4.2 Review

Substance use screening in transplant populations: Recommendations from a consensus workgroup

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION REVIEWS
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2022.100694

关键词

Transplantation; Substance use; Screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transplant patients often receive substance treatment and it is necessary to conduct drug testing. This study group reviewed the role of drug testing in patients with substance use disorders and other related issues, and recommended drug testing for transplant patients prior to transplantation for optimal care.
Transplant patients are frequently treated with substances that have dependence potential and/or they may have a history of substance use disorders. The Psychosocial and Ethics Community of Practice of the American Society of Transplantation formed a Drug Testing Workgroup with participation from members of the Pharmacy Com-munity of Practice and members of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry. The workgroup reviewed the literature regarding the following issues: the role of drug testing in patients with substance use disorders, for patients prescribed controlled substances, legal, ethical and prescription drug monitoring issues, financial and insurance issues, and which patients should be tested. We also reviewed current laboratory testing for substances. Group discussions to develop a consensus occurred, and summaries of each topic were reviewed. The workgroup recommends that transplant patients be informed of drug testing and be screened for substances prior to transplant to ensure optimal care and implement ongoing testing if warranted by clinical history. While use of certain substances may not result in the exclusion for transplantation, an awareness of the patient's practices and possible risk from substances is necessary, allowing transplant teams to screen for substance use disorders and ensure the patient is able to manage and minimize risks post-transplant.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据