Fast Five Quiz: Opioid Use Disorder
Opioid use disorder (OUD) currently impacts approximately 16 million people worldwide. It is considered a significant public health issue, with experts noting a 'burden that is increasing' globally. As research into optimal management of OUD evolves, updates to clinical guidelines emphasize a more individualized approach to pharmacologic treatment, psychosocial support, and special considerations for specific patient populations, such as pregnant individuals. However, OUD remains a complex disease that comes with many serious health and legal concerns for both patients and clinicians.
What do you know about OUD? Check your knowledge with this quick quiz.
Despite pharmacologic treatment being known to be highly effective for treating OUD, a CDC report states that 30% of patients with OUD who require OUD treatment received only nonpharmacologic treatment. Further, 43% of patients did not perceive a need for OUD treatment at all. In this significant report, males aged 35-49 years were most likely to receive OUD treatment with medications, while females and younger and older adults had lower rates of access to pharmacologic interventions. The CDC concluded that engaging patients needing OUD treatment with pharmacologic interventions is 'essential.'
Learn more about essential statistics for OUD.
Data from a predictive-model study indicate that service setting was the strongest predictor for premature discontinuation of OUD treatment. The strength of this predictor declined with length of stay, becoming negligent after 365 days.
Other system-level factors such as geographic region, primary source of payment for treatment, and referral source were also strong predictors of early discontinuation; individual factors such as age of first use, sex, and race were less predictive. Previous research cited by the study has also stressed the importance of reducing system-level barriers to care, and the updated federal guidance for opioid treatment programs have expanded access in several ways.
Learn more about OUD guidance.
Precipitated withdrawal can occur when transferring a patient from methadone to buprenorphine due to buprenorphine being only a partial opioid agonist; as such, the traditional method of transfer involves putting the patient in a controlled, moderate withdrawal state before initiating buprenorphine therapy. However, a novel dosing strategy called microinduction, which involves starting buprenorphine at submilligram doses (or 'low-dose induction'), and cross-tapering with methadone can prevent precipitated withdrawal. Additionally, this method is ideal for patients who want to switch from methadone to buprenorphine and those with chronic use of intravenous or intranasal fentanyl. A recent systematic review found that microinduction and traditional transfer methods had similar rates of successful induction of buprenorphine at 95.6%.
Learn more about safe withdrawal practices for OUD.
Both the CDC and the latest American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) guidelines specifically state that pharmacotherapy for OUD should be offered as early as possible in pregnancy to prevent harms to both the patient and the fetus, noting that pharmacotherapy for OUD has been associated with improved maternal outcomes. ASAM specifically states, 'increasing the dose or split dosing is often required, especially in the third trimester.'
Federal guidelines emphasize that pregnant individuals seeking treatment for OUD are considered a priority for enrollment in opioid treatment programs. Once receiving treatment, they do not generally recommended medically supervised withdrawal from pharmacotherapy for pregnant patients as it might harm the fetus and patient; further, ASAM guidelines state that patients who undergo medically supervised withdrawal are at an increased risk for 'return to opioid use.' However, if a patient decides to proceed with medically supervised withdrawal, ASAM guidelines suggest physicians provide education and resources regarding associated risks.
The CDC also specifically recommends against abruptly discontinuing opioids during pregnancy, citing data and resources from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Learn more about OUD.
Federal guidelines specify that opioid treatment programs must conduct at least eight random drug tests per year on their patients. These tests must use FDA approved products that test for commonly abused substances that might affect patient safety, recovery, or adherence to OUD treatment. ASAM affirms this requirement, noting that many patients might need more frequent testing and that eight tests per year 'should be viewed as a minimum.'
Learn more about drug testing in OUD.
Editor's Note: This article was created using several editorial tools, including generative AI models, as part of the process. Human review and editing of this content were performed prior to publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Health Line
19 minutes ago
- Health Line
How Do You Manage Prediabetes?
