonpharmacotherapy alone found that methadone improved treatment retention by an absolute 57% (NNT = 2).¹⁰

Methadone was approved by the FDA for detoxification and maintenance treatment in the early 1970s, although the Narcotic Addict Treatment Act (NATA) of 1974 restricted dispensing of maintenance treatment to highly regulated clinics known as opioid treatment programs (OTPs).¹⁴ NATA required the treating physician to register with the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and to comply with conservative dosing regimens and observed dosing.

Over time, regulations evolved to give the physician greater flexibility in developing a care plan, allowing “take-home” doses, and improving patients’ access to care. Although access to methadone for the treatment of OUD remains limited to federally certified OTPs, regulations facilitate incorporation of a whole-person approach to care, including counseling, individual and group therapy, and toxicology testing.⁷

Continue to: Clinical considerations

Clinical considerations. Methadone requires slow titration. For patients starting methadone as an outpatient, federal law¹⁵ limits the initial dose to 30 mg and requires physician documentation when the first-day total dosage exceeds 40 mg. This dosing constraint makes it challenging to provide care because a daily dosage ≥ 60 mg has been found to produce, first, higher program retention (relative risk = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63) and, second, greater reduction in illicit opioid use (relative risk = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.16-2.18) than is seen in patients who receive a lower daily dosage.¹⁶

Due to a prolonged elimination half-life, methadone reaches steady-state in 3 to 5 days. Patients and their families should be educated that withdrawal symptoms might not feel fully managed in the first few days of therapy and that time is required to experience safely the regimen’s full effects.

Aggressive dose-titration during methadone induction can result in drug accumulation and respiratory depression. The risk for methadone-related mortality is highest in the first 2 weeks of therapy, mostly related to overdose potential if the drug is combined with other opioids.¹⁷

Buprenorphine

Background. The prescribing rate for buprenorphine, particularly in primary care, is accelerating.¹⁸ A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that¹¹:

• compared to placebo, buprenorphine, at any dosage, improves treatment retention by an absolute 21% to 28% (NNT = 4-5)
• patients receiving high-dose buprenorphine (≥ 16 mg/d) had fewer evident cases of illicit opioid use.

Unlike methadone, buprenorphine exerts partial agonism at the μ-opioid receptor, resulting in a so-called ceiling effect that significantly reduces the adverse effect profile, including respiratory depression and euphoria, relative to a full-agonist opioid, such as methadone.¹⁹

Continue to: Whereas accessing methadone...

Whereas accessing methadone is limited to OTPs, buprenorphine is available for office-based treatment. By hosting OUD treatment and primary care in the same place, primary care physicians can provide comprehensive medical care including and beyond OUD, thereby improving retention and managing comorbidity.²⁰

Integrated models involving support staff—eg, nurses, behavioral health providers, and pharmacists—have produced the greatest success with office-based treatment models.²¹ Office-based treatment normalizes OUD as a chronic disease managed by the primary care physician, enabling concurrent harm-reduction strategies; medication reconciliation; and convenient, regular prescribing intervals (eg, every 30 days).²²
Nevertheless, access to buprenorphine is limited. Because buprenorphine is a controlled substance, the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 prevents initial prescribing of buprenorphine without in-person evaluation. Telehealth consultations increased access to buprenorphine through temporary exceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, revised rules and regulations for telehealth visits for these controlled substances are forthcoming from the DEA as temporary exceptions for telehealth consultations come to an end. Additionally, prescribing buprenorphine for OUD requires that the treating physician undergo specific training and obtain qualifications, which have evolved over time through federal legislation.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) authorized what is known as an X-waiver, which allows physicians to prescribe controlled substances for office-based treatment of OUD, provided that:

• they are registered to do so with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the DEA
• they have had subspecialty training in addiction or completed an 8-hour training course
• they are able to refer patients to appropriate counseling and ancillary services.

DATA 2000 restricted patient panel sizes­ to 30 patients in the first year, expanding thereafter upon appropriate certification.

Although medical understanding of OUD has advanced tremendously over the past 50 years, treatment remains siloed from mainstream medicine, even in primary care.

The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) and the Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act of 2018 (the SUPPORT Act) collectively extended prescribing authority for MOUD to other qualifying practitioners (eg, advanced practice clinicians). Despite these attempts to expand access to services, the overdose death rate has continued to increase.

Continue to: To further expand access to MAR...

To further expand access to MAR, the US Department of Health and Human Services updated its practice guidelines in April 2021, allowing clinicians to bypass X-waiver training requirements by applying for a notification-of-intent (NOI) buprenorphine waiver.^a However, clinicians are still limited to prescribing buprenorphine for 30 patients at a time. Clinicians who undergo complete X-waiver training may prescribe for 100 patients in the first year and, if eligible, 275 patients thereafter.

In addition, as a component of the Consolidation Appropriations Act of 2023, Congress passed the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment Act of 2021, or MAT 2021, and Medication Access and Training Expansion Act of 2021, or MATE 2021. MAT eliminated the X-waiver, NOI, and restrictions on the number of patients for whom a provider could prescribe buprenorphine, under federal authority; however, restrictions within one’s state might limit the ability to prescribe buprenorphine. MATE 2021 is an educational requirement for licensing by the DEA (at application and renewal) that will require prescribers to complete 8 hours of training in substance use disorders starting in June 2023.

Patients and their families should be educated that withdrawal symptoms might not feel fully managed in the first few days of methadone therapy.

Use of the monthly injectable extended-release buprenorphine product^b is limited by an FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, which requires specialized training and certification by the prescriber, distributor, and administering clinician. REMS reduces buprenorphine accessibility due to time, cost, and regulatory barriers; although such restrictions have been instituted with the patient’s safety in mind, any limitation to buprenorphine prescribing, apart from controlled substance licensure, serves only to limit access to a primary component of MAR.

Clinical considerations. Due to the competitive nature of buprenorphine and its high affinity for the μ-opioid receptor, the drug can displace other opioid agonists and precipitate acute withdrawal. The withdrawal experience can thereby condition fear and disfavor toward buprenorphine among patients.

It is vital, therefore, that (1) patients’ expectations for treatment be managed appropriately and (2) the treating physician be prepared to provide additional buprenorphine for adequate maintenance doses and utilize adjunct comfort agents (clonidine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ondansetron) to manage acute withdrawal symptoms. Newer buprenorphine dosing strategies, such as micro-induction and macro-­induction, have emerged to curtail these risks.^23,24 This is an evolving area of MAR; newer low-threshold initiation strategies²⁵ (see “Low-threshold MOUD prescribing models,” in the text that follows) and evidence that supports micro-induction²⁶ might eliminate the practice of requiring active withdrawal for treatment.

Continue to: Regardless of the strategy...

Regardless of the strategy for dosing buprenorphine, it’s critical that patients be educated on how to initiate treatment outside a clinical setting, such as at home, where they occupy a familiar haven during a potentially uncomfortable time and can be as effective at initiation as they would be in a clinical setting, with no difference in precipitation of adverse effects.

At-home induction might be more appropriate for patients who are not yet in significant enough withdrawal while in the physician's office.²⁷ Guidance should be provided on dosing instructions, self-assessment of withdrawal­ symptoms, and, if applicable, patience with the slow-dissolving sublingual tablet or film formulation.

