In response to the growing impact of the current opioid public health crisis in the United States on adolescents and young adults, pediatricians have an expanding role in identifying opioid use early, preventing escalation of risky use, reducing opioid-related harms, and delivering effective therapies. Research and expert consensus suggest the use of brief interventions focused on reducing risks associated with ongoing opioid use and using motivational interviewing strategies to engage youth in treatment. Because fatal opioid overdose remains a major cause of opioid-related mortality among youth, delivering overdose education as part of any visit in which a youth endorses opioid use is one evidence-based strategy to decrease the burden of opioid-related mortality. For youth that are injecting opioids, safe injection practices and linkage to needle or syringe exchanges should be considered to reduce complications from injection drug use. It is crucial that youth be offered treatment at the time of diagnosis of an opioid use disorder (OUD), including medications, behavioral interventions, and/or referral to mutual support groups. The 2 medications commonly used for office-based OUD treatment in adolescents are extended-release naltrexone (opioid antagonist) and buprenorphine (partial opioid agonist), although there is a significant treatment gap in prescribing these medications to youth, especially adolescents <18 years of age. Addiction is a pediatric disease that pediatricians and adolescent medicine physicians are uniquely poised to manage, given their expertise in longitudinal, preventive, and family- and patient-centered care. Growing evidence supports the need for integration of OUD treatment into primary care.

Although much of the current public health crisis in the United States focuses on adult populations using opioids,1  1 in 10 adolescents and young adults (15 to 24 years of age) who died in 2016 died of opioid-related causes. These exponential increases in opioid-related morbidity and mortality support the need to identify opioid use early, intervene with effective therapies, prevent escalation of risky use, and reduce opioid-related harms.

Opioid exposure is common among adolescents and young adults (collectively referred to as “youth” hereinafter), with nearly 1 in 4 reporting some type of opioid use, including medical prescriptions.2  Problematic opioid use includes a range of behaviors, from opioid misuse (defined as taking a prescription opioid in ways not prescribed by a physician) to using illicit opioids (such as heroin) or synthetic opioids (such as fentanyl). It has been estimated that ∼891 000 (3.6%) of adolescents <18 years of age misuse prescription opioids, and 2.5 million (7.3%) young adults 18 to 25 years of age misuse opioids annually.3  In recent estimates, it is reported that ∼14% of high school seniors have ever misused prescription opioids,4  and >150 000 adolescents <18 years of age and ∼392 000 young adults 18 to 25 years of age met diagnostic criteria for an opioid use disorder (OUD) in 2016.3 

Initiation of opioid misuse commonly occurs through the use of prescription opioids. Within the current opioid epidemic, among those with a history of heroin use, most report their first opioid exposure being a prescription opioid.5,6  Youth usually acquire opioids from family, friends, and personal medical prescriptions.3  Postdental visits are the leading source of opioid prescriptions to youth, which has been associated with a 6.8% absolute risk increase in persistent opioid use and a 5.4% increase in a subsequent diagnosis of OUD, when compared with those without opioid exposure.7  Furthermore, the earlier the age of opioid exposure, the greater the vulnerability to developing an OUD.8 

Research, expert consensus, and clinical guidelines, including a position statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommend screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) as a general strategy and framework for identifying and managing substance use in pediatric primary care during routine health supervision visits.9  This recommendation resulted, in part, because of the efficacy of SBIRT for unhealthy alcohol use among adults10,11  as well as studies that show pediatricians often underestimate substance use and fail to identify risky use in youth when assessments of risk are based solely on clinical impressions. For example, in a study by Wilson et al,12  clinical impressions among pediatricians of their patients’ alcohol or drug use had a low sensitivity of 0.63 for identifying use. Additionally, sensitivity was even lower for correctly identifying problematic use at 0.14, whereas no pediatricians correctly identified those youth with substance use dependence. These findings support the need for the use of validated screening tools.12 

There are numerous validated structured tools that have been used to screen youth for substance use as part of the SBIRT model (see Table 1). Studies have shown that administering the selected screening tool via computer self-administration or pediatrician interview is equally valid; however, computer self-administration screening is more time efficient, especially for youth reporting any use in the past year.13  Furthermore, studies have found less than half of pediatricians seeing youth use validated screening tools to screen for substance use.14  Thus, the intent of using a strategy such as SBIRT is to increase the use of structured screening tools to improve identification of youth substance use, including opioid use.

TABLE 1

Substance Use Screening Tools and Diagnostic Accuracy

ToolCRAFFT (Car, Relax, Alone, Friends/Family, Forget, Trouble)15 S2BI (Screening to Brief Intervention)16 BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs)17 NIAAA Youth Alcohol Screen (Youth Guide)18 
Tool questions 
  • Part A:

  • During the past 12 months, did you:

  • 1. Drink any alcohol (more than few sips)?

  • 2. Smoke any marijuana?

  • 3. Use anything else to get high?

  • If “no” to all of Part A, then only ask the car question below. If “yes” to any of Part A, ask all 6 CRAFFT below.

  • Part B:

  • • Have you ever ridden in a car driven by someone (including you) who was “high” or had been using alcohol or drugs?

  • • Do you ever use alcohol or drugs to relax, feel better about yourself, or fit in?

  • • Do you ever use alcohol or drugs while you are by yourself or alone?

  • • Do you ever forget things you did while using alcohol or drugs?

  • • Do your family or friends ever tell you that you should cut down on your drinking or drug use?

  • • Have you ever gotten into trouble while you were using alcohol or drugs?

 
  • In the past year, how many times have you used:

  • • Tobacco?

  • • Alcohol?

  • • Marijuana?

  • If “ever” to any of the above, then continue with remaining questions:

  • • Prescription drugs that were not prescribed for you (eg, pain medication or Adderall)?

  • • Illegal drugs (eg, cocaine or ecstasy)?

  • • Inhalants (eg, nitrous oxide)?

  • • Herbs or synthetic drugs (eg, salvia, “K2,” bath salts)?

 
  • Past-year friends’ use and personal use of:

  • • Cigarettes or other tobacco products?

  • • Beer, wine, or any drink with alcohol?

  • • Marijuana?

  • If “yes” to any of the above in personal use, then ask about the following:

  • • Cocaine or crack

  • • Heroin

  • • Amphetamines or methamphetamines

  • • Hallucinogens

  • • Inhalants

  • • Prescription pain relievers

  • • Prescription sedatives

  • • Prescription stimulants

  • • Over-the-counter

  • For each substance, ask frequency of use in the past 30 and 90 d and past year

 
  • For elementary and middle schoolers: start with asking if friends drink. Then ask about personal use.

  • For high schoolers: start with asking about personal drinking. Then ask about friend’s use

 
Diagnostic accuracy 
  • • Tool correctly classified 86% of patients.

  • • Two or more “yes” answers has a sensitivity of 92.3% and specificity of 82.1% for need for treatment

 
  • • Sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 84% (95% CI: 76%–89%) for identifying nontobacco substance use, 90% (95% CI: 77%–96%) and 94% (95% CI: 89%–96%) for SUDs, 100% and 94% (95% CI: 90%–96%) for severe SUDs, and 75% (95% CI: 52%–89%) and 98% (95% CI: 95%–100%) for nicotine dependence

 
  • • Optimal cut points for past-year frequency of use items to identify SUDs were ≥6 d of tobacco use (sensitivity = 0.95; specificity = 0.97), ≥2 d of alcohol use (sensitivity = 0.96; specificity = 0.85), and ≥2 d of marijuana use (sensitivity = 0.80; specificity = 0.93)

 
  • • Tool uses frequency of past-year alcohol use to stratify lower-, moderate-, and highest-risk groups with respect to likelihood of meeting criteria for alcohol dependence on the basis of DSM-IV criteria using age-sensitive cutoff points

 
ToolCRAFFT (Car, Relax, Alone, Friends/Family, Forget, Trouble)15 S2BI (Screening to Brief Intervention)16 BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs)17 NIAAA Youth Alcohol Screen (Youth Guide)18 
Tool questions 
  • Part A:

  • During the past 12 months, did you:

  • 1. Drink any alcohol (more than few sips)?

  • 2. Smoke any marijuana?

  • 3. Use anything else to get high?

