Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) experiences and release plans among federally incarcerated individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) in Ontario, Canada: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Incarcerated populations experience an elevated prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD). Federal correctional institutions in Canada have increasingly treated OUD among correctional populations via opioid agonist treatment (OAT) - an evidence based pharmacotherapy that works to reduce drug use and related health harms. However, there is limited evidence regarding incarcerated individuals' experiences with institutional-based OAT, as well potential OAT-related community release prospects. This information is important for optimal treatment retention and improved health. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a longitudinal follow-up study examining OAT-related experiences among federally incarcerated individuals before and after community release. This article focuses on the baseline (pre-release) data. METHODS: This mixed-methods study examined OAT-related experiences and release prospects among n = 46 individuals scheduled for community release, recruited from seven federal prisons located in Ontario, Canada. Participants underwent a comprehensive interviewer-administered on-site assessment, including quantitative and qualitative items. Assessment data was furthermore linked to administrative correctional data. Data were analyzed using thematic qualitative and descriptive quantitative approaches. RESULTS: Participants had complex histories with opioid use including related negative health outcomes. Experiences with institutional OAT were divergent and provision was not standardized; those with OAT engagement pre-admission did not experience many challenges, whereas those initiating OAT during incarceration experienced barriers such as treatment waitlists and adverse process experiences. Most participants expressed a preference for buprenorphine-naloxone over methadone, but described difficulties accessing it. Participants were keen to transition into community-based treatment, yet envisaged prospective barriers and facilitators concerning successful reintegration and treatment continuity. CONCLUSIONS: Major barriers towards the current administration of OAT in federal correctional systems in Canada exist, including extensive waitlists, non-standardized practices, and challenges accessing preferred OAT formulations; this contributes to sub-optimal treatment. Eliminating waitlists, standardizing OAT provision, providing additional OAT options, and more comprehensive release planning may be essential for treatment retention and positive outcomes.

Acute Pain Management of Chronic Pain Patients in Ambulatory Surgery Centers.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With the widespread growth of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), the number and diversity of operations performed in the outpatient setting continue to increase. In parallel, there is an increase in the proportion of patients with a history of chronic opioid use and misuse undergoing elective surgery. Patients with such opioid tolerance present a unique challenge in the ambulatory setting, given their increased requirement for postoperative opioids. Guidelines for managing perioperative pain, anticipating postoperative opioid requirements and a discharge plan to wean off of opioids, are therefore needed. RECENT FINDINGS: Expert guidelines suggest using multimodal analgesia including non-opioid analgesics and regional/neuraxial anesthesia whenever possible. However, there exists variability in care, resulting in challenges in perioperative pain management. In a recent study of same-day admission patients, anesthesiologists correctly identified most opioid-tolerant patients, but used non-opioid analgesics only half the time. The concept of a focused ambulatory pain specialist on site at each ASC has been suggested, who in addition to providing safe anesthesia, could intervene early once problematic pain issues are recognized. This review focuses on perioperative pain management in three subsets of patients who exhibit opioid tolerance: those on large doses of opioids (including abuse-deterrent formulations) for chronic non-malignant or malignant pain; those who have ongoing opioid misuse; and those who were prior addicts and are now on methadone/suboxone maintenance. We also discuss perioperative pain management for patients who have implanted devices such as spinal cord stimulators and intrathecal pain pumps.

A qualitative examination of the current management of opioid use disorder and barriers to prescribing buprenorphine in a Canadian emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) across Canada are increasingly prescribing buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). The objective of this study was to identify the current knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of ED physicians on the management of OUD in the ED, including barriers and facilitators to prescribing buprenorphine. METHODS: We purposefully selected emergency physicians from one ED in Toronto which had recently received education on OUD management and had a new addiction medicine follow-up clinic, to participate in semi-structured interviews. We used semi-structured interviews to explore experiences with patients with OUD, conceptions of role of the ED in addressing OUD, and specifically ask about perceptions and experience on using buprenorphine for opioid withdrawal. Our analysis was informed by constructivist grounded theory to help uncover contextualized social processes and focus on what people do and why they do it. Two researchers independently coded transcripts using an iterative constant comparative and interpretative approach. RESULTS: Results fell broadly into facilitators and barriers. Generally, management of OUD in the ED varied significantly. Physician-level facilitators to treating opioid withdrawal with buprenorphine included: knowledge about OUD an7d buprenorphine, positive experiences with substitution therapy in the past, and the presence of physician champions. Systems-level facilitators included timely access to follow-up care and pre-printed order sets. Barriers included provider inexperience, lack of feedback on treatment effectiveness, limited time to counsel patients, and pressure to discharge patients quickly. Additional barriers included concerns about precipitating withdrawal, prescribing a chronic medication in acute care, and patient attitudes. CONCLUSION: This study describes barriers and facilitators to addressing OUD and prescribing buprenorphine in a Canadian ED. These findings suggest a role for additional provider education, involvement of allied health professionals in counseling, and mentorship by physician champions in the department.

Perioperative Management of Buprenorphine: Solving the Conundrum.

OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus on the optimal perioperative management of patients on buprenorphine (BUP) for opioid use disorder (OUD). This article will review the available literature on BUP and the analgesic efficacy of BUP combined with full mu-opioid agonists and discuss the conflicting management strategies in the context of acute pain and our institution's protocol for the periprocedural management of BUP. METHODS: We searched published data on BUP periprocedural management from inception through March 2018 without language restrictions. Study selection included publications reporting outcomes on perioperative pain management in OUD patients maintained on BUP. RESULTS: Our search resulted in four case reports supporting periprocedural discontinuation of BUP and two case series, one secondary observational study, one prospective matched cohort study, and four retrospective cohort studies supporting periprocedural continuation of BUP. No clinical trials were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining BUP perioperatively does not lead to worsened clinical outcomes. Patients can receive adequate pain control from mu-opioid agonists while maintained on BUP. Based upon available evidence, we recommend continuing BUP at a reduced dose when indicated to avoid withdrawal symptoms and to facilitate the analgesic efficacy of mu-opioid agonists administered in combination for acute postoperative pain.