Naltrexone

Background. Naltrexone is available as an oral tablet and an extended-release, once-monthly intramuscular injection; the latter has demonstrated superiority in MAR.²⁸ Oral naltrexone has limited supporting evidence, is inferior to other MOUD options, and should not be used to treat OUD.⁷ Altogether, approval of naltrexone for OUD is controversial, due to potentially unethical trials and approval processes,²⁹ although a multicenter randomized controlled trial demonstrated the drug’s noninferiority with respect to treatment retention relative to buprenorphine.³⁰ Used over time, naltrexone does not relieve withdrawal symptoms but can reduce cravings.

Clinical considerations. There are numerous clinical barriers that limit the use of naltrexone.

First, patients should be abstinent from opioids for 7 to 14 days prior to starting therapy; usually, this means undergoing medically supervised withdrawal in a controlled environment. This is an obvious limitation for patients who are constrained financially—those who lack, or have inadequate, health insurance or are unable to be away from their job for an extended time.

Continue to: Second, because naltrexone...

Second, because naltrexone does not address withdrawal symptoms, supportive therapies should be incorporated into the treatment plan, including:

• clonidine for hyperadrenergic symptoms (anxiety, diaphoresis, hypertension)
• nonopioid analgesics for pain
• antiemetics, such as ondansetron and metoclopramide, for nausea or vomiting
• loperamide for diarrhea
• diphenhydramine for insomnia.

Third, patients taking naltrexone have a diminished response to opioids. This complicates pain management in the event of an emergent surgical procedure.

Last, when naltrexone wears off, patients are effectively opioid-naïve, which increases the risk for overdose in those who stop therapy abruptly.²⁹ The increased risk for overdose should be communicated to all patients with OUD who are being treated with naltrexone.

This nonopioid option is appealing to policymakers and is often prioritized in the criminal justice system; however, the decreased efficacy of naltrexone (compared to methadone and buprenorphine), potential for overdose, and challenges in initiating treatment are concerning and limit the drug’s use in many real-world settings.

Because naltrexone is not a controlled substance, regulations regarding maintaining inventory and distribution are more flexible.

Continue to: Overall, the cost-effectiveness...

Overall, the cost-effectiveness of intramuscular naltrexone is unclear. State-administered insurance programs vary in their requirements for coverage of naltrexone treatment.³¹

Comprehensive medication reconciliation is vital

Overall fragmentation of care within OTPs places patients at risk for adverse events, such as drug interactions.³² Under Title 42 of the US Code,³³ patients must provide written consent for an OTP provider to disclose their history of a substance use disorder. Allowing the patient to decide which medical providers can access their treatment records for an OUD benefits patient confidentiality but poses­ numerous issues worth exploring.

All prescribed controlled substances are recorded in the prescription drug monitoring program, or PDMP, a state-level electronic database accessible to health care professionals to inform prescribing decisions and identify drug interactions. The PDMP has substantially reduced opioid overprescribing and improved identification of patients at risk for overdose or misuse of opioids.

Buprenorphine, available for office-based treatment, has a so-called ceiling effect that reduces the adverse effect profile, including respiratory depression and euphoria.

Unlike all other controlled substances, however, prescriptions ordered by an OTP are not recorded in the PDMP (although there are recent exceptions to this scenario). Without such information, a physician might not have important information about the patient when making medical decisions—placing the patient at risk for harmful outcomes, such as drug–drug and drug–disease interactions.

For example: Methadone is associated with a prolonged QT interval,³⁴ increasing the risk for a fatal arrhythmia. Concurrent QT-prolonging medications, such as azithromycin and citalopram, further increase this risk.³⁵ Because methadone dispensing is isolated from the patient’s medical record, the clinician who prescribes MOUD has an incomplete patient history and could make a potentially fatal treatment decision.

Continue to: Diversion is unlikely

Diversion is unlikely

Health care providers often express concern about diversion in MOUD. However, misuse and diversion rates of methadone and buprenorphine have declined steadily since 2011, and, in fact, are actually lower than the diversion rate of prescription antibiotics.³⁶

Regardless, diversion of buprenorphine should not be a concern for physicians prescribing MOUD. Although a prescriber might worry about manipulation of the formulation of buprenorphine for intravenous administration, addition of naloxone to buprenorphine in tablet form diminishes the potential for overdose. Additionally, the ceiling effect of buprenorphine limits the likelihood of significant respiratory depression and euphoria.

Should buprenorphine reach a patient for whom it was not prescribed, it is highly unlikely that an overdose would result. Rather, the medication would protect against the effects of illicit opioids and relieve withdrawal symptoms. Most people with OUD who have misused buprenorphine have done so to relieve withdrawal symptoms,³⁷ not to experience intoxication.

Health care deserts

So-called health care deserts in parts of the United States are an ongoing problem that disproportionately affects lower-income and segregated Black and Hispanic communities³⁸—communities that shoulder the highest burden of OUD and OUD-related mortality³⁹ and whose populace is in greatest need of MAR. Even when health care is accessible in such a desert, some clinicians and pharmacies refuse to prescribe or dispense MOUD because of the accompanying stigma of OUD.

Prescribing buprenorphine for OUD requires that the treating physician undergo specific training, including subspecialty training in addiction or an 8-hour training course.

A MAR desert, like a pharmacy desert, is a geographic region—one without access to a MAR or an OTP provider, thereby preventing patients from reaching appropriate care; for some patients, having to travel to the nearest provider can render treatment inaccessible.⁴⁰

Continue to: Efforts are in place to identify...

Efforts are in place to identify areas at greatest need of OUD-related medical services, such as heat maps that identify areas of increased utilization of emergency medical services for opioid overdose. State-run programs have been implemented to increase access, such as the Illinois Helpline (https://helplineil.org) that provides support and resources for patients, friends, family, and providers.

Novel solutions

Key strategies to increase access to care and slow the opioid epidemic include low-threshold prescribing of MOUD and mobile OTPs.⁴¹

Low-threshold MOUD prescribing models. Adoption of one of these models in a medical practice that provides MAR might increase absolute enrollment. A low-threshold prescribing model involves⁴²:

• same-day treatment
• leniency with respect to abstinence periods and a concomitant substance use disorder
• enhanced accessibility to MOUD through nontraditional medical settings.

Do not use oral naltrexone to treat OUD; this route of administration has limited supporting evidence.

Low-threshold prescribing is flexible in regard to patients’ needs and bypasses many of the barriers discussed in this article. Impressive multicenter success has been achieved by the CA Bridge program in California (https://cabridge.org), including an increase in recognition of OUD, treatment initiations, and outpatient engagement.²⁵

The cost-effectiveness of low-threshold MOUD prescribing programs remains to be determined.

Mobile OTPs. In July 2021, the DEA authorized a mobile component to existing OTP registrants that is permitted to dispense methadone and buprenorphine. Mobile units are physically separate from the OTP but have similar functions, depending on available space. Services that cannot be provided on the mobile unit of an OTP must be available at its brick-and-mortar location.⁷ Logistically, OTP registrants no longer need a separate registration to implement a mobile unit, thus expanding care to patients in underserved or remote areas who often encounter barriers to access.⁴³

Conclusion

Understanding the distinct clinical and accessibility benefits and limitations among available MOUD is essential for prescribing clinicians. Accessing treatment is limited by federal regulation, stigma, and the existence of health care deserts that limit access to necessary care for patients with OUD. Newer harm-reduction models, such as low-threshold prescribing and mobile OTPs, represent progress, but many patients remain untreated.

a At buprenorphine.samhsa.gov/forms/select-practitioner-type.php

b Sold under the brand name Sublocade.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jennie B. Jarrett, PharmD, MMedEd, Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Illinois Chicago College of Pharmacy, 833 South Wood Street (MC 886), Chicago, IL 60612; [email protected]

The media is filled with stories about the opioid crisis. We have all heard the horror stories of addiction and overdose, as well as “pill mill” doctors. In fact, more than 932,000 people have died of drug overdose since 1999 and, in recent years, approximately 75% of drug overdoses involved opioids.

