Thursday, February 05, 2026

 

Fentanyl is changing how doctors treat opioid use disorder



Traditional treatment approaches in an evolving illicit drug market are less effective, researchers say, highlighting the need for new clinical guidelines




Penn State




HERSHEY, Pa. — For years, buprenorphine — one of the primary medications used to treat opioid use disorder — has been a critical bridge to recovery, helping to reduce illicit drug use and overdose deaths. But with the changing landscape of the illicit drug market, particularly the rise of the potent synthetic opioid fentanyl, health care providers have found that traditional treatment protocols aren’t as effective as they used to be.

A new national survey, led by researchers at the Penn State College of Medicine and the University of Pittsburgh, found that nearly three-quarters of clinicians encountered significant obstacles when starting buprenorphine treatment for patients using fentanyl. More than 67% have modified their treatment protocols, such as adjusting dosages.

But this is more than a technical hurdle for health care providers, the researchers said. It’s a major barrier for people seeking treatment for opioid use disorder who experience rapid withdrawal symptoms or prolonged symptoms as a result. The study, published in JAMA Open Network, highlights the complexity of treating opioid use disorder.

“It’s a public health crisis. Buprenorphine is a lifesaving option due to its safety profile and ease of access,” said lead author Sarah Kawasaki, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral health and of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine. “We need more research and updated clinical guidelines for the fentanyl era.”

Treatment for opioid use disorder used to be predictable, Kawasaki said. Most people were using heroin, which could be verified on drug screenings. Clinicians could then give buprenorphine reliably at certain dosages and time intervals. Patients could access the medication at pharmacies and would do well.

Kawasaki said things started to change around 2017. More patients were testing positive for fentanyl. Unlike older opioids, fentanyl’s unique chemistry — specifically its ability to "hide" in the body's fat cells — makes the transition to buprenorphine more difficult. People experienced withdrawal symptoms for much longer than typical or had withdrawal symptoms so intense that they reported feeling allergic to the medication.

“Someone can get really sick or get tired of the whole process that they stop treatment. They might start using again and might overdose or die,” Kawasaki said.

Patients also began requesting methadone, another standard protocol for managing opioid use disorder. However, methadone is only available from an estimated 2,000 licensed facilities in the United States, Kawasaki said, compared to more than 70,000 pharmacies where patients can access buprenorphine.

To understand how doctors were responding to the challenges of starting patients on buprenorphine in the rapidly changing illicit drug market, the researchers surveyed 396 health care providers. The pool of participants was a nationally representative sample of physicians and advanced practice clinicians who initiated at least 10 patients with opioid use disorder onto buprenorphine during the prior year and at least one patient in the past 90 days.

The researchers found that:

  • 72% of respondents reported experiencing challenges starting buprenorphine treatment among patients using fentanyl in the past year
  • Nearly 62% of respondents reported one or more instances in which the patient experienced a severe and sudden onset of withdrawal symptoms
  • 52.8% reported cases of prolonged withdrawal where symptoms lasted days instead of hours
  • Those who worked in high-volume outpatient settings were more likely to report these challenges.

Approximately 67% reported modifying their standard protocols. In some cases, providers used doses that were much smaller than previously recommended while others used much higher doses. Some clinicians prescribed adjunct medications to help with withdrawal symptoms. Still others referred patients to inpatient treatment or to methadone because of the challenges of initiating buprenorphine treatment.

Despite these challenges, the researchers emphasized that buprenorphine remains a life-saving treatment for those with opioid use disorder and that many patients do not encounter problems when starting buprenorphine. According to Kawasaki, the study highlighted the need to develop evidence-based guidelines to successful initiate buprenorphine in light of more potent drugs.

“Buprenorphine still works. If you or a loved one needs help, don’t be afraid to reach out,” Kawasaki said.

Erin Winstanley, professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, is senior author of the study. Other authors on the study from the University of Pittsburgh include Jane Liebschutz, professor of medicine; Cristina Murray-Krezan, associate professor of medicine; Galen Switzer, professor of medicine; Samantha Nash, clinical research coordinator; and Kwonho Jeong, biostatistician.

Funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse supported this work.

At Penn State, researchers are solving real problems that impact the health, safety and quality of life of people across the commonwealth, the nation and around the world.

For decades, federal support for research has fueled innovation that makes our country safer, our industries more competitive and our economy stronger. Recent federal funding cuts threaten this progress.

Learn more about the implications of federal funding cuts to our future at Research or Regress.

Before crisis strikes — smartwatch tracks triggers for opioid misuse



A University of California San Diego study is working on a potentially life-saving measure that may be as simple as strapping on a smartwatch.




