Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: The 7-day, low-dose buprenorphine patch has been available in the United Kingdom since 2005 for the treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain that is unresponsive to nonopioid analgesics. Osteo-arthritis pain, a significant cause of pain and disability in the elderly, is a common reason for prescribing bu-prenorphine patches. Objectives: The goals of this study were to investigate utilization and treatment persistence in patients receiving low-dose buprenorphine patches and the expected patterns of treatment 12 months after the initiation of treatment. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who were prescribed low-dose buprenorphine patches in general practice in the United Kingdom. Patients in this cohort were matched by age, sex, and practice with comparator cohorts prescribed oral codeine, dihydrocodeine, or tramadol. Data on baseline characteristics, utilization, and adverse events were obtained from the General Practice Research Database, which contains computerized medical records from UK general practice. Treatment persistence was determined based on repeat prescribing within 90 days after the expected end of a prescription; rates of persistence were compared between the buprenorphine and comparator cohorts. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare the incidence of typical opioid adverse effects (constipation, dizziness, and nausea and/or vomiting) between cohorts. Results: The study cohort included 4968 patients who were prescribed low-dose buprenorphine patches. The majority of patients (64.2%) were aged >65 years, and the most frequently recorded indication for low-dose buprenorphine patches was osteoarthritis (48.7%). Most patients (76.1%) started treatment at the lowest patch strength (5 μ/h). The mean patch strength prescribed over time stabilized at 10 to 12 μ/h. Persistence with low-dose buprenorphine patches over 6 months was significantly higher than with codeine, dihydrocodeine, and tramadol (28.9%, 22.4%, 24.4%, and 23.8%, respectively; P < 0.01). Persistence over 12 months also was significantly higher with low-dose buprenorphine patches compared with the comparators (18.5%, 16.1%, 18.0%, and 17.6%; P < 0.01). After 12 months, the difference in persistence levels between cohorts was not statistically significant. In the Cox proportional hazards regression models, patients using buprenorphine patches had an increased incidence of constipation, dizziness, and nausea and vomiting compared with those who used the comparator opioids ( P < 0.05). Conclusions: Significantly more patients receiving low-dose buprenorphine patches in this study persisted with treatment at 6 and 12 months compared with those receiving other opioid analgesics. Treatment with low-dose buprenorphine patches was most frequently initiated at the lowest patch strength and stabilized at a mean of 10 to 12 μ/h.

To identify individual and site-related factors associated with frequent emergency department (ED) buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) initiation. BUP initiation, an effective opioid use disorder (OUD) intervention, varies widely across Canadian EDs. We surveyed emergency physicians in 6 Canadian provinces from 2018 to 2019 using bilingual paper and web-based questionnaires. Survey domains included BUP-related practice, demographics, attitudes toward BUP, and site characteristics. We defined frequent BUP initiation (the primary outcome) as at least once per month, high OUD prevalence as at least one OUD patient per shift, and high OUD resources as at least 3 out of the following 5 resources: BUP initiation pathways, BUP in ED, peer navigators, accessible addiction specialists, and accessible follow-up clinics. We excluded responses from sites with <50% participation (to minimize non-responder bias) and those missing the primary outcome. We used univariate analysis to identify associations between frequent BUP initiation and factors of interest, stratifying by OUD prevalence. We excluded 3 responses for missing BUP initiation frequency and 9 for low response rate at one ED. Of the remaining 649 respondents from 34 EDs, 374 (58%) practiced in metropolitan areas, 384 (59%) reported high OUD prevalence, 312 (48%) had high OUD resources, and 161 (25%) initiated BUP frequently. Age, gender, board certification and years in practice were not associated with frequent BUP initiation. Site-specific factors were associated with frequent BUP initiation (high OUD resources [OR 6.91], high OUD prevalence [OR 4.45], and metropolitan location [OR 2.39],) as were individual attitudinal factors (willingness, confidence, and responsibility to initiate BUP.) Similar associations persisted in the high OUD prevalence subgroup. Individual attitudinal and site-specific factors were associated with frequent BUP initiation. Training to increase physician confidence and increasing OUD resources could increase BUP initiation and benefit ED patients with OUD.