Yet, they still have their place in the treatment of pain. It has been estimated that approximately 37% of all opioid prescriptions are written by primary care doctors, so it is essential that we doctors know appropriate prescribing guidelines.

The CDC updated the 2016 guidelines for prescribing opioids for pain in 2022. They cover when to initiate prescribing of opioids, selecting appropriate opioids and doses, and deciding the duration of therapy. The guidelines do a great job providing evidence-based recommendations while at the same time keeping the problems with opioids in the picture.

For primary care doctors, pain is one of the most common complaints we see – from broken bones to low back pain to cancer pain. It is important to note that the current guidelines exclude pain from sickle cell disease, cancer-related pain, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guidelines apply to acute, subacute, and chronic pain. Pain is a complex symptom and often needs a multipronged approach. We make a mistake if we just prescribe a pain medication without understanding the root cause of the pain.

The guidelines suggest starting with nonopioid medications and incorporating nonmedicinal modes of treatments, such as physical therapy, as well. Opioids should be started at the lowest dose and for the shortest duration. Immediate-release medications are preferred over long-acting or extended-release ones. The patient should always be informed of the risks and benefits.

While the guidelines do a great job recommending how to prescribe opioids, they do not go into any depth discussing other treatment options. Perhaps knowledge of other treatment modalities would help primary care physicians avoid opioid prescribing. When treating our patients, it is important to educate them on how to manage their own symptoms.

The guidelines also advise tapering patients who may have been on high-dose opioids for long periods of time. Doctors know this is a very difficult task. However, resources to help with this are often lacking. For example, rehab may not be covered under a patient’s insurance, or it may be cheaper to take an opioid than to go to physical therapy. Although the recommendation is to taper, community assets may not support this. Guidelines are one thing, but the rest of the health care system needs to catch up to them and make them practical.

Primary care doctors often utilize our physical medicine, rehabilitation, and pain management specialists to assist in managing our patients’ pain. Here too, access to this resource is often difficult to come by. Depending on a patient’s insurance, it can take months to get an appointment.

In general, the current guidelines offer 12 key recommendations when prescribing opioids. They are a great reference; however, we need more real-life tools. For many of us in primary care, these guidelines support what we’ve been doing all along.

Primary care doctors will surely play a huge role in addressing the opioid crisis. We can prescribe opioids appropriately, but it doesn’t erase the problems of those patients who were overprescribed in the past. Many still seek out these medications whether for monetary reasons or just for the high. It is often easy to blame the patient but the one in control is the one with the prescription pad. Yet, it is important to remember that many of these patients are in real pain and need help.

Often, it is simpler to just prescribe a pain medication than it is to explain why one is not appropriate. As primary care doctors, we need to be effective ambassadors of appropriate opioid prescribing and often that means doing the hard thing and saying no to a patient.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

[email protected]

The media is filled with stories about the opioid crisis. We have all heard the horror stories of addiction and overdose, as well as “pill mill” doctors. In fact, more than 932,000 people have died of drug overdose since 1999 and, in recent years, approximately 75% of drug overdoses involved opioids.

Yet, they still have their place in the treatment of pain. It has been estimated that approximately 37% of all opioid prescriptions are written by primary care doctors, so it is essential that we doctors know appropriate prescribing guidelines.

The CDC updated the 2016 guidelines for prescribing opioids for pain in 2022. They cover when to initiate prescribing of opioids, selecting appropriate opioids and doses, and deciding the duration of therapy. The guidelines do a great job providing evidence-based recommendations while at the same time keeping the problems with opioids in the picture.

For primary care doctors, pain is one of the most common complaints we see – from broken bones to low back pain to cancer pain. It is important to note that the current guidelines exclude pain from sickle cell disease, cancer-related pain, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guidelines apply to acute, subacute, and chronic pain. Pain is a complex symptom and often needs a multipronged approach. We make a mistake if we just prescribe a pain medication without understanding the root cause of the pain.

The guidelines suggest starting with nonopioid medications and incorporating nonmedicinal modes of treatments, such as physical therapy, as well. Opioids should be started at the lowest dose and for the shortest duration. Immediate-release medications are preferred over long-acting or extended-release ones. The patient should always be informed of the risks and benefits.

While the guidelines do a great job recommending how to prescribe opioids, they do not go into any depth discussing other treatment options. Perhaps knowledge of other treatment modalities would help primary care physicians avoid opioid prescribing. When treating our patients, it is important to educate them on how to manage their own symptoms.

The guidelines also advise tapering patients who may have been on high-dose opioids for long periods of time. Doctors know this is a very difficult task. However, resources to help with this are often lacking. For example, rehab may not be covered under a patient’s insurance, or it may be cheaper to take an opioid than to go to physical therapy. Although the recommendation is to taper, community assets may not support this. Guidelines are one thing, but the rest of the health care system needs to catch up to them and make them practical.

Primary care doctors often utilize our physical medicine, rehabilitation, and pain management specialists to assist in managing our patients’ pain. Here too, access to this resource is often difficult to come by. Depending on a patient’s insurance, it can take months to get an appointment.

In general, the current guidelines offer 12 key recommendations when prescribing opioids. They are a great reference; however, we need more real-life tools. For many of us in primary care, these guidelines support what we’ve been doing all along.

Primary care doctors will surely play a huge role in addressing the opioid crisis. We can prescribe opioids appropriately, but it doesn’t erase the problems of those patients who were overprescribed in the past. Many still seek out these medications whether for monetary reasons or just for the high. It is often easy to blame the patient but the one in control is the one with the prescription pad. Yet, it is important to remember that many of these patients are in real pain and need help.

Often, it is simpler to just prescribe a pain medication than it is to explain why one is not appropriate. As primary care doctors, we need to be effective ambassadors of appropriate opioid prescribing and often that means doing the hard thing and saying no to a patient.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

[email protected]

The media is filled with stories about the opioid crisis. We have all heard the horror stories of addiction and overdose, as well as “pill mill” doctors. In fact, more than 932,000 people have died of drug overdose since 1999 and, in recent years, approximately 75% of drug overdoses involved opioids.

Yet, they still have their place in the treatment of pain. It has been estimated that approximately 37% of all opioid prescriptions are written by primary care doctors, so it is essential that we doctors know appropriate prescribing guidelines.

The CDC updated the 2016 guidelines for prescribing opioids for pain in 2022. They cover when to initiate prescribing of opioids, selecting appropriate opioids and doses, and deciding the duration of therapy. The guidelines do a great job providing evidence-based recommendations while at the same time keeping the problems with opioids in the picture.

For primary care doctors, pain is one of the most common complaints we see – from broken bones to low back pain to cancer pain. It is important to note that the current guidelines exclude pain from sickle cell disease, cancer-related pain, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guidelines apply to acute, subacute, and chronic pain. Pain is a complex symptom and often needs a multipronged approach. We make a mistake if we just prescribe a pain medication without understanding the root cause of the pain.

