Emergency Physicians Ability to Recognize and Diagnose Opiate Use Disorder: A Qualitative Study.

Introduction The opioid crisis is a significant public health problem for this generation. Proper treatment of patients with opiate use disorder (OUD) during vulnerable times is vital to their engagement in opiate agonist therapy (OAT). There is limited information as to the efficacy of ED practitioners in recognition of opioid withdrawal or OUD; this research was designed to fill this gap to advance our care of vulnerable populations. Methods Interviews were conducted with seven convenience-sampled ED physicians and nurse practitioners from the Saint John Regional Hospital by providing a clinical vignette. These one-on-one, scripted interviews, conducted by the principal and co-investigator, tell us about the ED physician's understanding of OUD and withdrawal by posing questions around the presentation within the clinical vignette, as well as around general knowledge of OUD and acute withdrawal. Results All seven participants identified the patient in the case as being in opioid withdrawal but did not identify all symptoms in the vignette. Two correctly diagnosed our patient as having OUD based on the scene provided. Five physicians identified criteria that pointed toward this diagnosis but did not vocalize the connection. Only one discussed prescription of OAT as a treatment, most opting for symptom management and information on sites of self-referral for treatment. Finally, six of our interviewees expressed interest in prescribing buprenorphine but cited a need for more education around its use and initiation before feeling comfortable prescribing it. Conclusions While ED practitioners correctly recognize opiate withdrawal, there is a knowledge gap in the related diagnosis and evidence-based management of OUD. The development of education around these gaps will allow for stronger advocacy and better outcomes for this patient population.

A cross-sectional survey on buprenorphine-naloxone practice and attitudes in 22 Canadian emergency physician groups: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP) initiation in emergency departments improves follow-up and survival among patients with opioid use disorder. We aimed to assess self-reported BUP-related practices and attitudes among emergency physicians. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional physician survey by adapting a validated questionnaire on opioid harm reduction practices, attitudes and barriers. We recruited physician leads from 6 Canadian provinces to administer surveys to the staff physicians in their emergency department groups between December 2018 and November 2019. We included academic and community non-locum emergency department staff physicians. We excluded responses from emergency department groups with response rates less than 50% to minimize nonresponse bias. Primary (BUP prescribing practices) and secondary (willingness and attitudes) outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: After excluding 1 group for low response (9/26 physicians), 652 of 798 (81.7%) physicians responded from 22 groups serving 34 emergency departments. Among respondents, 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 60.4%-67.8%, emergency department group range 7.1%-100.0%) had prescribed BUP at least once in their career, 38.4% had prescribed it for home initiation and 24.8% prescribed it at least once a month. Overall, 68.9% (95% CI 65.3%-72.4%, emergency department group range 24.1%-97.6%) were willing to administer BUP, 64.2% felt it was a major responsibility and 37.1% felt they understood people who use drugs. Respondents most frequently rated lack of adequate training (58.2%) and lack of time (55.2%) as very important barriers to BUP initiation. INTERPRETATION: Two-thirds of the emergency physicians surveyed prescribed BUP, although only one-quarter did so regularly and one-third prescribed it for home initiation; wide variation between emergency department groups existed. Strategies to increase BUP initiation must address physicians' lack of time and training for BUP initiation and improve their understanding of people who use drugs.

Common adjuvant breast cancer therapies do not inhibit cancer vaccine induced T cell immunity.

Cancer vaccines may have the most potential for clinical impact when used in the adjuvant setting when tumor burden is at its lowest. Application of cancer vaccines in the adjuvant setting, however, requires integration of immunization with more standard cytotoxic or cytostatic therapies. Common adjuvant therapies for breast cancer patients, i.e. trastuzumab, bisphosphonates and hormonal agents are often administered over several years requiring concurrent administration of these drugs with active immunization. We questioned whether these common adjuvant therapies would impact a patient's ability to develop tumor specific immunity with vaccination. Immune parameters from 36 subjects were evaluated. We determined these adjuvant therapies have no impact on the ability to develop an immune response specific for HER-2/neu peptides (P>0.1) nor do they have an impact on the magnitude of T cell immunity developed with concurrent vaccination (P>0.1). This is the first report to show that the use of trastuzumab, bisphosphonates and hormonal therapy concurrent with cancer vaccine administration have no impact on either the generation or the magnitude of vaccine induced immunity.