  • If “no” to all of Part A, then only ask the car question below. If “yes” to any of Part A, ask all 6 CRAFFT below.

  • Part B:

  • • Have you ever ridden in a car driven by someone (including you) who was “high” or had been using alcohol or drugs?

  • • Do you ever use alcohol or drugs to relax, feel better about yourself, or fit in?

  • • Do you ever use alcohol or drugs while you are by yourself or alone?

  • • Do you ever forget things you did while using alcohol or drugs?

  • • Do your family or friends ever tell you that you should cut down on your drinking or drug use?

  • • Have you ever gotten into trouble while you were using alcohol or drugs?

 
  • In the past year, how many times have you used:

  • • Tobacco?

  • • Alcohol?

  • • Marijuana?

  • If “ever” to any of the above, then continue with remaining questions:

  • • Prescription drugs that were not prescribed for you (eg, pain medication or Adderall)?

  • • Illegal drugs (eg, cocaine or ecstasy)?

  • • Inhalants (eg, nitrous oxide)?

  • • Herbs or synthetic drugs (eg, salvia, “K2,” bath salts)?

 
  • Past-year friends’ use and personal use of:

  • • Cigarettes or other tobacco products?

  • • Beer, wine, or any drink with alcohol?

  • • Marijuana?

  • If “yes” to any of the above in personal use, then ask about the following:

  • • Cocaine or crack

  • • Heroin

  • • Amphetamines or methamphetamines

  • • Hallucinogens

  • • Inhalants

  • • Prescription pain relievers

  • • Prescription sedatives

  • • Prescription stimulants

  • • Over-the-counter

  • For each substance, ask frequency of use in the past 30 and 90 d and past year

 
  • For elementary and middle schoolers: start with asking if friends drink. Then ask about personal use.

  • For high schoolers: start with asking about personal drinking. Then ask about friend’s use

 
Diagnostic accuracy 
  • • Tool correctly classified 86% of patients.

  • • Two or more “yes” answers has a sensitivity of 92.3% and specificity of 82.1% for need for treatment

 
  • • Sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 84% (95% CI: 76%–89%) for identifying nontobacco substance use, 90% (95% CI: 77%–96%) and 94% (95% CI: 89%–96%) for SUDs, 100% and 94% (95% CI: 90%–96%) for severe SUDs, and 75% (95% CI: 52%–89%) and 98% (95% CI: 95%–100%) for nicotine dependence

 
  • • Optimal cut points for past-year frequency of use items to identify SUDs were ≥6 d of tobacco use (sensitivity = 0.95; specificity = 0.97), ≥2 d of alcohol use (sensitivity = 0.96; specificity = 0.85), and ≥2 d of marijuana use (sensitivity = 0.80; specificity = 0.93)

 
  • • Tool uses frequency of past-year alcohol use to stratify lower-, moderate-, and highest-risk groups with respect to likelihood of meeting criteria for alcohol dependence on the basis of DSM-IV criteria using age-sensitive cutoff points

 

CI, confidence interval; DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; NIAAA, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; SUD, substance use disorder.

Strategies for managing OUD in the primary care setting include delivering brief interventions via the SBIRT model, providing referrals, and/or prescribing medications. Evidence for the efficacy of SBIRT for youth, especially in the primary care setting, is ongoing.19  Although evidence has been inconsistent on whether SBIRT improves outcomes for youth, one particular short-term benefit that SBIRT has shown is reducing risky alcohol use among young adults.2022  Moreover, the use of motivational interviewing as a technique to deliver the brief intervention to youth has shown promising, but modest findings related to reducing risky use, such as driving while intoxicated and increasing intentions of engaging in treatment.2325  Overall, preliminary evidence shows positive short-term effects from integration of SBIRT into clinical settings catered toward youth, although these have mainly been focused on alcohol use; evidence for efficacy for drug use is still accumulating.2528  Disappointingly, for youth, there are fewer high-quality clinical trials demonstrating both accuracy of screening tools and evidence of long-term benefits from early detection and intervention, compared with studies with adults. Nevertheless, although there is adequate evidence for substance use screening and intervention for populations >18 years of age, there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening for youth from the United States Preventive Services Task Force.29  Thus, there is a strong and immediate need for additional research on how best to screen, implement, and/or integrate SBIRT into clinical practice focusing on youth. On the basis of the best available evidence, guidance from experts, and the rising mortality and morbidity associated with untreated OUD, we recommend that pediatricians use the SBIRT framework specifically for opioid use. This framework should be focused on brief interventions to reduce risks associated with ongoing opioid use (eg, reducing risk for fatal overdose or use of safe injection practices to decrease risk for infections), while using motivational interviewing techniques to engage youth in treatment of OUD.

Treatment of OUD with medications, behavioral interventions, and referrals can occur in the pediatric primary care setting,13,28,30,31  as well as in specialty treatment referral programs.32,33  Pediatricians should engage families of youth in the treatment plan, as this has demonstrated improved rates of treatment adherence and completion, longer duration of abstinence from substance use, and fewer relapses for youth.3436  When involving parents, it is important to recognize that confidentiality and minor consent laws vary by state.37  The typical focus of management is identifying the least restrictive treatment setting needed for success, although youth often move between multiple levels of care during a single treatment episode.9  Despite high rates of mental health comorbidity, a substantial treatment gap exists, with only 4.6% of youth receiving comprehensive dual diagnosis care (eg, care for both a substance use disorder and a mental health condition).3  Thus, it is essential for pediatricians to evaluate for other co-occurring illnesses that might complicate access to or engagement in treatment.

Harm reduction in the primary care setting incorporates practical and evidence-based strategies that are intended to reduce negative consequences associated with drug use, while also promoting health and well-being.3840  Harm reduction education is particularly important for youth misusing opioids because they tend to have riskier use and/or injection practices compared with older populations.41  They are often less aware of the dangers associated with injection and less knowledgeable about how to reduce risk for infectious complications.42  Needle and syringe programs have decreased HIV transmission and risky injection behaviors among young adults and older adults and can also provide linkage to treatment services.39,43  Supervised injection sites that have been used by young adults and older adults outside of the United States have been found to decrease mortality without increasing drug use or crime.44,45  However, substantial evidence supporting the specific harm reduction practices that have the best improvement in outcomes for youth is lacking.

Because fatal opioid overdose remains a major cause of opioid-related mortality, and youth are generally uninformed about overdose risk,42  it is also crucial to deliver overdose education as part of any visit in which a youth endorses opioid use. Comprehensive overdose prevention education should include counseling on strategies for reducing overdose risk, recognizing signs of overdose, and responding to an overdose. This curriculum has been used in training nonmedical persons for fatal overdose prevention, and those that underwent training were able to successfully use naloxone for overdose reversal.46  In addition to providing overdose prevention education, pediatricians should prescribe naloxone for opioid overdose reversal to youth and their families for all youth using opioids. Naloxone administration by lay people has been shown to be feasible, safe, and effective in reversing opioid overdose.4649  It is important to educate and train both the youth and someone close to the youth on how to administer naloxone in the event of an overdose.

For youth that are injecting opioids and still precontemplative about entering into treatment or cessation of injection drug use, safe injection practices and needle or syringe exchanges should be considered to reduce complications from injection drug use. Youth are less likely to be connected with traditional harm reduction networks than adults50  and may need additional resources from their pediatricians on how to access services at needle and syringe exchanges. Safe injection education may include choosing a safer place to inject (eg, access to clean water, someone nearby in case of overdose, naloxone available), safer materials (eg, use of smaller needles to decrease the size of the puncture wound to reduce infection risk, sterile water, only using new needles and syringes), safer injection sites (eg, forearms are better sites to inject than legs, whereas neck and groin should never be used for injection), and reducing exposure to contaminated products (eg, avoid sharing of needles, syringes, cookers, spoons, cottons, or other equipment).51 

It is crucial that youth be offered treatment at the time of an OUD diagnosis, including medications, behavioral interventions (see Table 2), and referral to mutual support groups (including traditional 12-step programs like Narcotics Anonymous and youth-oriented organizations like a collegiate recovery community).5255  In 2016, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement recommending that pediatricians offer medication for the treatment of severe OUD.56  There are currently 3 medications used in the treatment of OUD in youth: extended-release naltrexone, buprenorphine, and rarely methadone. Although data from large, randomized control trials regarding the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for youth with an OUD are lacking,53  small youth-focused studies and evidence extrapolated from adult data support the use of medications in the treatment of an OUD for youth as the gold standard (see Table 3).5761  Treatment protocols with medications have been suggested in a previous review and described in detail in clinical guidelines elsewhere.6264  However, in general, there are a lack of studies on the long-term efficacy of these medications as well as a lack of comparative effectiveness trials in youth suggesting optimal treatment regimens and optimal treatment duration.