The guidelines suggest starting with nonopioid medications and incorporating nonmedicinal modes of treatments, such as physical therapy, as well. Opioids should be started at the lowest dose and for the shortest duration. Immediate-release medications are preferred over long-acting or extended-release ones. The patient should always be informed of the risks and benefits.

While the guidelines do a great job recommending how to prescribe opioids, they do not go into any depth discussing other treatment options. Perhaps knowledge of other treatment modalities would help primary care physicians avoid opioid prescribing. When treating our patients, it is important to educate them on how to manage their own symptoms.

The guidelines also advise tapering patients who may have been on high-dose opioids for long periods of time. Doctors know this is a very difficult task. However, resources to help with this are often lacking. For example, rehab may not be covered under a patient’s insurance, or it may be cheaper to take an opioid than to go to physical therapy. Although the recommendation is to taper, community assets may not support this. Guidelines are one thing, but the rest of the health care system needs to catch up to them and make them practical.

Primary care doctors often utilize our physical medicine, rehabilitation, and pain management specialists to assist in managing our patients’ pain. Here too, access to this resource is often difficult to come by. Depending on a patient’s insurance, it can take months to get an appointment.

In general, the current guidelines offer 12 key recommendations when prescribing opioids. They are a great reference; however, we need more real-life tools. For many of us in primary care, these guidelines support what we’ve been doing all along.

Primary care doctors will surely play a huge role in addressing the opioid crisis. We can prescribe opioids appropriately, but it doesn’t erase the problems of those patients who were overprescribed in the past. Many still seek out these medications whether for monetary reasons or just for the high. It is often easy to blame the patient but the one in control is the one with the prescription pad. Yet, it is important to remember that many of these patients are in real pain and need help.

Often, it is simpler to just prescribe a pain medication than it is to explain why one is not appropriate. As primary care doctors, we need to be effective ambassadors of appropriate opioid prescribing and often that means doing the hard thing and saying no to a patient.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

[email protected]

A new study confirms the robust link between cannabis use and schizophrenia among men and women but suggests that young men may be especially susceptible to schizophrenia from cannabis abuse.

Of note, investigators estimate that roughly 15% of schizophrenia cases among young males may be preventable by avoiding cannabis use disorder (CUD).

“The entanglement of substance use disorders and mental illnesses is a major public health issue, requiring urgent action and support for people who need it,” study coauthor Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a news release.

“As access to potent cannabis products continues to expand, it is crucial that we also expand prevention, screening, and treatment for people who may experience mental illnesses associated with cannabis use,” Dr. Volkow added.

The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.
 

A modifiable risk factor

The researchers analyzed Danish registry data spanning 5 decades and representing more than 6.9 million people in Denmark to estimate the population-level percentage of schizophrenia cases attributable to CUD.

A total of 60,563 participants were diagnosed with CUD. Three-quarters of cases were in men; there were 45,327 incident cases of schizophrenia during the study period.

The overall adjusted hazard ratio for CUD on schizophrenia was slightly higher among males than females (aHR, 2.42 vs. 2.02); however, among those aged 16 to 20 years, the adjusted incidence risk ratio for males was more than twice that for females (aIRR, 3.84 vs. 1.81).

The researchers estimate that, in 2021, about 15% of schizophrenia cases among males aged 16-49 could have been avoided by preventing CUD, compared with 4% among females in this age range.

For young men aged 21-30, the proportion of preventable schizophrenia cases related to CUD may be as high as 30%, the authors reported.

“Alongside the increasing evidence that CUD is a modifiable risk factor for schizophrenia, our findings underscore the importance of evidence-based strategies to regulate cannabis use and to effectively prevent, screen for, and treat CUD as well as schizophrenia,” the researchers wrote.
 

Legalization sends the wrong message

In a press statement, lead investigator Carsten Hjorthøj, PhD, with the University of Copenhagen, noted that “increases in the legalization of cannabis over the past few decades have made it one of the most frequently used psychoactive substances in the world, while also decreasing the public’s perception of its harm. This study adds to our growing understanding that cannabis use is not harmless, and that risks are not fixed at one point in time.”

In a prior study, Dr. Hjorthøj and colleagues found that the proportion of new schizophrenia cases attributable to CUD has consistently increased over the past 20 years.

“In my view, the association is most likely causative, at least to a large extent,” Dr. Hjorthøj said at the time this research was published.

“It is of course nearly impossible to use epidemiological studies to actually prove causation, but all the numbers behave exactly in the way that would be expected under the theory of causation,” Dr. Hjorthøj added.

The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study confirms the robust link between cannabis use and schizophrenia among men and women but suggests that young men may be especially susceptible to schizophrenia from cannabis abuse.

Of note, investigators estimate that roughly 15% of schizophrenia cases among young males may be preventable by avoiding cannabis use disorder (CUD).

“The entanglement of substance use disorders and mental illnesses is a major public health issue, requiring urgent action and support for people who need it,” study coauthor Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a news release.

“As access to potent cannabis products continues to expand, it is crucial that we also expand prevention, screening, and treatment for people who may experience mental illnesses associated with cannabis use,” Dr. Volkow added.

The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.
 

A modifiable risk factor

The researchers analyzed Danish registry data spanning 5 decades and representing more than 6.9 million people in Denmark to estimate the population-level percentage of schizophrenia cases attributable to CUD.

A total of 60,563 participants were diagnosed with CUD. Three-quarters of cases were in men; there were 45,327 incident cases of schizophrenia during the study period.

The overall adjusted hazard ratio for CUD on schizophrenia was slightly higher among males than females (aHR, 2.42 vs. 2.02); however, among those aged 16 to 20 years, the adjusted incidence risk ratio for males was more than twice that for females (aIRR, 3.84 vs. 1.81).

The researchers estimate that, in 2021, about 15% of schizophrenia cases among males aged 16-49 could have been avoided by preventing CUD, compared with 4% among females in this age range.

For young men aged 21-30, the proportion of preventable schizophrenia cases related to CUD may be as high as 30%, the authors reported.

“Alongside the increasing evidence that CUD is a modifiable risk factor for schizophrenia, our findings underscore the importance of evidence-based strategies to regulate cannabis use and to effectively prevent, screen for, and treat CUD as well as schizophrenia,” the researchers wrote.
 

Legalization sends the wrong message

In a press statement, lead investigator Carsten Hjorthøj, PhD, with the University of Copenhagen, noted that “increases in the legalization of cannabis over the past few decades have made it one of the most frequently used psychoactive substances in the world, while also decreasing the public’s perception of its harm. This study adds to our growing understanding that cannabis use is not harmless, and that risks are not fixed at one point in time.”

In a prior study, Dr. Hjorthøj and colleagues found that the proportion of new schizophrenia cases attributable to CUD has consistently increased over the past 20 years.

“In my view, the association is most likely causative, at least to a large extent,” Dr. Hjorthøj said at the time this research was published.

“It is of course nearly impossible to use epidemiological studies to actually prove causation, but all the numbers behave exactly in the way that would be expected under the theory of causation,” Dr. Hjorthøj added.

The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study confirms the robust link between cannabis use and schizophrenia among men and women but suggests that young men may be especially susceptible to schizophrenia from cannabis abuse.