The goals of treating withdrawal are to alleviate unnecessary distress, maintain the therapeutic alliance between patient and provider, facilitate treatment of the primary reason for admission and increase the patient's engagement in longterm addiction management. According to a 2010 systematic review,21 there was no statistically significant difference in completion of opioid detoxification between the opioid agonists buprenorphine and methadone (odds ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-3.79). As such, choosing between them should take into account the patient's preference and commitment to longterm addiction treatment, comorbid medical conditions, potential adverse effects (e.g., QTc prolongation), medication interactions (e.g., with some antiretroviral medications) and availability of outpatient providers able to continue the opioid agonist therapy.21 Methadone initiated at 10- 30 mg daily and slowly titrated to a total daily dose of 20-40 mg is usually sufficient to treat withdrawal symptoms.18,20 Alternatively, buprenorphine may be initiated, according to standard protocols, once moderate opioid withdrawal is evident (Figure 1).22 Buprenorphine initiated too early can precipitate withdrawal. Interviews with providers have commonly identified concerns about deception and manipulation on the part of patients with opioid use disorder who report pain.34,35 At the same time, patients with opioid use disorder fear that they will be labelled as \"drug seekers,\" that their pain will go undertreated, that the underlying condition will go undiagnosed or that their opioid agonist therapy will be discontinued.34,36 Elements of an effective initial pain encounter include reviewing both patient and provider expectations regarding pain management, acknowledging prior difficult interactions, reassuring the patient that the pain will be addressed and that opioid agonist therapy will be continued or substituted if necessary, and reviewing the medication schedule. Involving the patient in decisions about pain management is particularly relevant for those with opioid use disorder and may prevent some of the stressful doctor-patient interactions related to opioids that both parties dislike.26,27,37 The analgesic effect of buprenorphine is also shorter than its effects on withdrawal and craving. Given its high affinity for the opioid ì receptor, buprenorphine effectively blocks the actions of most other opioids, thereby complicating acute pain management.41 Several strategies have been described to overcome this problem, predominantly based in expert opinion. The first is to continue daily buprenorphine and add short-acting opioids titrated to pain control. High-dose opioids, and possibly patient-controlled analgesia, will likely be needed.26,39,41-43 A second strategy uses the inherent analgesic properties of buprenorphine by giving the total daily dose divided three or four times daily.26,42 Doses of 4-8 mg every six to eight hours have been used to treat moderate to severe pain.41,43 A third strategy is to discontinue buprenorphine and use short-acting opioids to treat the acute pain. The blocking effects of buprenorphine wear offover 24-72 hours, so the patient must be carefully monitored for signs of overdose, given that the initial opioid dose will be much higher than ultimately needed.22 After the need for acute pain management has resolved, buprenorphine can be reintroduced.

Background The last decade has shown a remarkable increase in the rates of illicit opioid use in Canada and internationally, which is associated with large increases in opioid related morbidity and mortality. While the differences between methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone in terms of retention have been studied outside Canada, the unique location and design of this study, gives it a specific significance. Objectives This study aims to describe the relative treatment retention rates for first episode opioid replacement treatment between methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone for patients receiving daily witnessed dispensed medications in Nova Scotia. Methods A longitudinal retrospective descriptive study analyzing secondary data from the Nova Scotia Prescription Monitoring Program on patients 18 years of age and older who started first episode opioid agonist therapy with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone for opioid use disorder in Nova Scotia between 2014 and 2018. Treatment episode was defined as date of initial opioid agonist prescription until there is a gap of greater than 6 days without receiving opioid agonist medication at a pharmacy. Results One thousand eight hundred sixty-seven of whom were analyzed as they had at least 1 day in treatment. There was significant treatment dropout within the first 2 weeks of treatment, which did not show a significant difference between OAT medication (23.4% of buprenorphine/naloxone; 22.2% methadone). Median duration of retention in treatment was 58 days for those treated with buprenorphine/naloxone and 101 days for patients treated with methadone. Multivariate cox proportional hazards model showed that buprenorphine/naloxone use as compared to methadone lead to increased hazard of treatment dropout by 62% (HR = 1.62). Hazard rate of treatment dropout for patients below 25 years of age was calculated. (HR 1.53). Median duration of retention in treatment for this subgroup of patients younger than age 25 was 37.5 days for patients treated with buprenorphine/naloxone and 69 days for patients treated with methadone. Conclusions Our data suggests that methadone is a numerically superior medication for opioid use disorder when the metric of treatment retention is viewed in isolation, for our population in Nova Scotia. However, the results should be interpreted carefully considering the number of limitations of this study. There are social/accessibility, pharmacologic/safety, and patient preference factors which are also key in decision making when prescribing opioid agonist therapy. These must all be considered when deciding on which medication to initiate for a patient beginning a new treatment episode with OAT for opioid use disorder. This study should stimulate further research into this important area in addiction medicine.