TABLE 2

Behavioral Interventions for Youth With OUD

Cognitive behavioral therapy65  
 Teaches youth how to anticipate problems and develop effective coping strategies 
 Focuses on monitoring feelings and thoughts and recognizing thinking patterns, high-risk situations, and cues that trigger substance use 
Contingency management66  
 Youth can earn low-cost incentives such as prizes or cash vouchers in exchange for participating in treatment, achieving important goals of treatment, and/or not using drugs 
Motivational enhancement therapy67  
 Counseling approach to resolve ambivalence about engaging in treatment 
 Follows the principles of motivational interviewing to overcome or reduce this ambivalence 
Adolescent community reinforcement approach68  
 Focuses on abstinence from drugs by replacing reinforcing use influences with healthier family, social, and educational or vocational reinforcers 
 Uses other important individuals in the youth’s life 
Family-based therapies69  
 Various therapies that engage the youth’s family in treatment 
 Brief strategic family therapy, family behavior therapy, functional family therapy, multidimensional family therapy, and multisystemic therapy 
 Additionally, addresses a variety of issues including family communication and conflict; other co-occurring behavioral, mental health, and learning disorders; school problems; and peer networks 
 Shown to be highly efficacious for youth 
Cognitive behavioral therapy65  
 Teaches youth how to anticipate problems and develop effective coping strategies 
 Focuses on monitoring feelings and thoughts and recognizing thinking patterns, high-risk situations, and cues that trigger substance use 
Contingency management66  
 Youth can earn low-cost incentives such as prizes or cash vouchers in exchange for participating in treatment, achieving important goals of treatment, and/or not using drugs 
Motivational enhancement therapy67  
 Counseling approach to resolve ambivalence about engaging in treatment 
 Follows the principles of motivational interviewing to overcome or reduce this ambivalence 
Adolescent community reinforcement approach68  
 Focuses on abstinence from drugs by replacing reinforcing use influences with healthier family, social, and educational or vocational reinforcers 
 Uses other important individuals in the youth’s life 
Family-based therapies69  
 Various therapies that engage the youth’s family in treatment 
 Brief strategic family therapy, family behavior therapy, functional family therapy, multidimensional family therapy, and multisystemic therapy 
 Additionally, addresses a variety of issues including family communication and conflict; other co-occurring behavioral, mental health, and learning disorders; school problems; and peer networks 
 Shown to be highly efficacious for youth 

National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of adolescent substance use disorder treatment: a research-based guide. 2014. Available at: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-adolescent-substance-use-disorder-treatment-research-based-guide/principles-adolescent-substance-use-disorder-treatment.

TABLE 3

Evidence for Treatment With Medication for OUD

StudyStudy PopulationStudy DescriptionFollow-upMain Outcomes
Buprenorphine     
 Marsch et al70  Adolescents ages 13–18 y (n = 36) 
  • A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-groups randomized controlled trial; assigned to a 28-d outpatient detox with buprenorphine or clonidine.

  • Buprenorphine taper:

  • • If ≥70 kg and/or self-reported use >3 bags of heroin or equivalent in opiates, given daily starting dose of 8 mg of buprenorphine; otherwise started on 6 mg

  • • Then tapered down by 2 mg every 7 d

 
28-d detox only 
  • 72% of those in buprenorphine group were retained in treatment versus 39% of those in the clonidine group (P < .05).

  • For those in the buprenorphine group, a significantly higher percentage of scheduled urine test results were opiate negative (64% vs 32%; P = .01).

 
 Woody et al71  Youth ages 15–21 y (n = 152) 
  • Randomized clinical trial at 6 US community programs; assigned to 12 wk of buprenorphine or 14-d taper (detox).

  • Buprenorphine dosing:

  • • 12-wk group: titrated up to max of 24 mg/day with taper starting at week 9

  • • 14-d detox group: titrated up to max of 14 mg/day and tapered off by day 14.

 
12 wk Those in the detox group had significantly higher proportions of opioid-positive urine test results at weeks 4 and 8 but not at week 12. Those in buprenorphine group had less injection drug use and more remained in treatment versus youth in detox group. 
 Matson et al32  Youth ages 14–25 y (n = 103) 
  • Retrospective chart review of clinic patients seen at an adolescent medicine specialty addiction medicine clinic.

  • Buprenorphine dosing:

  • • Home induction based on protocol; majority were on 8 mg twice daily maintenance.

 
1 y Opioid abstinence was high at 85.2% with high adherence at 86.6% during clinic visits; 75% of patients returned for a second visit. Low retention of 45% at 60 d and 9% at 1 y. 
 Marsch et al72  Youth ages 16–24 y (n = 53 in total; n = 11 under age 18) 
  • Double-blind, placebo, randomized controlled trial (2 sites); assigned to 28-d taper versus 56-d taper of buprenorphine.

  • Buprenorphine taper:

  •  Titrated up to max of 16 mg/day.

 
63 d Those in longer taper group had a significantly higher percentage of opioid-negative urine test results (35% vs 17%, P = .039). 
Extended-release naltrexone     
 Fishman et al33  Youth ages 16–20 y (n = 16) 
  • Case series in a community-based adolescent substance abuse treatment program in Baltimore, Maryland, offering monthly injection of extended-release naltrexone.

 
4 mo 
  • 85% (12 out of 14 who came back for a second visit) received at least 2 doses.

  • 63% were retained in treatment of at least 4 mo.

  • 56% had either substantially decreased opioid use, improvement in at least 1 psychosocial domain, or no new problems due to substance use.

 
 Vo et al73  Youth ages 17–25 y (n = 14 in home-based delivery group; n = 21 in treatment as usual group receiving naltrexone in clinic) 
  • 2-y pilot clinical quality improvement initiative offering home-based delivery of extended-release naltrexone with a convenience sample of youth attending a community-based adolescent substance abuse treatment program in Baltimore, Maryland.

  • Intervention: Naltrexone initially delivered to the treatment center from a pharmacy and then brought to patient’s home by a team consisting of a nurse practitioner and a counselor every 3–4 wk.

 
16 wk 
  • 64% (9 out of 14) received at least 1 dose of extended-release naltrexone at home.

  • Home delivery group had an average of 3.3 doses of the potential 5 monthly doses (including first inpatient dose) versus 2.0 doses for treatment as usual group.

  • 50% of the home delivery group received all 5 doses versus 9% in the treatment-as-usual group.

 
Methadone    
 DeAngelis and Lehmann74  Youth using heroin ages 15–24 y (n = 37) 
  • Community-based opioid treatment center in Connecticut.

  • Intervention: “low-dose” methadone maintenance regimen based on individual needs for 2–13 wk, followed by a taper off methadone lasting 3–14 wk.

 
18 mo 
  • Average methadone dose was 20 mg/day with a range of 10–60 mg/day.

  • Average maintenance phase lasted 7 wk, and average taper phase lasted 7 wk.

  • 35% of youth remained opioid-free and were retained in treatment or were working or in school.

 
 Guarino et al75  Young adults ages 18–23 y (n = 22) 
  • Qualitative study with focus groups consisting of patients (n = 7), staff (n = 6), and parents (n = 3) to better understand components of effective treatment with methadone in a young adult methadone program in New York.

  • Treatment model: outpatient intensive weekly counseling in individual and group settings plus the option of family therapy; patients encouraged to taper off methadone once status is “stabilized.”

 
n/a The following themes emerged: (1) youth themselves must be motivated for treatment; (2) engagement in treatment is often challenging given youth’s limited lifetime history with significant negative consequences due to use; (3) youth-centered treatment is desired with variable treatment options; (4) duration of treatment should be dictated by individual youth’s need, goals, and outcomes; (5) effective treatment involves the family of youth; and (6) youth remain hopeful that they will be tapered off methadone. 
Comparative effectiveness trials     
 Bell and Mutch76  Adolescents ages 14–17 y (n = 61) 
  • Retrospective chart review of all youth at first presentation for treatment of opioid dependence in an Australian treatment center:

  • 20 youth received methadone, 25 youth received buprenorphine, and 15 youth received symptomatic medication for withdrawal; 1 received no medication.