Of note, investigators estimate that roughly 15% of schizophrenia cases among young males may be preventable by avoiding cannabis use disorder (CUD).

“The entanglement of substance use disorders and mental illnesses is a major public health issue, requiring urgent action and support for people who need it,” study coauthor Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a news release.

“As access to potent cannabis products continues to expand, it is crucial that we also expand prevention, screening, and treatment for people who may experience mental illnesses associated with cannabis use,” Dr. Volkow added.

The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.
 

A modifiable risk factor

The researchers analyzed Danish registry data spanning 5 decades and representing more than 6.9 million people in Denmark to estimate the population-level percentage of schizophrenia cases attributable to CUD.

A total of 60,563 participants were diagnosed with CUD. Three-quarters of cases were in men; there were 45,327 incident cases of schizophrenia during the study period.

The overall adjusted hazard ratio for CUD on schizophrenia was slightly higher among males than females (aHR, 2.42 vs. 2.02); however, among those aged 16 to 20 years, the adjusted incidence risk ratio for males was more than twice that for females (aIRR, 3.84 vs. 1.81).

The researchers estimate that, in 2021, about 15% of schizophrenia cases among males aged 16-49 could have been avoided by preventing CUD, compared with 4% among females in this age range.

For young men aged 21-30, the proportion of preventable schizophrenia cases related to CUD may be as high as 30%, the authors reported.

“Alongside the increasing evidence that CUD is a modifiable risk factor for schizophrenia, our findings underscore the importance of evidence-based strategies to regulate cannabis use and to effectively prevent, screen for, and treat CUD as well as schizophrenia,” the researchers wrote.
 

Legalization sends the wrong message

In a press statement, lead investigator Carsten Hjorthøj, PhD, with the University of Copenhagen, noted that “increases in the legalization of cannabis over the past few decades have made it one of the most frequently used psychoactive substances in the world, while also decreasing the public’s perception of its harm. This study adds to our growing understanding that cannabis use is not harmless, and that risks are not fixed at one point in time.”

In a prior study, Dr. Hjorthøj and colleagues found that the proportion of new schizophrenia cases attributable to CUD has consistently increased over the past 20 years.

“In my view, the association is most likely causative, at least to a large extent,” Dr. Hjorthøj said at the time this research was published.

“It is of course nearly impossible to use epidemiological studies to actually prove causation, but all the numbers behave exactly in the way that would be expected under the theory of causation,” Dr. Hjorthøj added.

The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON – Six in 10 primary care pediatricians reported always screening adolescents for substance use, but less than half reported using a standardized instrument, Deepa Camenga, MD, said in a presentation at the 2023 Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Yale University

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends universal screening for substance use in adolescents during annual health visits, but current screening rates and practices among primary care pediatricians in the United States are unknown, said Dr. Camenga, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Uniformity in screening is lacking

Dr. Camenga presented data from the 2021 AAP Periodic Survey, which included 1,683 nonretired AAP members in the United States. Residents were excluded. The current analysis included 471 pediatricians who reported providing health supervision to adolescents. Overall, 284 of the 471 included respondents (60%) reported always screening adolescent patients for substance use during a health supervision visit. Of these, 42% reported using a standardized screening instrument, Dr. Camenga said.

The majority (70%) of pediatricians who used a standardized screening tool opted for the CRAFFT tool (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) designed for ages 12-21 years. Another 21% reported using an unspecified screening tool, 4% used RAAPS (Rapid Assessment for Adolescent Preventive Services), 3% used S2BI (Screening to Brief Intervention), and 1% used BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and other Drugs).

A total of 77% of respondents reported screening their adolescent patients for substance use without a parent or guardian present. Approximately half (52%) used paper-based screening, 22% used electronic screening, 21% used verbal screening, and 6% reported other methods.

A total of 68% and 70% of respondents, respectively, agreed or strongly agreed that top barriers to screening were the lack of an onsite provider for counseling and the lack of readily available treatment options. Other reported barriers included lack of knowledge or information, patient reluctance to discuss substance use, too many other priorities during the visit, and inadequate payment. Only 6% of respondents strongly agreed that lack of time was a barrier, said Dr. Camenga.

Screening frequency and screening practices varied by geographic region, Dr. Camenga said. Pediatricians in the South and Midwest were only half as likely as those in the Northeast to report always screening adolescents for substance use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43 and 0.53, respectively; P < .05). Similarly, compared with pediatricians in the Northeast, those in the South, Midwest, and West were significantly less likely to report using a standardized instrument for substance use screening (aOR, 0.53, 0.24, and 0.52, respectively; P < 0.001 for all).

The disparities in screening by geographic region show that there is room for improvement in this area, said Dr. Camenga. Systems-level interventions such as treatment financing and access to telehealth services could improve primary care access to substance use treatment professionals, she said.

At the practice level, embedding screening and referral tools into electronic health records could potentially improve screening rates. Many primary care pediatricians do not receive training in identifying and assessing substance use in their patients, or in first-line treatment, Dr. Camenga said.

“We have to invest in a ‘train the trainer’ type of model,” she emphasized.
 

Data highlight regional resource gaps

The current study is important because it highlights potential missed opportunities to screen adolescents for substance use, said Sarah Yale, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview. Dr. Yale said that the disparities in screening by region are interesting and should serve as a focus for resource investment because the lack of specialists for referral and treatment options in these areas is likely a contributing factor.

However, lack of training also plays a role, said Dr. Yale, who was not involved in the study but served as a moderator of the presentation session at the meeting. Many pediatricians in practice have not been trained in substance use screening, and the fact that many of those who did try to screen were not using a standardized screening tool indicates a need for provider education, she said. The take-home message for clinicians is to find ways to include substance use screening in the care of their adolescent patients. Additionally, more research is needed to assess how best to integrate screening tools into visits, whether on paper, electronically, or verbally, and to include training on substance use screening during pediatric medical training.

The survey was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics Research Division. This year’s survey was supported by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. Dr. Camenga had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Yale had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

WASHINGTON – Six in 10 primary care pediatricians reported always screening adolescents for substance use, but less than half reported using a standardized instrument, Deepa Camenga, MD, said in a presentation at the 2023 Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Yale University

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends universal screening for substance use in adolescents during annual health visits, but current screening rates and practices among primary care pediatricians in the United States are unknown, said Dr. Camenga, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Uniformity in screening is lacking

Dr. Camenga presented data from the 2021 AAP Periodic Survey, which included 1,683 nonretired AAP members in the United States. Residents were excluded. The current analysis included 471 pediatricians who reported providing health supervision to adolescents. Overall, 284 of the 471 included respondents (60%) reported always screening adolescent patients for substance use during a health supervision visit. Of these, 42% reported using a standardized screening instrument, Dr. Camenga said.

The majority (70%) of pediatricians who used a standardized screening tool opted for the CRAFFT tool (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) designed for ages 12-21 years. Another 21% reported using an unspecified screening tool, 4% used RAAPS (Rapid Assessment for Adolescent Preventive Services), 3% used S2BI (Screening to Brief Intervention), and 1% used BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and other Drugs).

A total of 77% of respondents reported screening their adolescent patients for substance use without a parent or guardian present. Approximately half (52%) used paper-based screening, 22% used electronic screening, 21% used verbal screening, and 6% reported other methods.