University of California - San Diego





Opioid overdoses continue to take a devastating toll across the United States. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2023, the nation recorded roughly 105,000 drug overdose deaths overall, with nearly 80,000 deaths involving opioids. Worldwide, opioids are also responsible for the majority of drug-related deaths. A University of California San Diego study is working on a potentially life-saving measure that may be as simple as strapping on a smartwatch.

Researchers have long known that people living with chronic pain and long-term opioid prescriptions can experience downward spirals of elevated stress, pain flare-ups and craving — shifts that may raise the risk of opioid misuse and addiction. The problem is that clinicians usually only see snapshots of how someone is doing: a clinic visit, a questionnaire, a check-in every few weeks. That can miss critical “in-between” moments when risk spikes.

The UC San Diego team’s study proposed a different approach: enabling a common smartwatch to continuously track subtle changes in heart rhythm, then apply machine learning to estimate when someone may be slipping into a high-risk state — facilitating earlier and potentially life-saving support. The study was led by Professor Tauhidur Rahman and Ph.D. student Yunfei Luo at the HalıcıoÄŸlu Data Science Institute (HDSI), part of the University of California San Diego’s School of Computing, Information and Data Sciences (SCIDS) and Eric Garland, PhD, professor of psychiatry at UC San Diego School of Medicine and endowed professor at Stanford Institute for Empathy and Compassion

The team built a system that uses a wearable device to collect inter-beat interval data, the tiny timing differences between heartbeats. From these signals, the system estimates heart rate variability (HRV), a measure that often shifts when the body is under strain. In simple terms, HRV provides a window into how the nervous system is responding to stress.

The system tracks risk-related states such as stress, pain and craving, then looks for patterns that occur more often in people at higher risk of opioid misuse compared with those taking medication as prescribed.

The idea: a “smoke alarm” for risk — without constant check-ins.

The study at-a-glance

  • Participants and Data: 10,140 hours of wearable data from 51 adults with chronic pain on long-term opioid therapy;
  • Device: a commercially available Garmin Vivosmart 4 smartwatch;
  • Setting: daily life outside the clinic over an 8-week period;
  • Comparison groups: participants were categorized using Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM), a standard questionnaire to help clinicians identify whether a patient who is taking prescription opioids for chronic pain may be showing signs of misuse; and
  • Key outputs:
    • Predicted stress/pain/craving levels over time
    • A final “misuse risk” classification based on patterns in those trajectories, plus clinical record text

Stress, pain, craving: hard-to-quantify risk factors

Luo described the approach: “We built a system that uses a wearable device to collect inter-beat interval data, the tiny timing differences between heartbeats. From these signals, the system estimates heart rate variability (HRV), a measure that often shifts when the body is under strain. In simple terms, HRV provides a window into how the nervous system is responding to stress.” 

The heart rate variability was mapped to opioid misuse risk in two steps:

Step 1: Personalized prediction of stress, pain, and craving

The lead clinical scientist involved in the study, UC San Diego Health’s Eric Garland, indicated that every monitor must be individually tailored. “One major challenge is that HRV is deeply personal,” Garland said. “What looks like ‘high craving’ for one person may be normal for another. To account for that, the team trained personalized models,not a one-size-fits-all predictor.” 

Luo added that the team used a learning-to-branch technique to dynamically identify clusters of participants with similar characteristics. “This makes the model more data-efficient and enables personalized predictions of stress, pain and craving,” he said.

Step 2: Estimating misuse risk by studying the shapeof daily patterns

Rahman said the team looked beyond stress, craving or pain at any single moment and instead focused on how these states evolve over time. “Using nonlinear dynamical analysis, we examined whether a person’s daily patterns were more rigid and predictable or more flexible and variable,” he explained. “People at higher risk of opioid misuse showed more repetitive trajectories and tended to get stuck in high stress, pain or craving — what appears in our analysis as lower entropy, or reduced flexibility over time. In contrast, those taking opioids as prescribed showed more fluctuation and rebound, reflected as higher entropy.” 

Adding clinical context for more accurate prediction

To improve accuracy, the system also uses information already found in medical records, such as demographics, prescription history, symptoms and related conditions. Instead of relying on a large cloud-based chatbot, the researchers used smaller, clinically trained language models to convert these records into compact numerical summaries that the prediction model can use. Combining smartwatch signals with clinical context improved performance. This approach could help clinicians detect risk shifts between visits, trigger timely check-ins, reduce the burden of constant self-reporting, and better target prevention for chronic pain patients. 

What’s next

The team points toward exploring how this kind of monitoring might support “just-in-time interventions” — help delivered at the moment it’s most needed.