 
Variable Youth receiving methadone had significantly longer retention in the first treatment episode versus those receiving buprenorphine (mean: 354 vs 58 d; P < .01) and missed fewer days in the first month (mean: 3 vs 8 d; P < .05). However, time to re-entry after first episode of buprenorphine was significantly shorter than after methadone. 
 Mattick et al61  Adult patients; 31 trials included (n = 5430 total participants with a range of 40–736 participants in each study) 
  • Cochrane Systematic Review comparing buprenorphine to placebo and buprenorphine to methadone for opioid dependence.

  • Quality of evidence varied from high to moderate quality.

 
Interventions ranged in duration from 2 to 52 wk 
  • High quality of evidence (14 studies) that buprenorphine was superior to placebo in retention of participants at all doses examined (2–16 mg/day).

  • Moderate quality of evidence (3 studies) that high-dose buprenorphine (≥16 mg/day) was more effective than placebo in suppressing illicit opioid use.

  • High quality of evidence (5 studies) that buprenorphine in flexible doses was less effective than methadone in retention; however, no difference was observed in suppression of illicit opioid use with moderate quality of evidence (12 studies).

 
 Lee et al77  Adults ≥18 y (n = 570) 
  • Open-label, randomized controlled, comparative effectiveness trial at 8 US community-based inpatient programs with follow-up in outpatient program.

  • 283 randomly assigned to extended-release naltrexone versus 287 randomly assigned to buprenorphine.

 
24 wk 
  • Extended-release naltrexone had a substantial induction challenge with only 72% of participants successfully initiated versus 94% of participants successfully initiated onto buprenorphine (P < .0001).

  • Among those with successful induction, there was no significant difference in 24-wk relapse between the 2 groups (P = .44).

  • Among those with successful induction, there was no significant difference in opioid-negative urine test results or opioid-abstinent days between the 2 groups.

 
StudyStudy PopulationStudy DescriptionFollow-upMain Outcomes
Buprenorphine     
 Marsch et al70  Adolescents ages 13–18 y (n = 36) 
  • A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-groups randomized controlled trial; assigned to a 28-d outpatient detox with buprenorphine or clonidine.

  • Buprenorphine taper:

  • • If ≥70 kg and/or self-reported use >3 bags of heroin or equivalent in opiates, given daily starting dose of 8 mg of buprenorphine; otherwise started on 6 mg

  • • Then tapered down by 2 mg every 7 d

 
28-d detox only 
  • 72% of those in buprenorphine group were retained in treatment versus 39% of those in the clonidine group (P < .05).

  • For those in the buprenorphine group, a significantly higher percentage of scheduled urine test results were opiate negative (64% vs 32%; P = .01).

 
 Woody et al71  Youth ages 15–21 y (n = 152) 
  • Randomized clinical trial at 6 US community programs; assigned to 12 wk of buprenorphine or 14-d taper (detox).

  • Buprenorphine dosing:

  • • 12-wk group: titrated up to max of 24 mg/day with taper starting at week 9

  • • 14-d detox group: titrated up to max of 14 mg/day and tapered off by day 14.

 
12 wk Those in the detox group had significantly higher proportions of opioid-positive urine test results at weeks 4 and 8 but not at week 12. Those in buprenorphine group had less injection drug use and more remained in treatment versus youth in detox group. 
 Matson et al32  Youth ages 14–25 y (n = 103) 
  • Retrospective chart review of clinic patients seen at an adolescent medicine specialty addiction medicine clinic.

  • Buprenorphine dosing:

  • • Home induction based on protocol; majority were on 8 mg twice daily maintenance.

 
1 y Opioid abstinence was high at 85.2% with high adherence at 86.6% during clinic visits; 75% of patients returned for a second visit. Low retention of 45% at 60 d and 9% at 1 y. 
 Marsch et al72  Youth ages 16–24 y (n = 53 in total; n = 11 under age 18) 
  • Double-blind, placebo, randomized controlled trial (2 sites); assigned to 28-d taper versus 56-d taper of buprenorphine.

  • Buprenorphine taper:

  •  Titrated up to max of 16 mg/day.

 
63 d Those in longer taper group had a significantly higher percentage of opioid-negative urine test results (35% vs 17%, P = .039). 
Extended-release naltrexone     
 Fishman et al33  Youth ages 16–20 y (n = 16) 
  • Case series in a community-based adolescent substance abuse treatment program in Baltimore, Maryland, offering monthly injection of extended-release naltrexone.

 
4 mo 
  • 85% (12 out of 14 who came back for a second visit) received at least 2 doses.

  • 63% were retained in treatment of at least 4 mo.

  • 56% had either substantially decreased opioid use, improvement in at least 1 psychosocial domain, or no new problems due to substance use.

 
 Vo et al73  Youth ages 17–25 y (n = 14 in home-based delivery group; n = 21 in treatment as usual group receiving naltrexone in clinic) 
  • 2-y pilot clinical quality improvement initiative offering home-based delivery of extended-release naltrexone with a convenience sample of youth attending a community-based adolescent substance abuse treatment program in Baltimore, Maryland.

  • Intervention: Naltrexone initially delivered to the treatment center from a pharmacy and then brought to patient’s home by a team consisting of a nurse practitioner and a counselor every 3–4 wk.

 
16 wk 
  • 64% (9 out of 14) received at least 1 dose of extended-release naltrexone at home.

  • Home delivery group had an average of 3.3 doses of the potential 5 monthly doses (including first inpatient dose) versus 2.0 doses for treatment as usual group.

  • 50% of the home delivery group received all 5 doses versus 9% in the treatment-as-usual group.

 
Methadone    
 DeAngelis and Lehmann74  Youth using heroin ages 15–24 y (n = 37) 
  • Community-based opioid treatment center in Connecticut.

  • Intervention: “low-dose” methadone maintenance regimen based on individual needs for 2–13 wk, followed by a taper off methadone lasting 3–14 wk.

 
18 mo 
  • Average methadone dose was 20 mg/day with a range of 10–60 mg/day.

  • Average maintenance phase lasted 7 wk, and average taper phase lasted 7 wk.

  • 35% of youth remained opioid-free and were retained in treatment or were working or in school.

 
 Guarino et al75  Young adults ages 18–23 y (n = 22) 
  • Qualitative study with focus groups consisting of patients (n = 7), staff (n = 6), and parents (n = 3) to better understand components of effective treatment with methadone in a young adult methadone program in New York.

  • Treatment model: outpatient intensive weekly counseling in individual and group settings plus the option of family therapy; patients encouraged to taper off methadone once status is “stabilized.”

 
n/a The following themes emerged: (1) youth themselves must be motivated for treatment; (2) engagement in treatment is often challenging given youth’s limited lifetime history with significant negative consequences due to use; (3) youth-centered treatment is desired with variable treatment options; (4) duration of treatment should be dictated by individual youth’s need, goals, and outcomes; (5) effective treatment involves the family of youth; and (6) youth remain hopeful that they will be tapered off methadone. 
Comparative effectiveness trials     
 Bell and Mutch76  Adolescents ages 14–17 y (n = 61) 
  • Retrospective chart review of all youth at first presentation for treatment of opioid dependence in an Australian treatment center:

  • 20 youth received methadone, 25 youth received buprenorphine, and 15 youth received symptomatic medication for withdrawal; 1 received no medication.

 
Variable Youth receiving methadone had significantly longer retention in the first treatment episode versus those receiving buprenorphine (mean: 354 vs 58 d; P < .01) and missed fewer days in the first month (mean: 3 vs 8 d; P < .05). However, time to re-entry after first episode of buprenorphine was significantly shorter than after methadone. 
 Mattick et al61  Adult patients; 31 trials included (n = 5430 total participants with a range of 40–736 participants in each study) 
  • Cochrane Systematic Review comparing buprenorphine to placebo and buprenorphine to methadone for opioid dependence.