A total of 68% and 70% of respondents, respectively, agreed or strongly agreed that top barriers to screening were the lack of an onsite provider for counseling and the lack of readily available treatment options. Other reported barriers included lack of knowledge or information, patient reluctance to discuss substance use, too many other priorities during the visit, and inadequate payment. Only 6% of respondents strongly agreed that lack of time was a barrier, said Dr. Camenga.

Screening frequency and screening practices varied by geographic region, Dr. Camenga said. Pediatricians in the South and Midwest were only half as likely as those in the Northeast to report always screening adolescents for substance use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43 and 0.53, respectively; P < .05). Similarly, compared with pediatricians in the Northeast, those in the South, Midwest, and West were significantly less likely to report using a standardized instrument for substance use screening (aOR, 0.53, 0.24, and 0.52, respectively; P < 0.001 for all).

The disparities in screening by geographic region show that there is room for improvement in this area, said Dr. Camenga. Systems-level interventions such as treatment financing and access to telehealth services could improve primary care access to substance use treatment professionals, she said.

At the practice level, embedding screening and referral tools into electronic health records could potentially improve screening rates. Many primary care pediatricians do not receive training in identifying and assessing substance use in their patients, or in first-line treatment, Dr. Camenga said.

“We have to invest in a ‘train the trainer’ type of model,” she emphasized.
 

Data highlight regional resource gaps

The current study is important because it highlights potential missed opportunities to screen adolescents for substance use, said Sarah Yale, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview. Dr. Yale said that the disparities in screening by region are interesting and should serve as a focus for resource investment because the lack of specialists for referral and treatment options in these areas is likely a contributing factor.

However, lack of training also plays a role, said Dr. Yale, who was not involved in the study but served as a moderator of the presentation session at the meeting. Many pediatricians in practice have not been trained in substance use screening, and the fact that many of those who did try to screen were not using a standardized screening tool indicates a need for provider education, she said. The take-home message for clinicians is to find ways to include substance use screening in the care of their adolescent patients. Additionally, more research is needed to assess how best to integrate screening tools into visits, whether on paper, electronically, or verbally, and to include training on substance use screening during pediatric medical training.

The survey was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics Research Division. This year’s survey was supported by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. Dr. Camenga had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Yale had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

WASHINGTON – Six in 10 primary care pediatricians reported always screening adolescents for substance use, but less than half reported using a standardized instrument, Deepa Camenga, MD, said in a presentation at the 2023 Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Yale University

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends universal screening for substance use in adolescents during annual health visits, but current screening rates and practices among primary care pediatricians in the United States are unknown, said Dr. Camenga, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Uniformity in screening is lacking

Dr. Camenga presented data from the 2021 AAP Periodic Survey, which included 1,683 nonretired AAP members in the United States. Residents were excluded. The current analysis included 471 pediatricians who reported providing health supervision to adolescents. Overall, 284 of the 471 included respondents (60%) reported always screening adolescent patients for substance use during a health supervision visit. Of these, 42% reported using a standardized screening instrument, Dr. Camenga said.

The majority (70%) of pediatricians who used a standardized screening tool opted for the CRAFFT tool (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) designed for ages 12-21 years. Another 21% reported using an unspecified screening tool, 4% used RAAPS (Rapid Assessment for Adolescent Preventive Services), 3% used S2BI (Screening to Brief Intervention), and 1% used BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and other Drugs).

A total of 77% of respondents reported screening their adolescent patients for substance use without a parent or guardian present. Approximately half (52%) used paper-based screening, 22% used electronic screening, 21% used verbal screening, and 6% reported other methods.

A total of 68% and 70% of respondents, respectively, agreed or strongly agreed that top barriers to screening were the lack of an onsite provider for counseling and the lack of readily available treatment options. Other reported barriers included lack of knowledge or information, patient reluctance to discuss substance use, too many other priorities during the visit, and inadequate payment. Only 6% of respondents strongly agreed that lack of time was a barrier, said Dr. Camenga.

Screening frequency and screening practices varied by geographic region, Dr. Camenga said. Pediatricians in the South and Midwest were only half as likely as those in the Northeast to report always screening adolescents for substance use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43 and 0.53, respectively; P < .05). Similarly, compared with pediatricians in the Northeast, those in the South, Midwest, and West were significantly less likely to report using a standardized instrument for substance use screening (aOR, 0.53, 0.24, and 0.52, respectively; P < 0.001 for all).

The disparities in screening by geographic region show that there is room for improvement in this area, said Dr. Camenga. Systems-level interventions such as treatment financing and access to telehealth services could improve primary care access to substance use treatment professionals, she said.

At the practice level, embedding screening and referral tools into electronic health records could potentially improve screening rates. Many primary care pediatricians do not receive training in identifying and assessing substance use in their patients, or in first-line treatment, Dr. Camenga said.

“We have to invest in a ‘train the trainer’ type of model,” she emphasized.
 

Data highlight regional resource gaps

The current study is important because it highlights potential missed opportunities to screen adolescents for substance use, said Sarah Yale, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview. Dr. Yale said that the disparities in screening by region are interesting and should serve as a focus for resource investment because the lack of specialists for referral and treatment options in these areas is likely a contributing factor.

However, lack of training also plays a role, said Dr. Yale, who was not involved in the study but served as a moderator of the presentation session at the meeting. Many pediatricians in practice have not been trained in substance use screening, and the fact that many of those who did try to screen were not using a standardized screening tool indicates a need for provider education, she said. The take-home message for clinicians is to find ways to include substance use screening in the care of their adolescent patients. Additionally, more research is needed to assess how best to integrate screening tools into visits, whether on paper, electronically, or verbally, and to include training on substance use screening during pediatric medical training.

The survey was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics Research Division. This year’s survey was supported by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. Dr. Camenga had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Yale had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Initiation of buprenorphine in hospitals in the United States has plateaued since 2018, with low retention rates of less than 25%, based on data from more than 3 million individuals who began buprenorphine between January 2016 and October 2022.

University of Michigan

Opioid overdose deaths are at a record high in the United States, and many of these deaths can be prevented with medications such as buprenorphine, said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview. “However, buprenorphine cannot prevent opioid overdose deaths if patients are never started on the medication or only stay on the medication for a short time. For that reason, rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention are critical metrics for measuring how well the U.S. health care system is responding to the opioid epidemic,” he said.

“At the time we started our study, several other research groups had evaluated U.S. rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention using data through 2020. However, more recent national data were lacking,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “We felt that this was an important knowledge gap given the many changes in society that have occurred since 2020,” he noted. “For example, it was possible that the relaxation of social distancing measures during 2021 and 2022 might have reduced barriers to health care visits, thereby increasing opportunities to initiate treatment for opioid addiction with buprenorphine,” he said.

Dr. Chua and colleagues used data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports 92% of prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies in the United States. “Buprenorphine products included immediate-release and extended-release formulations approved for opioid use disorder but not formulations primarily used to treat pain,” they write.

Monthly buprenorphine initiation was defined as the number of patients initiating therapy per 100,000 individuals. For retention, the researchers used a National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measure that defined retention as continuous use of buprenorphine for at least 180 days.

A total of 3,006,629 patients began buprenorphine therapy during the study period; approximately 43% were female.

During the first years of the study period, from January 2016 through September 2018, the monthly buprenorphine initiation rate increased from 12.5 per 100,000 to 15.9 per 100,000, with a statistically significant monthly percentage change of 0.62% (P < .001).