Rahman, study supervisor and director of the Mobile Sensing and Ubiquitous Computing (MOSAIC) Laboratory, is hopeful that mobile and wearable sensors and AI/machine learning may be a key to reversing an increasingly deadly trend. “As overdose deaths remain high nationally, the long-term hope is that tools like this could help clinicians move from periodic snapshots to continuous, patient-friendly monitoring — and intervene earlier, before risk becomes tragedy.”

This study was published in Nature Mental Health.

A full U.S. utility patent application (US2025/016369) was also filed for this technology, titled “System and Method for Personalized Closed-Loop Opioid Addiction Management with Mobile and Wearable Sensing of Administrations, Affective States and Misuse Risk Scores”.

 

 

 

Statins do not cause the majority of side effects listed in package leaflets






University of Oxford





Cardiovascular disease results in around 20 million deaths worldwide and causes around a quarter of all deaths in the UK. Statins are highly effective drugs that lower LDL (“bad”) cholesterol levels and have been repeatedly proven to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. However, there have been concerns about possible side effects.

The researchers gathered data from 23 large-scale randomised studies from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration: 123,940 participants in 19 large-scale clinical trials comparing the effects of statin therapies against a placebo (or dummy tablet), and 30,724 participants in four trials comparing more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy.

They found similar numbers of reports for those taking the statins and those taking the placebo for almost all the conditions listed in package leaflets as possible side effects. For example, each year, the number of reports of cognitive or memory impairment was 0.2% in those taking the statins, but also 0.2% in those taking the placebo. This means that while people may notice these problems whilst taking statins, there is no good evidence that they are caused by the statin.

Key findings:
• There was no statistically significant excess risk from statin therapy for almost all the conditions listed in package leaflets as potential side effects.
• Taking a statin did not cause any meaningful excess of memory loss or dementia, depression, sleep disturbance, erectile dysfunction, weight gain, nausea, fatigue or headache, and many other conditions.
• There was a small increase in risk (about 0.1%) for liver blood test abnormalities. However, there was no increase in liver disease such as hepatitis or liver failure, indicating that the liver blood test changes do not typically lead to more serious liver problems.*

Christina Reith, Associate Professor at Oxford Population Health and lead author of the study, said ‘Statins are life-saving drugs used by hundreds of millions of people over the past 30 years. However, concerns about the safety of statins have deterred many people who are at risk of severe disability or death from a heart attack or stroke. Our study provides reassurance that, for most people, the risk of side effects is greatly outweighed by the benefits of statins.’

Previous work by the same researchers established that most muscle symptoms are not caused by statins; statin therapy caused muscle symptoms in only 1% of people during the first year of treatment with no excess thereafter. It has also shown that statins can cause a small increase in blood sugar levels, so people already at high risk may develop diabetes sooner. 

Professor Bryan Williams, Chief Scientific and Medical Officer at the British Heart Foundation, said ‘These findings are hugely important and provide authoritative, evidence-based reassurance for patients. Statins are lifesaving drugs, which have been proven to protect against heart attacks and strokes. Among the large number of patients assessed in this well-conducted analysis, only four side effects out of 66 were found to have any association with taking statins, and only in a very small proportion of patients. 

‘This evidence is a much-needed counter to the misinformation around statins and should help prevent unnecessary deaths from cardiovascular disease. Recognising which side effects might genuinely be associated with statins is also important as it will help doctors make decisions about when to use alternative treatments.’

Professor Sir Rory Collins, Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at Oxford Population Health and senior author of the paper said ‘Statin product labels list certain adverse health outcomes as potential treatment-related effects based mainly on information from non-randomised studies which may be subject to bias. We brought together all of the information from large randomised trials to assess the evidence reliably. Now that we know that statins do not cause the majority of side effects listed in package leaflets, statin information requires rapid revision to help patients and doctors make better-informed health decisions.’

All of the trials included in the analyses were large-scale (involving at least 1,000 participants) and tracked patient outcomes for a median of nearly five years. The trials were double-blind, meaning that neither the trial participants nor those managing the participants or leading the study knew who was receiving which treatment, to avoid potential biases due to knowledge of treatment allocation. The list of possible side effects was compiled from those listed for the five most commonly prescribed statins.

The study was conducted by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration, a joint initiative coordinated between the Clinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit, Oxford Population Health, and the National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Australia, on behalf of academic researchers representing major statin trials worldwide.
The work was funded by the British Heart Foundation, UKRI Medical Research Council, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The work of the CTT is overseen by an Independent Oversight Panel.

