Reconsidering the usefulness of long-term high-dose buprenorphine.

Buprenorphine has been successfully used for decades in the treatment of opioid use disorder, yet there are complexities to its use that warrant attention to maximize its utility. While the package insert of the combination product buprenorphine\naloxone continues to recommend a maximum dose of 16 mg daily for maintenance, the emergence of fentanyl and synthetic analogs in the current drug supply may be limiting the effectiveness of this standard dose. Many practitioners have embraced and appropriately implemented novel practices to mitigate the sequelae of our current crisis. It has become common clinical practice to stabilize patients with 24 - 32 mg of buprenorphine daily at treatment initiation. Many of these patients, however, are maintained on these high doses (>16 mg/d) indefinitely, even after prolonged stability. Although this may be a necessary strategy in the short term, there is little evidence to support its safety and efficacy, and these high doses may be exposing patients to more complications and side effects than standard doses. Commonly known side effects of buprenorphine that are likely dose-related include hyperhidrosis, sedation, decreased libido, constipation, and hypogonadism. There are also complications related to the active metabolite of buprenorphine (norbuprenorphine) which is a full agonist at the mu opioid receptor and does not have a ceiling on respiratory suppression. Such side effects can lead to medical morbidity as well as decreased medication adherence, and we, therefore, recommend that after a period of stabilization, practitioners consider a trial of decreasing the dose of buprenorphine toward standard dose recommendations. Some patients' path of recovery may never reach this stabilization phase (i.e., several months of adherence to medications, opioid abstinence, and other clinical indicators of stability). Side effects of buprenorphine may not have much salience when patients are struggling for survival and safety, but for those who are fortunate enough to advance in their recovery, the side effects become more problematic and can limit quality of life and adherence.

Correlates of days of medication for opioid use disorder exposure among people living with HIV in Northern Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: In Vietnam, access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) for people living with HIV has rapidly expanded, but MOUD use over time remains low. We sought to assess factors associated with days of MOUD treatment exposure. METHODS: From 2015 to 2019, patients with OUD in six Northern Vietnamese HIV clinics were randomized to receive HIV clinic-based buprenorphine (BUP/NX) or referral for methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) and followed for 12 months. All MOUD doses were directly observed and abstracted from dosing logs. The primary outcome was days of MOUD treatment exposure (buprenorphine or methadone) received over 12 months. Negative binomial regression modelled associations with days of MOUD exposure. RESULTS: Of 281 participants, 264 (94%) were eligible for analysis. Participants were primarily male (97%), unmarried (61%), employed (54%), and previously arrested (83%). Participants had a mean 187 (SD 150) days of MOUD exposure with 134 (51%) having at least 180 days, and 35 (13.2%) having at least 360 days of MOUD exposure. Age (IRR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.55), income (IRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-1.001), and methadone (IRR 1.88, 95% CI 1.51-2.42) were associated with MOUD exposure in multivariate models. Multivariate models predicted 127 (95% CL 109-147) days of MOUD exposure for HIV clinic based-buprenorphine vs 243 (95% CL 205-288) for MMT. CONCLUSION: MOUD treatment exposure was suboptimal among patients with HIV and OUD in Northern Vietnam and was influenced by several factors. Interventions to support populations at risk of lower MOUD exposure as well programs administering MOUD should be considered in countries seeking to expand access to MOUD.

Discontinuing Methadone and Buprenorphine: A Review and Clinical Challenges.

This paper offers a review and recommendations for clinicians working with patients interested in discontinuing opioid agonist treatment. As buprenorphine/naloxone has gained widespread acceptance for opioid addiction, many treatment providers and patients have a range of hopes and expectations about its optimal use. A surprising number assume buprenorphine/naloxone is primarily useful as a medication to transition off illicit opioid use, and success is partially defined by discontinuing the medication. Despite accumulating evidence that a majority of patients will need to remain on medication to preserve their gains, clinicians often have to address a patient's fervent desire to taper. Using the concept of "recovery capital," our review addresses (1) the appropriate duration of opioid agonist treatment, (2) risks associated with discontinuing, (3) a checklist that guides the patient through self-assessment of the wisdom of discontinuing opioid agonist treatment, and (4) shared decision making about how to proceed.

Analysis of emergency department visits for all reasons by adults with depression in the United States.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to characterize Emergency Department (ED) utilization and outcomes of patients with depression seeking emergency care for all reasons. METHODS: Using 2014-2016 ED data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, we investigated demographics, ED resource utilization, clinical characteristics, and disposition of patients with depression versus those without depression. RESULTS: Approximately 10,626,184 (11.4%) out of 92,899,685 annual ED visits were by patients with depression. ED patients with depression were mostly non-Hispanic White (74.0%) and were less likely to be male than patients without depression (aOR: 0.62; [95%] CI: 0.57-0.68). ED patients with depression were more likely to be admitted to the hospital (aOR: 1.50; CI: 1.38-1.63) than patients without depression. Among ED patients with depression, males were more likely than females to be seeking emergency care for psychiatric reasons (OR: 2.45; 95% CI: 2.10-2.87)) and to present with overdose/poisoning (OR: 1.46; CI: 1.03-2.05). CONCLUSIONS: We described the unique demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics of ED patients with depression, using the most comprehensive, nationally representative study to date. We revealed notable gender disparities in rates and reasons for admissions. The higher hospital and ICU admission rates of ED patients with depression suggests this population requires a higher level of emergency care, for reasons that remain poorly understood.