You can manage prediabetes through simple steps that include exercise, eating, and weight management changes. This can also help prevent type 2 diabetes. Having prediabetes means you may be more at risk for developing type 2 diabetes. This is a signal that you're blood sugar levels are higher but not enough to be diagnosed as T2D. You can take several steps to be healthier if you live with prediabetes, and improve your chances of preventing type 2 from ever developing. Establish balanced eating habits Your eating habits play a big role in prediabetes management, especially when it comes to both blood sugar levels and your overall weight goals. These also play a part in prediabetes and potential T2D development. You can: Keep an eating style that's rich in fiber and lean proteins. Limit carbs and portion sizes. Choose more whole foods and fewer processed foods, including beans, nuts, seeds, and other legumes. Get enough physical activity Staying regularly active can help you manage prediabetes and lower your risk of T2D. Experts recommend 30 minutes of any activity that raises your heart rate to your target rate. Diabetes experts and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) note that 30 minutes of exercise each day, along with nutritional changes and losing 5% to 7% of body weight, can make a difference. This is part of the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP), a long-term study that found this combination of lifestyle changes can lower your T2D risk and progression by 58% or more. Those daily activities may include: bike riding walking going to a gym participating in recreational sports Exercises for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes Try these top exercises to help manage prediabetes and any type of diabetes you may have. Be honest about weight management Having more body fat can increase your risk of prediabetes and developing T2D. As noted above, research shows that losing 5% to 7% of body weight can help reduce your risk for T2D and being able to reverse prediabetes. The American Diabetes Association points out that losing 10 to 15 pounds can make a difference. Learn more about weight management with prediabetes Weight management is a part of managing prediabetes, preventing T2D, and managing diabetes in general. Find out how this matters and what you can do each day. Can you reverse prediabetes and prevent T2D? Yes, you can reverse prediabetes and help prevent a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. While there is no guarantee, taking some of the above-mentioned steps can help make that a reality. The national Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) showed a 58% reduction of T2D risk in people who kept up with these lifestyle changes over the long term (exercise, eating, blood sugar management, and medications where appropriate). That research began in 2002 and followed thousands of people over the years, with studies continuing to monitor the results over time. Other lifestyle tips to reverse prediabetes naturally You can also take many other steps to help naturally manage and reverse prediabetes. Take a look at these helpful ideas to benefit your health and life with prediabetes. The takeaway You can manage prediabetes and prevent T2D through simple steps that include exercise, eating, and weight management changes. There are also many ways you can help reverse prediabetes, including managing stress and minding your mental health.
Wall Street Journal
27 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
RFK Jr.'s Vaccine Purge Won't Make America Healthy
Regarding 'HHS Moves to Restore Public Trust in Vaccines' (op-ed, June 10): HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to 'retire' the 17 members of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices relies on false claims and will make our children and families less safe. I worked with ACIP during my eight years as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The members aren't industry lackeys, as Mr. Kennedy alleges. They're front-line pediatricians, epidemiologists and public-health scientists who serve without pay and who follow strict conflict-of-interest rules. Mr. Kennedy claims ACIP 'has never recommended against a vaccine.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Is Barely Even Pretending Anymore
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accepted his new position as health secretary, he made a big show of distancing himself from his past life. 'News reports have claimed that I am anti-vaccine or anti-industry,' Kennedy, who has for decades promoted the debunked notion that vaccines cause autism and has baselessly sown doubt over the ability of the U.S. government to vet shots, said at his confirmation hearing in January. 'I am neither. I am pro-safety.' But for all Kennedy's talk, this week, he did exactly what a person would do if they were trying to undermine the scientific consensus on vaccination in the United States. He abruptly dismissed the entire expert committee that advises the CDC on its nationwide vaccine recommendations—and began to fill the roster with like-minded people ready to cast doubt on the benefits of vaccination. Like Kennedy, few of these new appointees to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, or ACIP, have openly embraced the notion that they are anti-vaccine. But among them are individuals who have spoken out against COVID vaccines and policies, claimed vaccine injuries for their own children, and falsely linked COVID shots to deaths—or even baselessly accused those vaccines of 'causing a form of acquired immunity deficiency syndrome.' In January, I wrote that remaking the committee in exactly this way would be an especially harmful blow to Americans' health: Perhaps more than any other body of experts in the U.S., ACIP guides the nation's future preparedness against infectious disease. By appointing a committee that is poised to legitimize more of his own radical views, Kennedy is giving his skewed version of scientific reality the government's imprimatur. Whether he will admit to it or not, he is serving the most core goal of the anti-vaccine movement—eroding access to, and trust in, immunization. In an emailed statement, Health and Human Services Press Secretary