However, from October 2018 through October 2022, the monthly percentage remained essentially the same (P = .62) with a monthly percentage change of −0.03%.

From March 2020 through December 2020, the median monthly buprenorphine initiation rate was 14.4 per 100,000, only slightly lower than the rates from January 2019 through February 2020 and from January 2021 through October 2022 (15.5 per 100,000 and 15.0 per 100,000, respectively).

Over the entire study period from January 2016 through October 2022, the median monthly retention rate for buprenorphine use was 22.2%. This rate increased minimally, with no significant changes in slope and a monthly percentage change of 0.08% (P = .04).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on race and ethnicity, in-clinic administration of buprenorphine, and buprenorphine dispensing through methadone outpatient programs, the researchers note. Also, data did not indicate whether some patients began buprenorphine to treat pain, they say. The timing of the flattening of buprenorphine use also suggests the influence of factors beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, they write.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and suggest that efforts to date to increase buprenorphine use have been unsuccessful, the researchers write. “A comprehensive approach is needed to eliminate barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma and uneven access to prescribers,” they conclude.
 

Study highlights underuse of buprenorphine option

“Our study shows that buprenorphine initiation rates have been flat since the end of 2018 and that rates of 180-day retention in buprenorphine therapy have remained low throughout 2016-2022,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “Neither of these findings are particularly surprising, but they are disappointing,” he said. “There were a lot of policy and clinical efforts to maintain and expand access to buprenorphine during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as allowing buprenorphine to be prescribed via telehealth without an in-person visit and eliminating training requirements for the waiver that previously was required to prescribe buprenorphine.

“The fact that buprenorphine initiation and retention did not rise after these efforts were implemented suggests that they were insufficient to meet the rising need for this medication,” he said.

The current study “adds to a growing body of research suggesting that clinicians are not maximizing opportunities to initiate buprenorphine treatment among patients with opioid addiction,” Dr. Chua said. He cited another of his recent studies in which 1 in 12 patients were prescribed buprenorphine within 30 days of an emergency department visit for opioid overdose from August 2019 to April 2021, but half of patients with emergency department visits with anaphylaxis were prescribed anepinephrine auto-injector.

“My hope is that our new study will further underscore to clinicians how much the health care system is underusing a critical tool to prevent opioid overdose deaths,” he said.

The federal government’s recent elimination of the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine may move the needle, but to what degree remains to be seen, Dr. Chua added. “It is possible this intervention will be insufficient to overcome the many other barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma about the drug among clinicians, patients, and pharmacists,” he said.
 

Lack of education remains a barrier to buprenorphine use

The current study is important to determine whether attempts to increase buprenorphine initiation and treatment retention are working, said Reuben J. Strayer, MD, director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York, in an interview.

Dr. Strayer was not involved in the current study, but said he was surprised that initiation of buprenorphine didn’t decrease more dramatically during the pandemic, given the significant barriers to accessing care during that time.

However, “efforts to increase buprenorphine initiation and retention have not been sufficiently effective,” Dr. Strayer said. “The rise of fentanyl as a primary street opioid, replacing heroin, has dissuaded both patients and providers from initiating buprenorphine for fear of precipitated withdrawal.”

The elimination of the DATA 2000 (X) waiver was the removal of a potential barrier to increased buprenorphine use, said Dr. Strayer. “Now that the DATA 2000 (X) waiver has been eliminated, the focus of buprenorphine access is educating primary care and inpatient providers on its use, so that patients with OUD [opioid use disorder] can be treated, regardless of the venue at which they seek care,” he said.

Looking ahead, “The priority in buprenorphine research is determining the most effective way to initiate buprenorphine without the risk of precipitated withdrawal,” Dr. Strayer added.

The study was supported in part by the Benter Foundation, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center in the department of pediatrics at the University of Michigan. Dr. Chua was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Strayer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initiation of buprenorphine in hospitals in the United States has plateaued since 2018, with low retention rates of less than 25%, based on data from more than 3 million individuals who began buprenorphine between January 2016 and October 2022.

University of Michigan

Opioid overdose deaths are at a record high in the United States, and many of these deaths can be prevented with medications such as buprenorphine, said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview. “However, buprenorphine cannot prevent opioid overdose deaths if patients are never started on the medication or only stay on the medication for a short time. For that reason, rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention are critical metrics for measuring how well the U.S. health care system is responding to the opioid epidemic,” he said.

“At the time we started our study, several other research groups had evaluated U.S. rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention using data through 2020. However, more recent national data were lacking,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “We felt that this was an important knowledge gap given the many changes in society that have occurred since 2020,” he noted. “For example, it was possible that the relaxation of social distancing measures during 2021 and 2022 might have reduced barriers to health care visits, thereby increasing opportunities to initiate treatment for opioid addiction with buprenorphine,” he said.

Dr. Chua and colleagues used data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports 92% of prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies in the United States. “Buprenorphine products included immediate-release and extended-release formulations approved for opioid use disorder but not formulations primarily used to treat pain,” they write.

Monthly buprenorphine initiation was defined as the number of patients initiating therapy per 100,000 individuals. For retention, the researchers used a National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measure that defined retention as continuous use of buprenorphine for at least 180 days.

A total of 3,006,629 patients began buprenorphine therapy during the study period; approximately 43% were female.

During the first years of the study period, from January 2016 through September 2018, the monthly buprenorphine initiation rate increased from 12.5 per 100,000 to 15.9 per 100,000, with a statistically significant monthly percentage change of 0.62% (P < .001).

However, from October 2018 through October 2022, the monthly percentage remained essentially the same (P = .62) with a monthly percentage change of −0.03%.

From March 2020 through December 2020, the median monthly buprenorphine initiation rate was 14.4 per 100,000, only slightly lower than the rates from January 2019 through February 2020 and from January 2021 through October 2022 (15.5 per 100,000 and 15.0 per 100,000, respectively).

Over the entire study period from January 2016 through October 2022, the median monthly retention rate for buprenorphine use was 22.2%. This rate increased minimally, with no significant changes in slope and a monthly percentage change of 0.08% (P = .04).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on race and ethnicity, in-clinic administration of buprenorphine, and buprenorphine dispensing through methadone outpatient programs, the researchers note. Also, data did not indicate whether some patients began buprenorphine to treat pain, they say. The timing of the flattening of buprenorphine use also suggests the influence of factors beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, they write.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and suggest that efforts to date to increase buprenorphine use have been unsuccessful, the researchers write. “A comprehensive approach is needed to eliminate barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma and uneven access to prescribers,” they conclude.
 

Study highlights underuse of buprenorphine option

“Our study shows that buprenorphine initiation rates have been flat since the end of 2018 and that rates of 180-day retention in buprenorphine therapy have remained low throughout 2016-2022,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “Neither of these findings are particularly surprising, but they are disappointing,” he said. “There were a lot of policy and clinical efforts to maintain and expand access to buprenorphine during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as allowing buprenorphine to be prescribed via telehealth without an in-person visit and eliminating training requirements for the waiver that previously was required to prescribe buprenorphine.

“The fact that buprenorphine initiation and retention did not rise after these efforts were implemented suggests that they were insufficient to meet the rising need for this medication,” he said.

