Review article: Effective management of opioid withdrawal symptoms: A gateway to opioid dependence treatment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The opioid crisis has taken an immense toll in the United States. On average, five lives are lost to an opioid overdose every hour of the day; estimated costs associated with opioid misuse exceed $500 billion annually. Illicit opioid discontinuation is the first step in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), and transition to an opioid agonist may initiate treatment. However, discontinuation to abstinence from either OUD directly or following agonist treatment results in severely distressing opioid withdrawal symptoms (OWS). METHODS: This review evaluated studies on the etiology, burden, and management of OWS. RESULTS: Noradrenergic hyperactivity generates many OWS. These OWS can cause patients to relapse during early opioid discontinuation. While agonist therapies are generally first-line for moderate or severe OUD and reduce OWS, prescribing restrictions can limit their availability. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Non-opioid medications to treat OWS provides a gateway into long-term treatment with naltrexone or psychosocial therapies. For opioid dependent patients without OUD, non-opioid treatments like α-2 adrenergic agonists can facilitate opioid tapering. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: For the millions who are physically dependent on opioids, new treatments for OWS can enhance recovery from OUD and prevent relapse. (© 2019 The Authors. The American Journal on Addictions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.;XX:1-8).

A Survey of ASAM Members' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices in Urine Drug Testing.

OBJECTIVES: Urine drug testing (UDT) can play an important role in addiction medicine. Indeed, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) recently released a white paper, detailing the history of UDT, emphasizing recent advances in the laboratory and clinical science of UDT, and discussed the potential for broadening clinical utility of UDT. We conducted a survey of ASAM members to better understand their knowledge, attitudes, and practices with regard to UDT. METHODS: ASAM leadership along with clinical and laboratory experts developed a large pool of items on knowledge, attitudes, and practices around the use and implementation of UDT. These were condensed and converted to a web-based format. Two mass e-mails were sent for recruitment to the survey, with the first e-mail resulting in an open rate of 37% and the follow-up e-mail having an open rate of 34%. RESULTS: A total of 365 respondents completed the survey, with 51% indicating they were Board Certified in Addiction Medicine/Addiction Psychiatry. Up to 93% of respondents indicated they were waivered to prescribe buprenorphine, and 20% indicated that they were certified as a Medical Review Officer (MRO). A total of 93% felt confident in their ability to interpret the results of UDT, 90% used UDT to monitor both medication and illicit substance use, and 79% either agreed (48%) or strongly agreed (31%) with the statement "it is important to do adulteration testing for aberrant behavior." Urine drug testing was most likely to be ordered "when a patient is demonstrating problematic behavior" (70%), and for "baseline testing for new patients plus random selection of current patients" (57%). SIGNIFICANCE: The survey revealed that UDT is widely used and highly integrated into the assessment and management of people with addictions undergoing treatment by ASAM members. Greater than 94% of respondents use testing to determine adherence, to monitor abstinence, and to detect an early relapse. The majority felt confident in their ability to interpret and use UDT results, and the vast majority had reportedly used it in changing patient management. Education gaps do exist, however, and should be the focus of future education efforts on UDT.

Safe methadone induction and stabilization: report of an expert panel.

OBJECTIVES: Methadone is a well-studied, safe, and effective medication when dispensed and consumed properly. However, a number of studies have identified elevated rates of overdose and death in patients being treated with methadone for either addiction or chronic pain. Among patients being treated with methadone in federally certified opioid treatment programs, deaths most often occur during the induction and stabilization phases of treatment. To address this issue, the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration invited the American Society of Addiction Medicine to convene an expert panel to develop a consensus statement on methadone induction and stabilization, with recommendations to reduce the risk of patient overdose or death related to methadone maintenance treatment of addiction. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of English-language publications (1979-2011) was conducted via MEDLINE and EMBASE. Methadone Action Group members evaluated the resulting information and collaborated in formulating the consensus statement presented here, which subsequently was reviewed by more than 100 experts in the field. RESULTS: Published data indicate that deaths during methadone induction occur because the initial dose is too high, the dose is increased too rapidly, or the prescribed methadone interacts with another drug. Therefore, the Methadone Action Group has developed recommendations to help methadone providers avoid or minimize these risks. CONCLUSIONS: Careful management of methadone induction and stabilization, coupled with patient education and increased clinical vigilance, can save lives in this vulnerable patient population.

Phosphatidylethanol: the potential role in further evaluating low positive urinary ethyl glucuronide and ethyl sulfate results.

BACKGROUND: Whereas urinary ethyl glucuronide (EtG) levels above 1,000 ng/ml reflect with a high probability ethanol (EtOH) consumption, levels below this cutoff are difficult to interpret as both extraneous (nonbeverage) EtOH exposure, recent drinking, and more distant high EtOH intake (several days ago) might yield similar results. This might be of particular relevance in medico-legal cases. To overcome this dilemma, phosphatidylethanol (PEth) might be a promising marker, because blood PEth is only positive following significant alcohol use. The aim of our study was therefore to employ PEth as a marker to differentiate between the different conditions. METHODS: Subjects included were 252 participants in monitoring with the Alabama Physician Health Program. All subjects testing positive for EtG and/or ethyl sulfate (EtS) who denied drinking after routine supportive confrontation were subject to information about PEth testing. If they still denied drinking, PEth testing was performed and the result communicated. EtG, EtS, and PEth testing was performed in a commercial laboratory using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methods. RESULTS: Of a total of 18 subjects who tested positive for EtG and/or EtS, 10 denied drinking. Of the 7 who denied drinking after PEth explanation, in 5 cases, their claim was supported by a negative PEth result. In 2 cases, a positive PEth result was in contrast to their claim. CONCLUSIONS: PEth results in combination with previous low positive EtG/EtS results allow differentiating between innocent/extraneous exposure and drinking. Negative PEth testing following low positive EtG/EtS results helps to further elucidate the findings and support the claim of the patient of recent alcohol abstinence. Positive PEth testing following positive EtG/EtS results confirms recent drinking.