  • Quality of evidence varied from high to moderate quality.

 
Interventions ranged in duration from 2 to 52 wk 
  • High quality of evidence (14 studies) that buprenorphine was superior to placebo in retention of participants at all doses examined (2–16 mg/day).

  • Moderate quality of evidence (3 studies) that high-dose buprenorphine (≥16 mg/day) was more effective than placebo in suppressing illicit opioid use.

  • High quality of evidence (5 studies) that buprenorphine in flexible doses was less effective than methadone in retention; however, no difference was observed in suppression of illicit opioid use with moderate quality of evidence (12 studies).

 
 Lee et al77  Adults ≥18 y (n = 570) 
  • Open-label, randomized controlled, comparative effectiveness trial at 8 US community-based inpatient programs with follow-up in outpatient program.

  • 283 randomly assigned to extended-release naltrexone versus 287 randomly assigned to buprenorphine.

 
24 wk 
  • Extended-release naltrexone had a substantial induction challenge with only 72% of participants successfully initiated versus 94% of participants successfully initiated onto buprenorphine (P < .0001).

  • Among those with successful induction, there was no significant difference in 24-wk relapse between the 2 groups (P = .44).

  • Among those with successful induction, there was no significant difference in opioid-negative urine test results or opioid-abstinent days between the 2 groups.

 

n/a, not applicable.

Several observational cohort studies and small randomized control trials show promising support for the use of buprenorphine in youth with OUD.7072  Youth prescribed buprenorphine for OUD are more likely to be retained in treatment and have lower rates of illicit opioid use while taking buprenorphine.71,72,78  Specifically, Woody et al71  compared 2 different regimens among 152 youth 15 to 21 years of age with opioid dependence and found that those youth receiving buprenorphine for 12 weeks (8 weeks of maintenance dosing with a 4-week taper off) reported less opioid use at 4 and 8 weeks, less injection drug use, and demonstrated retention in treatment compared with youth receiving a 14-day taper of buprenorphine.71  In a smaller study, researchers found similar results with youth receiving a 56-day buprenorphine taper, demonstrating greater treatment retention and a significantly higher percentage of opioid-negative urine test results compared with youth who only received a 28-day taper (35% vs 17%).72  These authors also found that a 2- to 3-times-weekly attendance requirement was associated with better short-term outcomes when compared with a daily attendance requirement. There has been one study in which researchers assessed efficacy of a 28-day buprenorphine taper when compared with a 28-day clonidine taper (used to treat opioid withdrawal symptoms) in a purely adolescent group (13–18 years of age), which showed that buprenorphine was superior to clonidine in retention and reduction of opioid use.70  Similarly, data in adult populations demonstrate improved retention in treatment of individuals at any buprenorphine dose and improved abstinence from illicit opioids when receiving buprenorphine at 16-mg or higher doses.61  In addition, receipt of buprenorphine after an opioid overdose was associated with decreased all-cause mortality and opioid-related mortality.79  These small youth-focused studies mostly assess retention in treatment as the primary outcome of interest, with fewer studies assessing long-term outcomes related to reduced use or mortality. However, Borodovsky et al78  found overall sufficient evidence for using buprenorphine as a long-term strategy to treat OUD in youth, although they highlighted a need for effective treatment delivery models targeted to the unique needs of youth. Importantly, detoxification with buprenorphine or methadone has not been shown to be effective in adults or youth in promoting abstinence beyond initial stabilization; thus, maintenance with medications is the recommended approach.57,70,71 

Additionally, there is a promising new formulation of buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD that may benefit youth because it may overcome adherence issues found with sublingual daily dosing: buprenorphine extended-release injection for subcutaneous use. One brand was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 and it is in use in the US market, whereas another brand currently has tentative US Food and Drug Administration approval. Both of these formulations have been as efficacious as the sublingual formulation of buprenorphine in adult populations and may have advantages related to adherence and diversion.80,81  Both products offer a monthly dosing schedule and are subcutaneously placed in the physician’s office. In adult trials, reported side effects were similar to side effects reported with sublingual buprenorphine; however, injection site issues can occur. Unfortunately, no youth <18 years of age were enrolled in the human trials for these medications, and thus we lack evidence surrounding safety and/or efficacy for this age group.

Although there are only a few case studies on the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone use in youth for an OUD, they have shown promising results for retention.33,73  Specifically, in a small case series of 16 youth who received extended-release naltrexone at an outpatient addiction specialty treatment center, 63% were retained in treatment of at least 4 months, and 56% had a “good” outcome (defined as having decreased opioid use, improvement in at least 1 psychosocial domain, or no new problems due to use).33  A novel pilot administering naltrexone by home delivery to 9 youth connected to a specialty treatment center showed home administration was feasible, acceptable to youth and their families, and that these youth received more doses of naltrexone compared with youth receiving naltrexone in the office.73  Furthermore, in adult data, it is shown that although it can be more difficult to induct individuals on extended-release naltrexone, once successfully inducted, they do as well as those receiving buprenorphine in achieving opioid abstinence.77  Monthly naltrexone may be useful for youth without a long history of opioid use and those who are able to abstain from opioids to initiate therapy. Additionally, for youth who have difficulty with daily adherence to oral medication, such as buprenorphine, extended-release naltrexone may be preferred.

Methadone is rarely used as a second-line treatment of an OUD in youth. Methadone access is restricted to licensed opioid treatment programs and is further restricted for youth 16 and 17 years of age. Federal regulations require that methadone clinics receive a special waiver to treat youth.82  Typically, youth <18 years of age must be pregnant or demonstrate 2 treatment failures of detoxification or psychosocial interventions without pharmacotherapy to be eligible for treatment with methadone.83  There have been small studies in which researchers assess the effectiveness of methadone for maintenance treatment, mostly among heroin-using youth. In a small retrospective study of 61 youth, methadone was shown to have better retention rates compared with buprenorphine.76  This is a similar pattern seen in studies of adult patients; although, at higher doses, both medications performed equally well in suppressing illicit opioid use among adults.61  However, given the restrictions on availability of methadone and its more-concerning safety profile, it is rarely used in the treatment of OUD among youth.

There is a significant gap in research related to best practices for treatment of OUD within pediatric offices. Adult primary care studies and implementation models provide examples that should be tested in pediatric care systems. Multidisciplinary and coordinated care delivery models have been found to be effective strategies in the implementation of OUD treatment into adult clinical settings, although few models included pediatric practices.84  For example, the Hub-and-Spoke model pioneered in Vermont, Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes), and the Massachusetts nurse care manager model are promising models primarily using treatment with buprenorphine and psychosocial services that can be adapted for pediatric and/or adolescent medicine settings.85  The Hub-and-Spoke model operates with opioid treatment programs called “hubs” that perform the initial induction and then connects the patient with office-based opioid treatment settings called “spokes,” such as primary care clinics, to develop a network of expertise, mentorship, referrals, and resources. In Vermont, this model has led to an increase in the number of waivered providers that are able to prescribe buprenorphine as well as a 50% increase in the number of patients being prescribed buprenorphine.86  A similar model exists in Project ECHO, whereby pediatricians are linked electronically to experts at academic centers via teleconferencing, virtual clinics, Web-based training, and mentorship primarily for buprenorphine prescribing.87,88  The Massachusetts model uses trained nurse case managers who comprehensively evaluate patients for appropriateness, educate and counsel patients, monitor and manage adherence, evaluate for any need for transition to higher level of care, and communicate with prescribing physicians.89,90  There are few large-scale clinic models implemented to deliver care to youth with OUD. In a novel clinic model treating youth 14 to 25 years of age with OUD, they found youth could be inducted onto buprenorphine at home by starting dosing 18 to 24 hours after last opioid use.32  Although youth were successfully inducted on medication for treatment of OUD, only 45% remained in treatment at 60 days, and <1 in 10 were in treatment at 1 year, suggesting long-term retention of youth remains challenging. The likelihood of integrated behavioral health and primary care services for youth to treat OUD is not unprecedented because coordinated care, co-located care, and integrated care models have good efficacy in treatment of youth with depression.91  Additional research highlighting how best to integrate OUD treatment into a variety of pediatric primary care and subspecialty settings is critically needed.

