Co-treating opioid and alcohol use disorders in the United States, 1960–2026: A historical policy review in the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) era
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
This narrative review reconstructs the U.S. history of treating co-occurring opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) from the rise of methadone maintenance in the 1960s through contemporary interest in immunometabolic mechanisms and repurposed therapies. Drawing on peer-reviewed literature and selected grey sources, we trace four eras including early single-substance paradigms and maintenance; federally regulated opioid treatment programs and the broader medicalization of addiction care; recognition of co-occurring disorders, parity and Affordable Care Act reforms, and uneven diffusion of medications for OUD and AUD; and a renewed metabolic framing, including preclinical, clinical, and real-world evaluation of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Across eras, regulation, reimbursement, and professional authority shaped access as much as evidence, producing persistent geographic and socioeconomic inequities. Emerging GLP-1-based therapies may offer a distinctive cross-disorder adjunct, but their value for OUD/AUD remains unproven. Population benefit will require rigorous trials and delivery reforms that expand equitable access to integrated care.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Co-treating opioid and alcohol use disorders in the United States, 1960–2026: A historical policy review in the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) era
- Date Crossref
- 01/12/2026
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.