Emily G. Hilliard reiterated that 'Secretary Kennedy is not anti-vaccine—he is pro-safety, pro-transparency, and pro-accountability,' and added that his 'evidence-based approach puts accountability and radical transparency first, which will restore trust in our public health system.' (Kennedy, notably, promised Senator Bill Cassidy during his confirmation process that he would maintain ACIP, as Cassidy put it, 'without changes.') Since the 1960s, ACIP has lent government policy on vaccines the clout of scientific evidence. Its mandate is to convene experts across fields such as infectious disease, immunology, pediatrics, vaccinology, and public health to carefully vet the data on immunizations, weigh their risks and benefits, and vote on recommendations that guide the public on how to use them—who should get vaccines, and when. Those guidelines are then passed to the CDC director, who—with only the rarest of exceptions—accepts that advice wholesale. 'These recommendations are what states look to, what providers look to,' Rupali Limaye, an expert in vaccine behavior at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told me. Medicare, for instance, is required to fully cover the vaccines that ACIP recommends; ACIP also determines which vaccines are covered by the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free vaccines for children whose families cannot afford them. The experts who serve on ACIP have the opportunity, more than just about any of their scientific peers, to translate their vaccine rhetoric into reality. So far, Kennedy has dismissed the 17 people who were serving on ACIP, and filled eight of the newly open slots. Most of the new nominees have an obvious bone to pick with at least some vaccines, especially COVID shots, and have publicly advocated for limiting their use. Among the new members, for instance, is Robert Malone, a controversial physician who has spoken at anti-vaccine events, where he has denounced COVID vaccines and, without evidence, suggested that they can worsen coronavirus infections. Another appointee is Vicky Pebsworth, who serves on the board of the National Vaccine Information Center, an anti-vaccine nonprofit previously known as Dissatisfied Parents Together. A third, Retsef Levi, a health-care-management expert, called for the administration of COVID vaccines to be halted in 2023, and has questioned the shots' safety, despite a large body of evidence from clinical trials supporting their continued use. Overall, 'this is not a list that would increase confidence in vaccine decisions,' Dorit Reiss, a vaccine-policy expert at UC San Francisco, told me. (None of these new ACIP members returned a request for comment.) The next ACIP meeting is scheduled for the end of this month—and the agenda includes discussion about anthrax vaccines, chikungunya vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines, cytomegalovirus vaccine, the human-papillomavirus vaccine, influenza vaccines, the Lyme-disease vaccine, meningococcal vaccines, pneumococcal vaccines, and RSV vaccines. That's a big slate of topics for a brand-new panel of members, Paul Offit, a pediatrician and a vaccine expert who has previously served on ACIP, told me: Depending on how the meeting is structured, and on the input from CDC scientists, these new committee members could substantially alter the guidelines on several immunizations—perhaps so much so that certain shots could stop being recommended to certain groups of Americans. Based on the composition of the committee so far, Offit predicts that the new ACIP will eventually push the CDC away from full-throated endorsement of many of these vaccines. Even subtle changes in the wording of CDC recommendations—a should swapped for a may—can have big ripple effects, Limaye told me. Insurers, for instance, may be more reluctant to cover vaccines that are not actively endorsed by the CDC; some states—especially those in which vaccines have become a political battleground—may stop mandating those types of shots. If the CDC softens its recommendations, 'we will likely see more partisan divides' in who opts for protection nationwide, Jason Schwartz, a vaccine-policy expert at Yale, told me. Pharmaceutical companies may, in turn, cut down production of vaccines that don't have full CDC backing, perpetuating a cycle of reduced availability and reduced enthusiasm. And primary-care physicians, who look to the CDC's vaccination schedule as an essential reference, may shift the language they use to describe childhood shots, nudging more parents to simply opt out. Historically, medical and public-health associations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, have aligned their vaccine recommendations with ACIP's—because those recommendations were all driven by scientific evidence. Now, though, scientific consensus and government position are beginning to diverge: Multiple groups of physicians, scientists, and public-health scholars have issued statements condemning the vaccine decisions of Kennedy and his allies; a number of prominent scientists have now banded together to form a kind of alt-ACIP, dubbing themselves the Vaccine Integrity Project. As the views of fringe vaccine groups become the government's stance, Americans may soon have to choose between following the science and following what their nation's leaders say. Identifying as 'anti-vaccine' has historically been taboo: In a nation where most people remain largely in favor of shots, the term is pejorative, an open acknowledgment that one's views lie outside of the norm. But the more vaccine resistance infiltrates HHS and its advisers, the more what's considered normal may shift toward Kennedy's own views on vaccines; ACIP's reputation for evidence-backed thinking could even gild those views with scientific legitimacy. Assembling one's own team of friendly experts is an especially effective way to sanewash extremism, Reiss told me, and to overturn the system through what appear to be normal channels. If the nation's most prominent group of vaccine advisers bends toward anti-vaccine, the term loses its extremist edge—and the scientists who argue, based on sound data, that vaccines are safe and effective risk being labeled anti-government. Article originally published at The Atlantic