There are also a number of gaps in the delivery of the above mentioned medications to youth with OUD, especially for those <18 years of age. For example, only 1 in 4 commercially insured youth with an OUD received any pharmacotherapy to treat their addiction.92  Specialty treatment programs reported 2.6% of youth 15 to 17 years of age received medications to treat heroin use disorder, compared with 26% of adults, and only 0.4% of youth received medications to treat prescription OUD compared with 12% of adults.82  Similarly, <5% of youth <18 years of age and approximately one-quarter of young adults 18 to 22 years of age with Medicaid received medications for OUD within 3 months of diagnosis.93  Timely receipt of pharmacotherapy to treat OUD has been associated with greater retention in care, compared with youth receiving only behavioral services.93  Less than 2% of youth between 13 to 22 years of age received medications for OUD within 30 days of a nonfatal opioid-related overdose, whereas 30% received behavioral services.94  In contrast, 30% of adults received medications for OUD after an overdose.79  Furthermore, receipt of buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reduced all-cause and opioid-related mortality among adults.79  Among young adults seeking to enroll in substance use treatment, only 35% successfully linked to treatment because of stigma and/or discrimination, insurance barriers, wait lists, and inability to pay.95  There are also significant racial and sex disparities, with fewer African American and Hispanic youth as well as females receiving pharmacotherapy compared with white males.92  Moreover, as only 0.2% of pediatricians have completed the Drug Enforcement Administration waiver process to receive the ability to prescribe buprenorphine, there are only a few pediatricians comfortable and able to treat youth with OUD.96  Given the above mentioned treatment gaps and significant morbidity and mortality from opioids impacting young people, it is paramount that the pediatric workforce mobilize to screen and treat OUD in youth.

Addiction is a pediatric disease that pediatricians are uniquely poised to manage, given their expertise in longitudinal, preventive, and family- and patient-centered care. Opioid use is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, necessitating intervention at the time of diagnosis. For those youth with an OUD, treatment offered at the time of diagnosis with either buprenorphine or naltrexone should become the new standard of care, along with delivery of targeted harm reduction services and linkage to psychosocial supports. However, questions remain unanswered regarding how best to integrate treatment of OUD into clinical practice, including duration and optimal treatment regimens for OUD in youth.

All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

FUNDING: Dr Robinson was supported in part by a Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development–funded Adolescent Health Training grant (T32HD052459) and a US Health Resources and Services Administration Leadership Education in Adolescent Health Training grant (T71MC08054). Dr Wilson was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (KL2TR0018586).

