Kratom use disorder: case reports on successful treatment with home induction of buprenorphine-naloxone.

BACKGROUND: Kratom has been used for different reasons such as pain, opioid withdrawal, and relaxation. Kratom can cause dependence and overdose, and it's classified under 'drugs of concern' by the US Drug Enforcement Administration. Despite these concerns, kratom is legal in most of the United States and many countries around the world with easy accessibility. Literature searches reveal recommendations to use buprenorphine (or buprenorphine-naloxone), which are medications to treat opioid use disorder, in order to treat patients with kratom use disorder; however, there are no formal guidelines available. Buprenorphine (or buprenorphine-naloxone) induction is recommended to be conducted under observation (i.e. in the clinic) in the United States, but COVID-19 has resulted in shifts toward telehealth. OBJECTIVES: Describe case series of successful management of kratom use disorder using telehealth followed by unobserved buprenorphine-naloxone home induction and highlight implications for future management, including maintenance dosage and induction method. METHODS: We present 2 very similar kratom use disorder patients who reported taking 35 g of kratom per day who underwent unobserved buprenorphine-naloxone home induction. RESULTS: Both were seen via telehealth initially. They reported no adverse effects before, during, or after the unobserved home induction on buprenorphine-naloxone but stabilized on significantly different dosages. CONCLUSION: Telehealth followed by unobserved buprenorphine-naloxone induction at home may be an alternative to traditional buprenorphine-naloxone induction where treatment accessibility is limited. In addition to daily doses of kratom use, other factors, such as duration of kratom use and individual psychological factors may determine the most comfortable dose of buprenorphine-naloxone.

Mechanical loading differentially regulates membrane-bound and soluble RANKL availability in MC3T3-E1 cells.

To understand the biochemical response of RANKL in response to mechanical loading, MC3T3-E1 cells were biequiaxially stretched. A murine RANKL cDNA with double epitopes, pEF6 HA-RANKL-V5His, was transfected into MC3T3-E1 cells, which were then stretched. Endogenous RANKL protein expression increased in response to mechanical loading. Membrane-bound RANKL (HA-RANKL-V5His) increased in cell lysates while soluble RANKL (RANKL-V5His) decreased in the conditioned media after mechanical loading. This may have resulted from the decreased activity of TACE after mechanical loading. Increased membrane-bound RANKL may be one of the mechanisms through which osteoblasts adapt to mechanical loading by regulating osteoclastogenic activity in a region-specific manner.

Indirect decompression and vertebral body endplate strength after lateral interbody spacer impaction: cadaveric and foam-block models.

OBJECTIVE The lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine is a well-defined procedure for the management of discogenic spinal pathology necessitating surgical intervention. Intervertebral device subsidence is a postoperative clinical risk that can lead to recurrence of symptomatic pathology and the need for surgical reintervention. The current study was designed to investigate static versus expandable lateral intervertebral spacers in indirect decompression for preserving vertebral body endplate strength. METHODS Using a cadaveric biomechanical study and a foam-block vertebral body model, researchers compared vertebral body endplate strength and distraction potential. Fourteen lumbar motion segments (7 L2-3 and 7 L4-5 specimens) were distributed evenly between static and expandable spacer groups. In each specimen discectomy was followed by trialing and spacer impaction. Motion segments were axially sectioned through the disc, and a metal stamp was used to apply a compressive load to superior and inferior vertebral bodies to quantify endplate strength. A paired, 2-sample for means t-test was performed to determine statistically significant differences between groups (p ≤ 0.05). A foam-block endplate model was used to control simulated disc tension when a spacer with 2- and 3-mm desired distraction was inserted. One-way ANOVA and a post hoc Student Newman-Keuls test were performed (p ≤ 0.05) to determine differences in distraction. RESULTS Both static and expandable spacers restored intact neural foramen and disc heights after device implantation (p > 0.05). Maximum peak loads at endplate failure for static and expandable spacers were 1764 N (± 966 N) and 2284 N (± 949 N), respectively (p ≤ 0.05). The expandable spacer consistently produced greater desired distraction than was created by the static spacer in the foam-block model (p ≤ 0.05). Distraction created by fully expanding the spacer was significantly greater than the predetermined goals of 2 mm and 3 mm (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The current investigation shows that increased trialing required for a static spacer may lead to additional iatrogenic endplate damage, resulting in less distraction and increased propensity for postoperative implant subsidence secondary to endplate disruption.