RESUMEN
The permissibility of buprenorphine in safety-sensitive positions is a controversial topic. As an opioid medication, concerns have arisen regarding the potential for impairment and any effects that this would have on an employee's ability to safely perform job duties. While there are no definitive guidelines on the use of buprenorphine for those employed in safety-sensitive lines of work, most employers do not permit its use under any circumstance due to the potential risk of harm to the public. In addition to overlooking the fact that buprenorphine is a well-established and life-saving treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), there are many flaws in making this determination. For one, buprenorphine is a partial mu opioid agonist which makes it inherently unique in comparison to other opioids. Most studies on impairment have examined acute use of full agonist opioids instead of chronic dosing of buprenorphine. Furthermore, assessments of impairment are not tailored to the tasks required of specific positions. Importantly, policies banning buprenorphine may contribute to treatment discontinuation and stigma, which can lead to relapse and overdose. Considering the morbidity and mortality associated with OUD, along with the surge in overdose deaths during the COVID19 pandemic, buprenorphine policies should be considered carefully. Given the lack of evidence showing definitive and specific impairments as a result of chronic buprenorphine use, coupled with the consequences of universal bans on its use, determinations on the permissibility of buprenorphine treatment for safety-sensitive positions should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Asunto(s)
Buprenorfina , COVID-19 , Sobredosis de Droga , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Buprenorfina/uso terapéutico , Sobredosis de Droga/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Tratamiento de Sustitución de Opiáceos , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
Introduction: This article proposes a workplace cannabis policy paradigm that encompasses rapidly changing laws and regulations, legally defensible drug testing policies, and the needs of particular workplaces. Numerous states have now decriminalized medical or recreational use of cannabis, although U.S. federal law still defines cannabis as a Schedule I substance with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. For employers and employees, the confusion generated by this contradiction is exacerbated by the widely varying effects of the available cannabis delivery systems, the primitive and cumbersome drug testing protocols often used in workplace settings, difficulties in measuring cannabis-related workplace impairment, and a rapidly changing cultural ethos regarding cannabis. Although other articles have addressed many of the broad theoretical constructs, there exists little practical guidance on how workplace drug programs should address cannabis use by employees, both on the job and during off-hours. Materials and Methods: Research for this review was performed in the PubMed/National Library of Medicine database. Discussion: Cannabis use is associated with cognitive deficits, motivation problems, and perceptual distortions, so employers have a legitimate interest in preventing on-the-job impairment related to cannabis use. Similarly, employees have a legitimate interest in behaving as they wish outside of the workplace, as long as that behavior does not affect their job performance. Relevant statues and case law on the subject of cannabis in the workplace reflect different legal models across jurisdictions, in addition to legislators and judges' attempts to manage this tension between employer and employees. Conclusion: An effective workplace cannabis policy must fit into a larger workplace drug and alcohol policy. It should be constructed with a collaborative effort of addiction professionals, labor attorneys, and human resource professionals. Only then can the ultimate workplace cannabis policy comply with relevant laws, protect workplace safety and productivity, and support employees while remaining flexible enough to adapt to changes in the legal environment.