Pharmacotherapy for Substance Use Disorders in Youths

Medications for Opioid Use Disorder for Youth: Patient, Caregiver, and Clinician Perspectives

PURPOSE

Clinical trial data support use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in adolescents and young adults ("youth"), but qualitative data are lacking on the acceptability and importance of MOUD to youth, caregivers, and clinicians. We assessed how these stakeholders viewed the role of MOUD in treatment and recovery.

METHODS

We recruited youth aged from 15 to 25 years with opioid use disorder who had received buprenorphine, naltrexone, or methadone and caregivers from a primary care-based youth addiction treatment program. We also recruited clinicians with addiction expertise from social work, nursing, pediatrics, internal medicine, and psychiatry. We conducted semistructured interviews assessing special considerations for MOUD use in youth. Three coders performed inductive and deductive thematic analysis of transcripts.

RESULTS

Among 37 participants, including 15 youth (age range, 17-25 years), nine caregivers, and 13 clinicians, we identified three themes. (1) Medications support recovery in the short term: Youth described MOUD as beneficial in managing withdrawal symptoms. Notably, some youth and caregivers preferred to limit MOUD duration. (2) Medication adherence is affected by type of medication, dosing regimen, and route of administration. Participants endorsed long-acting, injectable MOUD for ease of use and youth's ability to continue engagement in "normal activities" without daily medication. (3) Caregiver involvement can support medication decisions and adherence. Youth and some clinicians described the need to assess caregiver involvement before incorporating them into treatment; caregivers and other clinicians described caregivers as critical in supporting accountability.

DISCUSSION

MOUD is evidence-based, and its provision should be developmentally responsive and youth- and family-centered, incorporating caregivers when appropriate.

Towards an International Consensus on the Prevention, Treatment, and Management of High-Risk Substance Use and Overdose among Youth

Background and Objectives: Now more than ever, there is an obvious need to reduce the overall burden of disease and risk of premature mortality that are associated with mental health and substance use disorders among young people. However, the current state of research and evidence-based clinical care for high-risk substance use among youth is fragmented and scarce. The objective of the study is to establish consensus for the prevention, treatment, and management of high-risk substance use and overdose among youth (10 to 24 years old). Materials and Methods: A modified Delphi technique was used based on the combination of scientific evidence and clinical experience of a group of 31 experts representing 10 countries. A semi-structured questionnaire with five domains (clinical risks, target populations, intervention goals, intervention strategies, and settings/expertise) was shared with the panelists. Based on their responses, statements were developed, which were subsequently revised and finalized through three iterations of feedback. Results: Among the five major domains, 60 statements reached consensus. Importantly, experts agreed that screening in primary care and other clinical settings is recommended for all youth, and that the objectives of treating youth with high-risk substance use are to reduce harm and mortality while promoting resilience and healthy development. For all substance use disorders, evidence-based interventions should be available and should be used according to the needs and preferences of the patient. Involuntary admission was the only topic that did not reach consensus, mainly due to its ethical implications and resulting lack of comparable evidence. Conclusions: High-risk substance use and overdoses among youth have become a major challenge. The system’s response has been insufficient and needs substantial change. Internationally devised consensus statements provide a first step in system improvement and reform.

New Australian guidelines for the treatment of alcohol problems: an overview of recommendations

OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Chapter 2: Screening and assessment for unhealthy alcohol use Screening Screening for unhealthy alcohol use and appropriate interventions should be implemented in general practice (Level A), hospitals (Level B), emergency departments and community health and welfare settings (Level C). Quantity-frequency measures can detect consumption that exceeds levels in the current Australian guidelines (Level B). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is the most effective screening tool and is recommended for use in primary care and hospital settings. For screening in the general community, the AUDIT-C is a suitable alternative (Level A). Indirect biological markers should be used as an adjunct to screening (Level A), and direct measures of alcohol in breath and/or blood can be useful markers of recent use (Level B). Assessment Assessment should include evaluation of alcohol use and its effects, physical examination, clinical investigations and collateral history taking (Level C). Assessment for alcohol-related physical problems, mental health problems and social support should be undertaken routinely (GPP). Where there are concerns regarding the safety of the patient or others, specialist consultation is recommended (Level C). Assessment should lead to a clear, mutually acceptable treatment plan which specifies interventions to meet the patient's needs (Level D). Sustained abstinence is the optimal outcome for most patients with alcohol dependence (Level C). Chapter 3: Caring for and managing patients with alcohol problems: interventions, treatments, relapse prevention, aftercare, and long term follow-up Brief interventions Brief motivational interviewing interventions are more effective than no treatment for people who consume alcohol at risky levels (Level A). Their effectiveness compared with standard care or alternative psychosocial interventions varies by treatment setting. They are most effective in primary care settings (Level A). Psychosocial interventions Cognitive behaviour therapy should be a first-line psychosocial intervention for alcohol dependence. Its clinical benefit is enhanced when it is combined with pharmacotherapy for alcohol dependence or an additional psychosocial intervention (eg, motivational interviewing) (Level A). Motivational interviewing is effective in the short term and in patients with less severe alcohol dependence (Level A). Residential rehabilitation may be of benefit to patients who have moderate-to-severe alcohol dependence and require a structured residential treatment setting (Level D). Alcohol withdrawal management Most cases of withdrawal can be managed in an ambulatory setting with appropriate support (Level B). Tapering diazepam regimens (Level A) with daily staged supply from a pharmacy or clinic are recommended (GPP). Pharmacotherapies for alcohol dependence Acamprosate is recommended to help maintain abstinence from alcohol (Level A). Naltrexone is recommended for prevention of relapse to heavy drinking (Level A). Disulfiram is only recommended in close supervision settings where patients are motivated for abstinence (Level A). Some evidence for off-label therapies baclofen and topiramate exists, but their side effect profiles are complex and neither should be a first-line medication (Level B). Peer support programs Peer-led support programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and SMART Recovery are effective at maintaining abstinence or reductions in drinking (Level A). Relapse prevention, aftercare and long-term follow-up Return to problematic drinking is common and aftercare should focus on addressing factors that contribute to relapse (GPP). A harm-minimisation approach should be considered for patients who are unable to reduce their drinking (GPP). Chapter 4: Providing appropriate treatment and care to people with alcohol problems: a summary for key specific populations Gender-specific issues Screen women and men for domestic abuse (Level C). Consider child protection assessments for caregivers with alcohol use disorder (GPP). Explore contraceptive options with women of reproductive age who regularly consume alcohol (Level B). Pregnant and breastfeeding women Advise pregnant and breastfeeding women that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption (Level B). Pregnant women who are alcohol dependent should be admitted to hospital for treatment in an appropriate maternity unit that has an addiction specialist (GPP). Young people Perform a comprehensive HEEADSSS assessment for young people with alcohol problems (Level B). Treatment should focus on tangible benefits of reducing drinking through psychotherapy and engagement of family and peer networks (Level B). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples Collaborate with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander health workers, organisations and communities, and seek guidance on patient engagement approaches (GPP). Use validated screening tools and consider integrated mainstream and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander-specific approaches to care (Level B). Culturally and linguistically diverse groups Use an appropriate method, such as the "teach-back" technique, to assess the need for language and health literacy support (Level C). Engage with culture-specific agencies as this can improve treatment access and success (Level C). Sexually diverse and gender diverse populations Be mindful that sexually diverse and gender diverse populations experience lower levels of satisfaction, connection and treatment completion (Level C). Seek to incorporate LGBTQ-specific treatment and agencies (Level C). Older people All new patients aged over 50 years should be screened for harmful alcohol use (Level D). Consider alcohol as a possible cause for older patients presenting with unexplained physical or psychological symptoms (Level D). Consider shorter acting benzodiazepines for withdrawal management (Level D). Cognitive impairment Cognitive impairment may impair engagement with treatment (Level A). Perform cognitive screening for patients who have alcohol problems and refer them for neuropsychological assessment if significant impairment is suspected (Level A).

SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Chapter 5: Understanding and managing comorbidities for people with alcohol problems: polydrug use and dependence, co-occurring mental disorders, and physical comorbidities Polydrug use and dependence Active alcohol use disorder, including dependence, significantly increases the risk of overdose associated with the administration of opioid drugs. Specialist advice is recommended before treatment of people dependent on both alcohol and opioid drugs (GPP). Older patients requiring management of alcohol withdrawal should have their use of pharmaceutical medications reviewed, given the prevalence of polypharmacy in this age group (GPP). Smoking cessation can be undertaken in patients with alcohol dependence and/or polydrug use problems; some evidence suggests varenicline may help support reduction of both tobacco and alcohol consumption (Level C). Co-occurring mental disorders More intensive interventions are needed for people with comorbid conditions, as this population tends to have more severe problems and carries a worse prognosis than those with single pathology (GPP). The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10 or K6) is recommended for screening for comorbid mental disorders in people presenting for alcohol use disorders (Level A). People with alcohol use disorder and comorbid mental disorders should be offered treatment for both disorders; care should be taken to coordinate intervention (Level C). Physical comorbidities Patients should be advised that alcohol use has no beneficial health effects. There is no clear risk-free threshold for alcohol intake. The safe dose for alcohol intake is dependent on many factors such as underlying liver disease, comorbidities, age and sex (Level A). In patients with alcohol use disorder, early recognition of the risk for liver cirrhosis is critical. Patients with cirrhosis should abstain from alcohol and should be offered referral to a hepatologist for liver disease management and to an addiction physician for management of alcohol use disorder (Level A). Alcohol abstinence reduces the risk of cancer and improves outcomes after a diagnosis of cancer (Level A).

Nicotine Use Disorders in Adolescents

Rates of certain tobacco products have decreased over the past decade, but nicotine use disorder is still prevalent among adolescents. New trends in tobacco use, such as in the use of electronic cigarettes, are creating alarm. This article reviews nicotine addiction and measurement in adolescents, along with potential health risks and comorbidities. Various psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions are reviewed along with novel interventions that show promise for reducing tobacco use in this vulnerable population.

Saliva DNA Methylation Detects Nascent Smoking in Adolescents

Objectives: Early identification of smoking, essential for the successful implementation of interventions, arrests the escalation of smoking and smoking-associated risk behaviors in adolescents. However, because nascent smoking is typically episodic and infrequent, enzyme-linked immunoassay reagent-based approaches that detect cotinine, a key nicotine metabolite, are not effective in identifying adolescents in the earliest stages of smoking. Epigenetic methods may offer an alternative approach for detecting early-stage smokers. In prior work, we and others have shown that the methylation status of cg05575921 of whole-blood DNA accurately predicts smoking status in regularly smoking adults and is sensitive to nascent smoking. Yet, the blood draws necessary to obtain DNA for this method may be poorly accepted by adolescents. Saliva could be an alternative source of DNA. However, the ability of saliva DNA methylation status to predict smoking status among adolescents is unknown. Methods: To explore the possibility of using salivary DNA for screening purposes, we examined the DNA methylation status at cg05575921 in saliva DNA samples from 162 high school aged subjects for whom we also had paired serum cotinine values. Results: Overall, the reliability of self-report of nicotine/tobacco use in these adolescents was poor with 67% of all subjects whose serum levels of cotinine was ≥2 ng/mL (n = 75) denying any use of nicotine-containing products in the past 6 months. However, the correspondence of the two biological measures of smoking was high, with serum cotinine positivity being strongly correlated with cg05575921 methylation (p < 0.0001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses showed that cg05575921 methylation status could be used to classify those with positive serum cotinine values (≥2 ng/mL) from those denying smoking and have undetectable levels of cotinine. Conclusions: We conclude that saliva DNA methylation assessments hold promise as a means of detecting nascent smoking.

Research Review: What have we learned about adolescent substance use?

BACKGROUND

Adolescence is a critical biological, psychological, and social developmental stage involving heightened risk for substance use and associated adverse consequences. This review, synthesizing emerging findings on this complex topic, is intended to inform research and clinical care focused on adolescents.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, yielding a cross-section of observational and interventional studies focused on adolescent substance use. Findings were organized and categorized to cover key areas of epidemiology, neurobiology, prevention, and treatment.

FINDINGS

Adolescent substance-related attitudes and use patterns have evolved over time, informed by adult and peer behaviors, public policy, media messaging, substance availability, and other variables. A number of risk and resiliency factors contribute to individual differences in substance use and related consequences. Advances in observational techniques have provided enhanced understanding of adolescent brain development and its implications for substance use. Prevention efforts have yielded mixed results, and while a number of adolescent-targeted evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders have been developed, effect sizes are generally modest, indicating the need for further research to enhance prevention and treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Substance use in adolescence is heterogeneous, ranging from normative to pathological, and can lead to significant acute and long-term morbidity and mortality. Understanding risk and resiliency factors, underlying neurobiology, and optimal developmentally sensitive interventions is critical in addressing substance-associated problems in adolescence.