     
  • OUD

    opioid use disorder

  •  
  • SBIRT

    screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment

1
Gomes
T
,
Tadrous
M
,
Mamdani
MM
,
Paterson
JM
,
Juurlink
DN
.
The burden of opioid-related mortality in the United States
.
JAMA Netw Open
.
2018
;
1
(
2
):
e180217
2
McCabe
SE
,
West
BT
,
Veliz
P
,
McCabe
VV
,
Stoddard
SA
,
Boyd
CJ
.
Trends in medical and nonmedical use of prescription opioids among US adolescents: 1976–2015
.
Pediatrics
.
2017
;
139
(
4
):
e20162387
3
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
.
Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results From the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
.
Rockville, MD
:
Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
;
2017
4
Kann
L
,
McManus
T
,
Harris
WA
, et al
.
Youth risk behavior surveillance - United States, 2017
.
MMWR Surveill Summ
.
2018
;
67
(
8
):
1
114
5
Muhuri
PK
,
Gfroerer
JC
,
Davies
MC
;
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Associations of nonmedical pain reliever use and initiation of heroin use in the United States
2013
. Available at: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DR006/DR006/nonmedical-pain-reliever-use-2013.htm. Accessed May 1, 2019
6
Cicero
TJ
,
Ellis
MS
,
Surratt
HL
,
Kurtz
SP
.
The changing face of heroin use in the United States: a retrospective analysis of the past 50 years
.
JAMA Psychiatry
.
2014
;
71
(
7
):
821
826
7
Schroeder
AR
,
Dehghan
M
,
Newman
TB
,
Bentley
JP
,
Park
KT
.
Association of opioid prescriptions from dental clinicians for US adolescents and young adults with subsequent opioid use and abuse
.
JAMA Intern Med
.
2019
;
179
(
2
):
145
152
8
Grant
BF
,
Stinson
FS
,
Harford
TC
.
Age at onset of alcohol use and DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: a 12-year follow-up
.
J Subst Abuse
.
2001
;
13
(
4
):
493
504
9
Levy
SJ
,
Williams
JF
;
Committee on Substance Use and Prevention
.
Substance use screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment
.
Pediatrics
.
2016
;
138
(
1
):
e20161211
10
Curry
SJ
,
Krist
AH
,
Owens
DK
, et al;
US Preventive Services Task Force
.
Screening and behavioral counseling interventions to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
.
JAMA
.
2018
;
320
(
18
):
1899
1909
11
O’Connor
EA
,
Perdue
LA
,
Senger
CA
, et al
.
Screening and behavioral counseling interventions to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in adolescents and adults: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force
.
JAMA
.
2018
;
320
(
18
):
1910
1928
12
Wilson
CR
,
Sherritt
L
,
Gates
E
,
Knight
JR
.
Are clinical impressions of adolescent substance use accurate?
Pediatrics
.
2004
;
114
(
5
).
13
Harris
SK
,
Knight
JR
 Jr.
,
Van Hook
S
, et al
.
Adolescent substance use screening in primary care: validity of computer self-administered versus clinician-administered screening
.
Subst Abus
.
2016
;
37
(
1
):
197
203
14
Harris
SK
,
Herr-Zaya
K
,
Weinstein
Z
, et al
.
Results of a statewide survey of adolescent substance use screening rates and practices in primary care
.
Subst Abus
.
2012
;
33
(
4
):
321
326
15
Knight
JR
 Jr.
,
Shrier
LA
,
Bravender
TD
,
Farrell
M
,
Vander Bilt
J
,
Shaffer
HJ
.
A new brief screen for adolescent substance abuse
.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
.
1999
;
153
(
6
):
591
596
16
Levy
S
,
Weiss
R
,
Sherritt
L
, et al
.
An electronic screen for triaging adolescent substance use by risk levels
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2014
;
168
(
9
):
822
828
17
Kelly
SM
,
Gryczynski
J
,
Mitchell
SG
,
Kirk
A
,
O’Grady
KE
,
Schwartz
RP
.
Validity of brief screening instrument for adolescent tobacco, alcohol, and drug use
.
Pediatrics
.
2014
;
133
(
5
):
819
826
18
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
.
Alcohol screening and brief intervention for youth: a practitioner’s guide.
2011
. Available at: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/YouthGuide/YouthGuide.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2019
19
Mitchell
SG
,
Schwartz
RP
,
Kirk
AS
, et al
.
SBIRT implementation for adolescents in urban federally qualified health centers
.
J Subst Abuse Treat
.
2016
;
60
:
81
90
20
Sommers
MS
,
Lyons
MS
,
Fargo
JD
, et al
.
Emergency department-based brief intervention to reduce risky driving and hazardous/harmful drinking in young adults: a randomized controlled trial
.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res
.
2013
;
37
(
10
):
1753
1762
21
Suffoletto
B
,
Callaway
C
,
Kristan
J
,
Kraemer
K
,
Clark
DB
.
Text-message-based drinking assessments and brief interventions for young adults discharged from the emergency department
.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res
.
2012
;
36
(
3
):
552
560
22
Monti
PM
,
Barnett
NP
,
Colby
SM
, et al
.
Motivational interviewing versus feedback only in emergency care for young adult problem drinking
.
Addiction
.
2007
;
102
(
8
):
1234
1243
23
Tucker
JS
,
D’Amico
EJ
,
Ewing
BA
,
Miles
JN
,
Pedersen
ER
.
A group-based motivational interviewing brief intervention to reduce substance use and sexual risk behavior among homeless young adults
.
J Subst Abuse Treat
.
2017
;
76
:
20
27
24
D’Amico
EJ
,
Miles
JN
,
Stern
SA
,
Meredith
LS
.
Brief motivational interviewing for teens at risk of substance use consequences: a randomized pilot study in a primary care clinic
.
J Subst Abuse Treat
.
2008
;
35
(
1
):
53
61
25
Ozechowski
TJ
,
Becker
SJ
,
Hogue
A
.
SBIRT-A: adapting SBIRT to maximize developmental fit for adolescents in primary care
.
J Subst Abuse Treat
.
2016
;
62
:
28
37
26
Beaton
A
,
Shubkin
CD
,
Chapman
S
.
Addressing substance misuse in adolescents: a review of the literature on the screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment model
.
Curr Opin Pediatr
.
2016
;
28
(
2
):
258
265
27
Tanner-Smith
EE
,
Lipsey
MW
.
Brief alcohol interventions for adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
J Subst Abuse Treat
.
2015
;
51
:
1
18
28
Harris
SK
,
Csémy
L
,
Sherritt
L
, et al
.
Computer-facilitated substance use screening and brief advice for teens in primary care: an international trial
.
Pediatrics
.
2012
;
129
(
6
):
1072
1082
29
US Preventive Services Task Force
.
Draft recommendation statement: illicit drug use, including nonmedical use of prescription drugs: screening. 2019
.
30
Hadland
SE
,
Wood
E
,
Levy
S
.
How the paediatric workforce can address the opioid crisis
.
Lancet
.
2016
;
388
(
10051
):
1260
1261
31
Lange
HLH
,
Matson
SC
,
Bonny
AE
.
Computerized self-administered substance use screening in a general adolescent clinic
.
Clin Pediatr (Phila)
.
2018
;
57
(
10
):
1232
1235
32
Matson
SC
,
Hobson
G
,
Abdel-Rasoul
M
,
Bonny
AE
.
A retrospective study of retention of opioid-dependent adolescents and young adults in an outpatient buprenorphine/naloxone clinic
.
J Addict Med
.
2014
;
8
(
3
):
176
182
33
Fishman
MJ
,
Winstanley
EL
,
Curran
E
,
Garrett
S
,
Subramaniam
G
.
Treatment of opioid dependence in adolescents and young adults with extended release naltrexone: preliminary case-series and feasibility
.
Addiction
.
2010
;
105
(
9
):
1669
1676
34
Kumpfer
KL
,
Alvarado
R
,
Whiteside
HO
.
Family-based interventions for substance use and misuse prevention
.
Subst Use Misuse
.
2003
;
38
(
11–13
):
1759
1787
35
Liddle
HA
.
Family-based therapies for adolescent alcohol and drug use: research contributions and future research needs
.
Addiction
.
2004
;
99
(
2,
suppl 2
):
76
92
36
Steinglass
P
.
Systemic-motivational therapy for substance abuse disorders: an integrative model
.
J Fam Ther
.
2009
;
31
:
155
174
37
Kerwin
ME
,
Kirby
KC
,
Speziali
D
, et al
.
What can parents do? A review of state laws regarding decision making for adolescent drug abuse and mental health treatment
.
J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse
.
2015
;
24
(
3
):
166
176
38
Jenkins
EK
,
Slemon
A
,
Haines-Saah
RJ
.
Developing harm reduction in the context of youth substance use: insights from a multi-site qualitative analysis of young people’s harm minimization strategies
.
Harm Reduct J
.
2017
;
14
(
1
):
53
39
Marshall
BD
,
Green
TC
,
Yedinak
JL
,
Hadland
SE
.
Harm reduction for young people who use prescription opioids extra-medically: obstacles and opportunities
.
Int J Drug Policy
.
2016
;
31
:
25
31
40
Roberts
E
,
Martinez
J
.
Harm reduction approach. 2016
.
41
Cedarbaum
ER
,
Banta-Green
CJ
.
Health behaviors of young adult heroin injectors in the Seattle area
.
Drug Alcohol Depend
.
2016
;
158
:
102
109
42
Frank
D
,
Mateu-Gelabert
P
,
Guarino
H
, et al
.
High risk and little knowledge: overdose experiences and knowledge among young adult nonmedical prescription opioid users
.
Int J Drug Policy
.
2015
;
26
(
1
):
84
91
43
Fernandes
RM
,
Cary
M
,
Duarte
G
, et al
.
Effectiveness of needle and syringe Programmes in people who inject drugs - an overview of systematic reviews
.
BMC Public Health
.
2017
;
17
(
1
):
309
44
Potier
C
,
Laprévote
V
,
Dubois-Arber
F
,
Cottencin
O
,
Rolland
B
.
Supervised injection services: what has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review
.
Drug Alcohol Depend
.
2014
;
145
:
48
68
45
Marshall
BDL
,
Milloy
MJ
,
Wood
E
,
Montaner
JSG
,
Kerr
T
.
Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study
.
Lancet
.
2011
;
377
(
9775
):
1429
1437
46
Clark
AK
,
Wilder
CM
,
Winstanley
EL
.
A systematic review of community opioid overdose prevention and naloxone distribution programs
.
J Addict Med
.
2014
;
8
(
3
):
153
163
47
Kim
D
,
Irwin
KS
,
Khoshnood
K
.
Expanded access to naloxone: options for critical response to the epidemic of opioid overdose mortality
.
Am J Public Health
.
2009
;
99
(
3
):
402
407
48
Behar
E
,
Santos
GM
,
Wheeler
E
,
Rowe
C
,
Coffin
PO
.
Brief overdose education is sufficient for naloxone distribution to opioid users
.
Drug Alcohol Depend
.
2015
;
148
:
209
212
49
Giglio