The current study “adds to a growing body of research suggesting that clinicians are not maximizing opportunities to initiate buprenorphine treatment among patients with opioid addiction,” Dr. Chua said. He cited another of his recent studies in which 1 in 12 patients were prescribed buprenorphine within 30 days of an emergency department visit for opioid overdose from August 2019 to April 2021, but half of patients with emergency department visits with anaphylaxis were prescribed anepinephrine auto-injector.

“My hope is that our new study will further underscore to clinicians how much the health care system is underusing a critical tool to prevent opioid overdose deaths,” he said.

The federal government’s recent elimination of the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine may move the needle, but to what degree remains to be seen, Dr. Chua added. “It is possible this intervention will be insufficient to overcome the many other barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma about the drug among clinicians, patients, and pharmacists,” he said.
 

Lack of education remains a barrier to buprenorphine use

The current study is important to determine whether attempts to increase buprenorphine initiation and treatment retention are working, said Reuben J. Strayer, MD, director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York, in an interview.

Dr. Strayer was not involved in the current study, but said he was surprised that initiation of buprenorphine didn’t decrease more dramatically during the pandemic, given the significant barriers to accessing care during that time.

However, “efforts to increase buprenorphine initiation and retention have not been sufficiently effective,” Dr. Strayer said. “The rise of fentanyl as a primary street opioid, replacing heroin, has dissuaded both patients and providers from initiating buprenorphine for fear of precipitated withdrawal.”

The elimination of the DATA 2000 (X) waiver was the removal of a potential barrier to increased buprenorphine use, said Dr. Strayer. “Now that the DATA 2000 (X) waiver has been eliminated, the focus of buprenorphine access is educating primary care and inpatient providers on its use, so that patients with OUD [opioid use disorder] can be treated, regardless of the venue at which they seek care,” he said.

Looking ahead, “The priority in buprenorphine research is determining the most effective way to initiate buprenorphine without the risk of precipitated withdrawal,” Dr. Strayer added.

The study was supported in part by the Benter Foundation, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center in the department of pediatrics at the University of Michigan. Dr. Chua was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Strayer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initiation of buprenorphine in hospitals in the United States has plateaued since 2018, with low retention rates of less than 25%, based on data from more than 3 million individuals who began buprenorphine between January 2016 and October 2022.

University of Michigan

Opioid overdose deaths are at a record high in the United States, and many of these deaths can be prevented with medications such as buprenorphine, said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview. “However, buprenorphine cannot prevent opioid overdose deaths if patients are never started on the medication or only stay on the medication for a short time. For that reason, rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention are critical metrics for measuring how well the U.S. health care system is responding to the opioid epidemic,” he said.

“At the time we started our study, several other research groups had evaluated U.S. rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention using data through 2020. However, more recent national data were lacking,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “We felt that this was an important knowledge gap given the many changes in society that have occurred since 2020,” he noted. “For example, it was possible that the relaxation of social distancing measures during 2021 and 2022 might have reduced barriers to health care visits, thereby increasing opportunities to initiate treatment for opioid addiction with buprenorphine,” he said.

Dr. Chua and colleagues used data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports 92% of prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies in the United States. “Buprenorphine products included immediate-release and extended-release formulations approved for opioid use disorder but not formulations primarily used to treat pain,” they write.

Monthly buprenorphine initiation was defined as the number of patients initiating therapy per 100,000 individuals. For retention, the researchers used a National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measure that defined retention as continuous use of buprenorphine for at least 180 days.

A total of 3,006,629 patients began buprenorphine therapy during the study period; approximately 43% were female.

During the first years of the study period, from January 2016 through September 2018, the monthly buprenorphine initiation rate increased from 12.5 per 100,000 to 15.9 per 100,000, with a statistically significant monthly percentage change of 0.62% (P < .001).

However, from October 2018 through October 2022, the monthly percentage remained essentially the same (P = .62) with a monthly percentage change of −0.03%.

From March 2020 through December 2020, the median monthly buprenorphine initiation rate was 14.4 per 100,000, only slightly lower than the rates from January 2019 through February 2020 and from January 2021 through October 2022 (15.5 per 100,000 and 15.0 per 100,000, respectively).

Over the entire study period from January 2016 through October 2022, the median monthly retention rate for buprenorphine use was 22.2%. This rate increased minimally, with no significant changes in slope and a monthly percentage change of 0.08% (P = .04).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on race and ethnicity, in-clinic administration of buprenorphine, and buprenorphine dispensing through methadone outpatient programs, the researchers note. Also, data did not indicate whether some patients began buprenorphine to treat pain, they say. The timing of the flattening of buprenorphine use also suggests the influence of factors beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, they write.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and suggest that efforts to date to increase buprenorphine use have been unsuccessful, the researchers write. “A comprehensive approach is needed to eliminate barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma and uneven access to prescribers,” they conclude.
 

Study highlights underuse of buprenorphine option

“Our study shows that buprenorphine initiation rates have been flat since the end of 2018 and that rates of 180-day retention in buprenorphine therapy have remained low throughout 2016-2022,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “Neither of these findings are particularly surprising, but they are disappointing,” he said. “There were a lot of policy and clinical efforts to maintain and expand access to buprenorphine during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as allowing buprenorphine to be prescribed via telehealth without an in-person visit and eliminating training requirements for the waiver that previously was required to prescribe buprenorphine.

“The fact that buprenorphine initiation and retention did not rise after these efforts were implemented suggests that they were insufficient to meet the rising need for this medication,” he said.

The current study “adds to a growing body of research suggesting that clinicians are not maximizing opportunities to initiate buprenorphine treatment among patients with opioid addiction,” Dr. Chua said. He cited another of his recent studies in which 1 in 12 patients were prescribed buprenorphine within 30 days of an emergency department visit for opioid overdose from August 2019 to April 2021, but half of patients with emergency department visits with anaphylaxis were prescribed anepinephrine auto-injector.

“My hope is that our new study will further underscore to clinicians how much the health care system is underusing a critical tool to prevent opioid overdose deaths,” he said.

The federal government’s recent elimination of the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine may move the needle, but to what degree remains to be seen, Dr. Chua added. “It is possible this intervention will be insufficient to overcome the many other barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma about the drug among clinicians, patients, and pharmacists,” he said.
 

Lack of education remains a barrier to buprenorphine use

The current study is important to determine whether attempts to increase buprenorphine initiation and treatment retention are working, said Reuben J. Strayer, MD, director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York, in an interview.

Dr. Strayer was not involved in the current study, but said he was surprised that initiation of buprenorphine didn’t decrease more dramatically during the pandemic, given the significant barriers to accessing care during that time.

However, “efforts to increase buprenorphine initiation and retention have not been sufficiently effective,” Dr. Strayer said. “The rise of fentanyl as a primary street opioid, replacing heroin, has dissuaded both patients and providers from initiating buprenorphine for fear of precipitated withdrawal.”

The elimination of the DATA 2000 (X) waiver was the removal of a potential barrier to increased buprenorphine use, said Dr. Strayer. “Now that the DATA 2000 (X) waiver has been eliminated, the focus of buprenorphine access is educating primary care and inpatient providers on its use, so that patients with OUD [opioid use disorder] can be treated, regardless of the venue at which they seek care,” he said.

Looking ahead, “The priority in buprenorphine research is determining the most effective way to initiate buprenorphine without the risk of precipitated withdrawal,” Dr. Strayer added.

The study was supported in part by the Benter Foundation, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center in the department of pediatrics at the University of Michigan. Dr. Chua was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Strayer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.