ENDS

Notes to editors:

*There were also very small increases in risk (less than 0.1%) for medical issues that involved changes in urine, and oedema (a build-up of fluid in the body typically causing swelling in the ankles, feet and legs) in the trials of statin versus placebo, but analysis of the four trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy showed no significant excess risk for these changes, suggesting these excesses were not real.

There is an embargoed UK Science Media Centre press briefing on this study at 10:30 GMT on Tuesday 3 February. Please contact fiona@sciencemediacentre.org if you would like to attend or to receive the recording.

Post-publication link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01578-8/fulltext

For further information, interview requests, or to request a pre-publication copy of the manuscript, please contact Lulu Phillips, Senior Communications Officer at Oxford Population Health, louise.phillips@ndph.ox.ac.uk / +44 (0) 1865 617824 or Anne Whitehouse, Director of Communications and Public Engagement, Oxford Population Health, anne.whitehouse@ndph.ox.ac.uk / +44 (0) 1865 289474.

For further information on the methods used in this study, see: Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Harmonisation of large-scale, heterogeneous individual participant adverse event data from randomised trials of statin therapy. Clinical Trials. 2022;19(6):593-604. doi:10.1177/17407745221105509.


About the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration

The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration was established in 1994, with its initial protocol being published in 1995. It was set up after it was recognised that no single lipid intervention trial would be likely to have a sufficient number of trial participants (and hence statistical power) to reliably assess mortality outcomes or look at events in particular types of patient. It conducts meta-analyses of large-scale (at least 1,000 participants), long-term (at least two years scheduled treatment duration) un-confounded, randomised controlled trials of lipid intervention therapies.

The collaboration involves approximately 150 doctors, statisticians and research scientists, including experts in the field of cardiology, epidemiology, lipidology and clinical trials, from across the world. Although individual trials that are contributing data to the analyses were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, as well as by charities and government organisations, the CTT Collaboration has not received grant funding from industry.

About Oxford Population Health

Oxford Population Health (the Nuffield Department of Population Health) is a world-leading research institute, based at the University of Oxford, which investigates the causes and prevention of disease. Oxford Population Health brings together a number of world-leading research groups, including the Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit and other groups working on cancer epidemiology, demographic science, health economics, ethics, and health record linkage. It is also the lead partner in the Oxford University Big Data Institute.

 

Development by Graz University of Technology to reduce disruptions in the railway network



Insulated joint systems are crucial for safe railway operation, but are susceptible to faults. The newly developed insulated joint is intended to extend service life and reduce maintenance and repair costs.




Graz University of Technology

Display piece of an insulated joint at the Institute for Railway Infrastructure Design at TU Graz. 

image: 

Display piece of an insulated joint at the Institute for Railway Infrastructure Design at TU Graz.

view more 

Credit: Schoklitsch - TU Graz




Insulated joints are little known, but many railway lines could not be used without them. They divide the rail network into electrically separated sections and register when a train enters and leaves a section. Only when the section is free again the next train is allowed to enter. Around 33,000 insulated joints are currently installed in Austria, but they wear out quickly on heavily used lines. Together with ÖBB and Martin Schienentechnik, Graz University of Technology (TU Graz) has now developed a prototype for significantly more robust insulated joints using improved materials and new geometries. According to current research findings, they should have at least twice as long a service life and therefore significantly reduce failures and damage.

Consideration of the overall system

“In a project like this, it is important for us to look not just at the individual components, but at the entire system – from the load exerted by the vehicles to the transmission of forces to the substructure”, says Ferdinand Pospischil from the Institute of Railway Infrastructure Design at TU Graz. “In the Research Cluster Railway Systems, we have experts from all relevant fields working together at TU Graz. This enabled us to develop an insulating joint prototype that lasted much longer in simulation and did not show a negative impact on the other track components.”

On the way to the solution, the researchers first identified weak points in the network using data from track measurement cars. The team then carried out measurements on defective insulated joints locally in order to understand the forces acting there and the interactions between the train, track superstructure and subsoil. From this database, they developed a digital twin with which they could virtually design and test prototypes.

Promising initial tests

The resulting prototype had to prove itself in tests on the track. The initial results show that it causes much lower stresses in the material. The forces that occur are better distributed, which makes the entire system more stable and should at least double the service life of the new insulating joints compared to the previous ones. The prototype therefore promises fewer delays, lower maintenance costs and a more reliable rail network.

“On busy lines, some insulating joints wear out very quickly; every train axle puts fresh stress on them,” says Stefan Marschnig from the Institute of Railway Engineering and Transport Economics at TU Graz. “According to the latest research findings, our newly developed insulated joint system should last significantly longer and cause less damage to other track components. At the same time, we made sure that the insulating joint could be produced at an acceptable cost.”