RE
,
Li
G
,
DiMaggio
CJ
.
Effectiveness of bystander naloxone administration and overdose education programs: a meta-analysis
.
Inj Epidemiol
.
2015
;
2
(
1
):
10
50
Mateu-Gelabert
P
,
Guarino
H
,
Jessell
L
,
Teper
A
.
Injection and sexual HIV/HCV risk behaviors associated with nonmedical use of prescription opioids among young adults in New York City
.
J Subst Abuse Treat
.
2015
;
48
(
1
):
13
20
51
Harm Reduction Coalition
.
Getting off right safety manual. 2012. Available at: https://harmreduction.org/drugs-and-drug-users/drug-tools/getting-off-right/. Accessed April 26, 2019
52
Passetti
LL
,
Godley
SH
,
Godley
MD
.
Youth participation in mutual support groups: history, current knowledge, and areas for future research
.
J Groups Addict Recovery
.
2012
;
7
(
2–4
):
253
278
53
Yule
AM
,
Lyons
RM
,
Wilens
TE
.
Opioid use disorders in adolescents-updates in assessment and management
.
Curr Pediatr Rep
.
2018
;
6
(
2
):
99
106
54
National Institute on Drug Abuse
.
Principles of adolescent substance use disorder treatment: a research-based guide. 2014
.
55
Kelly
JF
,
Urbanoski
K
.
Youth recovery contexts: the incremental effects of 12-step attendance and involvement on adolescent outpatient outcomes
.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res
.
2012
;
36
(
7
):
1219
1229
56
Committee on Substance Use and Prevention
.
Medication-assisted treatment of adolescents with opioid use disorders
.
Pediatrics
.
2016
;
138
(
3
):
e20161893
57
Bart
G
.
Maintenance medication for opiate addiction: the foundation of recovery
.
J Addict Dis
.
2012
;
31
(
3
):
207
225
58
Connery
HS
.
Medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder: review of the evidence and future directions
.
Harv Rev Psychiatry
.
2015
;
23
(
2
):
63
75
59
Thomas
CP
,
Fullerton
CA
,
Kim
M
, et al
.
Medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine: assessing the evidence
.
Psychiatr Serv
.
2014
;
65
(
2
):
158
170
60
Fullerton
CA
,
Kim
M
,
Thomas
CP
, et al
.
Medication-assisted treatment with methadone: assessing the evidence
.
Psychiatr Serv
.
2014
;
65
(
2
):
146
157
61
Mattick
RP
,
Breen
C
,
Kimber
J
,
Davoli
M
.
Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2014
;(
2
):
CD002207
62
Carney
BL
,
Hadland
SE
,
Bagley
SM
.
Medication treatment of adolescent opioid use disorder in primary care
.
Pediatr Rev
.
2018
;
39
(
1
):
43
45
63
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
.
Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction
.
Rockville, MD
:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
;
2004
64
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
.
Clinical Use of Extended-Release Injectable Naltrexone in the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder: A Brief Guide
.
Rockville, MD
:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
;
2015
65
Kaminer
Y
,
Waldron
HB
. Evidence-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapies for Adolescent Substance Use Disorders: Applications and Challenges. In:
Rowe
C
,
Liddle
H
, eds.
Adolescent Substance Abuse: Research and Clinical Advances
.
New York, NY
:
Cambridge University Press
;
2006
:
396
419
66
Stanger
C
,
Budney
AJ
.
Contingency management approaches for adolescent substance use disorders
.
Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am
.
2010
;
19
(
3
):
547
562
67
Barnett
E
,
Sussman
S
,
Smith
C
,
Rohrbach
LA
,
Spruijt-Metz
D
.
Motivational interviewing for adolescent substance use: a review of the literature
.
Addict Behav
.
2012
;
37
(
12
):
1325
1334
68
Dennis
M
,
Godley
SH
,
Diamond
G
, et al
.
The Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) study: main findings from two randomized trials
.
J Subst Abuse Treat
.
2004
;
27
(
3
):
197
213
69
Hogue
A
,
Liddle
HA
.
Family-based treatment for adolescent substance abuse: controlled trials and new horizons in services research
.
J Fam Ther
.
2009
;
31
(
2
):
126
154
70
Marsch
LA
,
Bickel
WK
,
Badger
GJ
, et al
.
Comparison of pharmacological treatments for opioid-dependent adolescents: a randomized controlled trial
.
Arch Gen Psychiatry
.
2005
;
62
(
10
):
1157
1164
71
Woody
GE
,
Poole
SA
,
Subramaniam
G
, et al
.
Extended vs short-term buprenorphine-naloxone for treatment of opioid-addicted youth: a randomized trial [published correction appears in JAMA. 2009;301(8):830]; [published correction appears in JAMA. 2013;309(14):1461]
.
JAMA
.
2008
;
300
(
17
):
2003
2011
72
Marsch
LA
,
Moore
SK
,
Borodovsky
JT
, et al
.
A randomized controlled trial of buprenorphine taper duration among opioid-dependent adolescents and young adults
.
Addiction
.
2016
;
111
(
8
):
1406
1415
73
Vo
HT
,
Burgower
R
,
Rozenberg
I
,
Fishman
M
.
Home-based delivery of XR-NTX in youth with opioid addiction
.
J Subst Abuse Treat
.
2018
;
85
:
84
89
74
DeAngelis
GG
,
Lehmann
WX
.
Adolescents and short term, low dose methadone maintenance
.
Int J Addict
.
1973
;
8
(
5
):
853
863
75
Guarino
HM
,
Marsch
LA
,
Campbell
WS
 III
,
Gargano
SP
,
Haller
DL
,
Solhkhah
R
.
Methadone maintenance treatment for youth: experiences of clients, staff, and parents
.
Subst Use Misuse
.
2009
;
44
(
14
):
1979
1989
76
Bell
J
,
Mutch
C
.
Treatment retention in adolescent patients treated with methadone or buprenorphine for opioid dependence: a file review
.
Drug Alcohol Rev
.
2006
;
25
(
2
):
167
171
77
Lee
JD
,
Nunes
EV
 Jr.
,
Novo
P
, et al
.
Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
.
2018
;
391
(
10118
):
309
318
78
Borodovsky
JT
,
Levy
S
,
Fishman
M
,
Marsch
LA
.
Buprenorphine treatment for adolescents and young adults with opioid use disorders: a narrative review
.
J Addict Med
.
2018
;
12
(
3
):
170
183
79
Larochelle
MR
,
Bernson
D
,
Land
T
, et al
.
Medication for opioid use disorder after nonfatal opioid overdose and association with mortality: a cohort study
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2018
;
169
(
3
):
137
145
80
Lofwall
MR
,
Walsh
SL
,
Nunes
EV
, et al
.
Weekly and monthly subcutaneous buprenorphine depot formulations vs daily sublingual buprenorphine with naloxone for treatment of opioid use disorder: a randomized clinical trial
.
JAMA Intern Med
.
2018
;
178
(
6
):
764
773
81
Haight
BR
,
Learned
SM
,
Laffont
CM
, et al;
RB-US-13-0001 Study Investigators
.
Efficacy and safety of a monthly buprenorphine depot injection for opioid use disorder: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial
.
Lancet
.
2019
;
393
(
10173
):
778
790
82
Feder
KA
,
Krawczyk
N
,
Saloner
B
.
Medication-assisted treatment for adolescents in specialty treatment for opioid use disorder
.
J Adolesc Health
.
2017
;
60
(
6
):
747
750
83
Hammond
CJ
.
The role of pharmacotherapy in the treatment of adolescent substance use disorders
.
Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am
.
2016
;
25
(
4
):
685
711
84
Lagisetty
P
,
Klasa
K
,
Bush
C
,
Heisler
M
,
Chopra
V
,
Bohnert
A
.
Primary care models for treating opioid use disorders: what actually works? A systematic review
.
PLoS One
.
2017
;
12
(
10
):
e0186315
85
Korthuis
PT
,
McCarty
D
,
Weimer
M
, et al
.
Primary care-based models for the treatment of opioid use disorder: a scoping review
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2017
;
166
(
4
):
268
278
86
Brooklyn
JR
,
Sigmon
SC
.
Vermont hub-and-spoke model of care for opioid use disorder: development, implementation, and impact
.
J Addict Med
.
2017
;
11
(
4
):
286
292
87
Chaple
MJ
,
Freese
TE
,
Rutkowski
BA
, et al
.
Using ECHO clinics to promote capacity building in clinical supervision
.
Am J Prev Med
.
2018
;
54
(
6,
suppl 3
):
S275
S280
88
Komaromy
M
,
Duhigg
D
,
Metcalf
A
, et al
.
Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes): a new model for educating primary care providers about treatment of substance use disorders
.
Subst Abus
.
2016
;
37
(
1
):
20
24
89
Alford
DP
,
LaBelle
CT
,
Kretsch
N
, et al
.
Collaborative care of opioid-addicted patients in primary care using buprenorphine: five-year experience
.
Arch Intern Med
.
2011
;
171
(
5
):
425
431
90
LaBelle
CT
,
Han
SC
,
Bergeron
A
,
Samet
JH
.
Office-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine (OBOT-B): statewide implementation of the Massachusetts collaborative care model in community health centers
.
J Subst Abuse Treat
.
2016
;
60
:
6
13
91
Richardson
LP
,
McCarty
CA
,
Radovic
A
,
Suleiman
AB
.
Research in the integration of behavioral health for adolescents and young adults in primary care settings: a systematic review
.
J Adolesc Health
.
2017
;
60
(
3
):
261
269
92
Hadland
SE
,
Wharam
JF
,
Schuster
MA
,
Zhang
F
,
Samet
JH
,
Larochelle
MR
.
Trends in receipt of buprenorphine and naltrexone for opioid use disorder among adolescents and young adults, 2001-2014
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2017
;
171
(
8
):
747
755
93
Hadland
SE
,
Bagley
SM
,
Rodean
J
, et al
.
Receipt of timely addiction treatment and association of early medication treatment with retention in care among youths with opioid use disorder
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2018
;
172
(
11
):
1029
1037
94
Alinsky
R
,
Zima
B
,
Bagley
S
, et al
Receipt of addiction treatment following opioid-related overdose among Medicaid-enrolled youth.
In:
Proceedings from the 2019 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine Annual Meeting Platform Presentation
; March 8,
2019
;
Washington, DC
95
Liebling
EJ
,
Yedinak
JL
,
Green
TC
,
Hadland
SE
,
Clark
MA
,
Marshall
BD
.
Access to substance use treatment among young adults who use prescription opioids non-medically
.
Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy
.
2016
;
11
(
1
):
38
96
Rosenblatt
RA
,
Andrilla
CH
,
Catlin
M
,
Larson
EH
.
Geographic and specialty distribution of US physicians trained to treat opioid use disorder
.
Ann Fam Med
.
2015
;
13
(
1
):
23
26

Competing Interests

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.