The manufacturer of brand-name buprenorphine products exploited various FDA regulatory procedures to impede market entry of generic competitors and to maintain high prices. This case provides an example of the kinds of abuses that are common in prescription-drug markets.

Extended-release buprenorphine (XRB), a monthly injectable long-acting opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, has not been studied for use in corrections facilities. To compare treatment retention following release from jail among adults receiving daily sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (SLB) vs those receiving XRB. This open-label, randomized comparative effectiveness study included 52 incarcerated adults in New York City observed for 8 weeks postrelease between June 2019 and May 2020. Participants were soon-to-be-released volunteers from 1 men's and 1 women's jail facility who had OUDs already treated with SLB. Follow-up treatment was received at a primary care clinic in Manhattan. Data were analyzed between June 2020 and December 2020. XRB treatment was offered prior to release and continued monthly through 8 weeks after release. SLB participants continued to receive daily directly observed in-jail SLB administration, were provided a 7-day SLB supply at jail release, and followed up at a designated clinic (or other preferred clinics). Buprenorphine treatment retention at 8 weeks postrelease. A total of 52 participants were randomized 1:1 to XRB (26 participants) and SLB (26 participants). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 42.6 (10.0) years; 45 participants (87%) were men; and 40 (77%) primarily used heroin prior to incarceration. Most participants (30 [58%]) reported prior buprenorphine use; 18 (35%) reported active community buprenorphine treatment prior to jail admission. Twenty-one of 26 assigned to XRB received 1 or more XRB injection prior to release; 3 initiated XRB postrelease; and 2 did not receive XRB. Patients in the XRB arm had fewer jail medical visits compared with daily SLB medication administration (mean [SD] visits per day: XRB, 0.11 [0.03] vs SLB, 1.06 [0.08]). Community buprenorphine treatment retention at week 8 postrelease was 18 participants in the XRB group (69.2%) vs 9 in the SLB group (34.6%), and rates of opioid-negative urine tests were 72 of 130 tests in the XRB group (55.3%) and 50 of 130 tests in the SLB group (38.4%). There were no differences in rates of serious adverse events, no overdoses, and no deaths. XRB was acceptable among patients currently receiving SLB, and patients had fewer in-jail clinic visits and increased community buprenorphine treatment retention when compared with standard daily SLB treatment. These results support wider use and further study of XRB as correctional and reentry OUD treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03604159.

Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) has been shown to decrease mortality, reduce overdoses, and increase treatment retention for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) and has become the state-of-the-art treatment strategy in the emergency department (ED). There is little evidence on long-term (6 and 12 month) treatment retention outcomes for patients enrolled in MOUD from the ED. A prospective observational study used a convenience sample of patients seen at one community hospital ED over 12 months. Patients >18 years with OUD were eligible for MOUD enrollment. After medical screening, patients were evaluated by the addiction care coordinator (ACC) who evaluated and counselled the patient and if eligible, directly connected them with an addiction medicine appointment. Once enrolled, the patient received treatment with buprenorphine in the ED. A chart review was completed for all enrollments during the first year of the program. Treatment retention was determined by review of the prescription drug monitoring program and defined as patients receiving regular suboxone prescriptions at 6 and 12 months after index ED visit date. From June 2018 - May 2019 the ACCs evaluated patients during 691 visits, screening 571 unique patients. Of the 571 unique patients screened, 279 (48.9%) were enrolled into the MOUD program. 210 (75.3%) attended their first addiction medicine appointment, 151 (54.1%) were engaged in treatment at 1 month, 120 (43.0%) at 3 months, 105 (37.6%) at 6 months, and 97 (34.8%) at 12 months post index ED visit. Self-pay insurance status was associated with a significantly decrease in the odds of long-term treatment retention. Our ED-initiated MOUD program, in partnership with local addiction medicine services, produced high rates of long-term treatment retention.

Prescription opioid dependence is increasing, but treatment outcomes with office-based buprenorphine/naloxone among these patients have not been described. We compared demographic, clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes among 200 patients evaluated for entry into a trial of primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment stratifying on those who reported exclusive heroin use (n = 124), heroin and prescription opioid use (n = 47), or only prescription opioid use (n = 29). Compared to heroin-only patients, prescription-opioid-only patients were younger, had fewer years of opioid use, and less drug treatment history. They were also more likely to be white, earned more income, and were less likely to have Hepatitis C antibodies. Prescription-opioid-only patients were more likely to complete treatment (59% vs. 30%), remained in treatment longer (21.0 vs. 14.2 weeks), and had a higher percent of opioid-negative urine samples than heroin only patients (56.3% vs. 39.8%), all p values < .05. Patients who used both heroin and prescription opioids had outcomes that were intermediate between heroin-only and prescription-opioid-only patients. Individuals dependent on prescription opioids have an improved treatment response to buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance in an office-based setting compared to those who exclusively or episodically use heroin.

Background Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently leave the hospital as patient directed discharges (PDDs) because of untreated withdrawal and pain. Short-acting opioids can complement methadone, buprenorphine, and non-opioid adjuvants for withdrawal and pain, however little evidence exists for this approach. We described the safety and preliminary outcomes of short-acting opioid agonist treatment (sOAT) for hospitalized patients with OUD at an academic hospital in Philadelphia, PA. Methods From August 2021 to March 2022, a pharmacist guided implementation of a pilot sOAT protocol consisting of escalating doses of oxycodone or oral hydromorphone scheduled every four hours, intravenous hydromorphone as needed, and non-opioid adjuvants for withdrawal and pain. All patients were encouraged to start methadone or buprenorphine treatment for OUD. We abstracted data from the electronic health record into a secure platform. The primary outcome was safety: administration of naloxone, over-sedation, or a fall. Secondary outcomes were PDDs and respective length of stay (LOS), discharges on methadone or buprenorphine, and discharges with naloxone. We compared secondary outcomes to hospitalizations in the 12 months prior to the index hospitalization among the same cohort. Results Of the 23 cases, 13 (56.5%) were female, 19 (82.6%) were 40 years or younger, and 22 (95.7%) identified as White. Twenty-one (91.3%) regularly injected opioids and four (17.3%) were enrolled in methadone or buprenorphine prior to hospitalization. sOAT was administered at median doses of 200–320 morphine milligram equivalents per 24-h period. Naloxone administration was documented once in the operating room, over-sedation was documented once after unsanctioned opioid use, and there were no falls. The PDD rate was 44% with median LOS 5 days (compared to PDD rate 69% with median LOS 3 days for prior admissions), 65% of sOAT cases were discharged on buprenorphine or methadone (compared to 33% for prior admissions), and 65% of sOAT cases were discharged with naloxone (compared to 19% for prior admissions). Conclusions Pilot implementation of sOAT was safe. Compared to prior admissions in the same cohort, the PDD rate was lower, LOS for PDDs was longer, and more patients were discharged on buprenorphine or methadone and with naloxone, however efficacy for these secondary outcomes remains to be established.