Purpose In response to the opioid crisis, public health advocates urge hospitals to perform substance use disorder (SUD) screening, brief intervention, discharge planning with referral to treatment, and naloxone education. Universal screening makes specialized treatment available to all patients and decreases stigma around SUDs, allowing patients and providers to address SUDs during their hospitalization. Additionally, hospital and emergency department–initiated medications to treat SUD improve patient engagement with treatment and decrease opioid use, and use of medications for opioid use disorder after nonfatal overdoses decreases mortality. Summary A substance use intervention team (SUIT) service was established to offer universal screening and consultation by an interdisciplinary team at our urban academic medical center. The SUIT program provides inpatient consultation services as well as medical and behavioral clinic visits to transition patients to long-term treatment and is comprised of physicians, nurse practitioners, a clinical pharmacist, social workers, and a nurse. Successes attributed to enhanced medication use as a function of having a designated pharmacist as an integral member of the team are highlighted. Our medical center initiated screening efforts in tandem with its interdisciplinary team and clinic. The team attempts to start appropriately selected patients with SUD on medications for SUD while hospitalized. From January through December 2018, 87.2% of patients admitted to the hospital received initial SUD screening. Of the patients who screened positive, 1,400 received a brief intervention by a unit social worker; the SUIT service was consulted on 880 patients, and multiple medications for SUD were started during inpatient care. Conclusion A screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment service was successfully implemented in our hospital, with the SUIT program in place to provide interdisciplinary addiction care and initiate medications for SUD in appropriate patients.
Pregnant women with opioid use disorder can be treated with methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone to reduce opioid use and improve retention to treatment. In this review, we compare the pregnancy outcomes of methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone in clinical trials and discuss the potential behavioral and developmental effects of these agents seen in offspring in animal studies. Important clinical considerations in the management of opioid use disorder in pregnant women and their infants are also discussed. Outside of pregnancy, buprenorphine is used in combination with naloxone to reduce opioid abuse and diversion. During pregnancy, however, the use of buprenorphine as a single agent is preferred to prevent prenatal naloxone exposure. Both methadone and buprenorphine are widely used to treat opioid use disorder; however, compared with methadone, buprenorphine is associated with shorter treatment duration, less medication needed to treat neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) symptoms, and shorter hospitalizations for neonates. Despite being the standard of care, medication-assisted treatment with methadone or buprenorphine is still underused, making it apparent that more options are necessary. Naltrexone is not a first-line treatment primarily because both detoxification and an opioid-free period are required. More research is needed to determine naltrexone safety and benefits in pregnant women. Animal studies suggest that changes in pain sensitivity, developmental processes, and behavioral responses may occur in children born to mothers receiving methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone and is an area that warrants future studies.
Membranous nephropathy is one of the leading causes of nephrotic syndrome in adults, which is characterized by edema, hypoalbuminemia, hyperlipidemia, lipiduria, and proteinuria. Determination of idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) disease progression risk is important for guiding initial therapy, with immunosuppressive therapy being reserved for high-risk patients. Because IMN may spontaneously remit in approximately 30% of patients, it is important to carefully select which patients should begin immunosuppressive therapy so as to maximize clinical benefit while limiting toxicity. An observation period of at least 6 months with conservative management that includes the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers is recommended. Initial treatment in high-risk IMN is a 6-month course of alternating steroids and alkylating agents. Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) represent an alternative first-line therapeutic option for high-risk patients who refuse treatment with steroid or alkylating agent therapy or for whom these treatments are contraindicated. Additional options are essential for patients with IMN who fail to adequately respond to initial therapies or who cannot use recommended therapies due to contraindications or intolerance, risks associated with repetitive dosing with alkylating agents, or potential exacerbation of impaired renal function with CNIs. While evidence for the use of alternative therapies in IMN is modest at best, our review summarizes the available literature for rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, adrenocorticotropic hormone, intravenous immunoglobulin, and azathioprine. Rituximab has generally demonstrated beneficial outcomes with limited toxicity. Evidence supports a role for mycophenolate mofetil, although the evidence is of low quality and limited duration. Results from ongoing studies are required before adrenocorticotropic hormone can be recommended as therapy for treatment-resistant patients. Intravenous immunoglobulin and azathioprine are unlikely to have a role in IMN. With the advent of new tools and biomarkers measuring disease activity combined with new data regarding possible treatment options, the management and prognosis of IMN are likely to improve.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.