Perioperative opioid requirements of patients receiving sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist, displaces full opioid agonists from receptors and may impede surgical pain management. We report the effects of a sublingual formulation of buprenorphine-naloxone, Suboxone (SL-BUP), on perioperative pain management. METHODS: We identified all adult surgical patients from December 31, 2004, to January 1, 2016, who received SL-BUP within 30 days prior to procedures performed with general, regional, or combined general/regional anesthesia. We recorded opioid use during the procedure, in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and during the 24 h following PACU discharge. We also examined opioid use in those who continued SL-BUP until the day of surgery vs those who preoperatively discontinued SL-BUP. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were treated preoperatively with SL-BUP. Three patients had regional anesthesia only, and opioid requirements were case dependent. Requirements were minimal for creation of an arteriovenous fistula and high following knee replacement and cesarean section. Twelve patients received combined general/regional anesthesia, and 17 received general anesthesia only. Intraoperative and PACU opioid use in these 2 groups were not significantly different (P = .10 and P = .93, respectively). In both groups opioid use increased after discharge from the PACU, and remained comparable between the general and combined general/regional group through the first 24 h after PACU discharge (P = .78). Although median [interquartile range] 24-h opioid doses were higher among patients who discontinued SL-BUP, the difference was not statistically significant in the general anesthesia-only group (SL-BUP discontinued, 199 [110-411] mg IV-MEq [intravenous morphine equivalent] vs SL-BUP continued, 106 [58-160] mg IV-MEq; P = .15) or in the combined general/regional group (SL-BUP discontinued, 140 [100-157] mg IV-MEq vs SL-BUP continued, 100 [73-203] mg IV-MEq; P = .94). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the type of anesthesia used, physicians treating patients with SL-BUP must be prepared to administer large doses of opioids during the early postoperative period. No difference in opioid requirements was noted between patients who perioperatively stopped SL-BUP versus those who continued SL-BUP.

Implementation of a regional quality improvement collaborative to improve care of people living with opioid use disorder in a Canadian setting.

BACKGROUND: Although opioid agonist therapy is effective in treating opioid use disorders (OUD), retention in opioid agonist therapy is suboptimal, in part, due to quality of care issues. Therefore, we sought to describe the planning and implementation of a quality improvement initiative aimed at closing gaps in care for people living with OUD through changes to workflow and care processes in Vancouver, Canada. METHODS: The Best-practice in Oral Opioid agoniSt Therapy (BOOST) Collaborative followed the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Breakthrough Series Collaborative methodology over 18-months. Teams participated in a series of activities and events to support implementing, measuring, and sharing best practices in OAT and OUD care. Teams were assigned monthly implementation scores to monitor their progress on meeting Collaborative aims and implementing changes. RESULTS: Seventeen health care teams from a range of health care practices caring for a total of 4301 patients with a documented diagnosis of OUD, or suspected OUD based on electronic medical record chart data participated in the Collaborative. Teams followed the Breakthrough Series Collaborative methodology closely and reported monthly on a series of standardized process and outcome indicators. The majority of (59%) teams showed some improvement throughout the Collaborative as indicated by implementation scores. CONCLUSIONS: Descriptive data from the evaluation of this initiative illustrates its success. It provides further evidence to support the implementation of quality improvement interventions to close gaps in OUD care processes and treatment outcomes for people living with OUD. This system-level approach has been spread across British Columbia and could be used by other jurisdictions facing similar overdose crises.

The problem of pain: Additive analgesic effect of tramadol and buprenorphine in a patient with opioid use disorder.

Background: There is a paucity of published literature on the optimal treatment of pain in patients on buprenorphine treatment (BT) for opioid use disorder. Using this case report, we hope to demonstrate that tramadol may represent an effective treatment option for pain in patients on BT while encouraging future clinical trials. Case: The patient is a 56-year-old Caucasian male with a history of opiate use disorder on treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone 8/2 mg 2 times a day (BID) who was followed in an outpatient general psychiatry clinic that specializes in patients with co-occurring substance use disorders. Although maintaining sobriety from opioids, the patient continued to struggle with acute on chronic pain secondary to osteoarthritis that had left him walking with a cane. The patient was started on tramadol 50 mg 3 times a day (TID) for acute pain by his primary care physician (PCP) while he awaited surgical intervention. He reported analgesic effect with buprenorphine/naloxone but noted that it did not last the full period between his doses. He reported further improvement in his pain along with greater daily functioning with the additional use of tramadol, without side effects or withdrawal symptoms. Discussion: Current recommendations for pain management in patients on BT include discontinuation of BT therapy and/or addition of an adjunctive opioid analgesic (including additional buprenorphine/naloxone) while continuing agonist medication for treatment of opioid use disorder. However, determining which medication to use can be difficult, as there has been no literature examining this issue. In this case, the combination of buprenorphine and tramadol demonstrated an additive analgesic effect. Randomized control studies need to be performed to further understand the changes in pain measurement in patients on BT with tramadol compared with other adjunctive analgesic medications.

The LASSO Program in Oslo: Harm Reduction Using Buprenorphine-Naloxone (Suboxone®) in a Low Threshold Setting.

BACKGROUND: This is a 6-year retrospective quality control study of the LASSO Program (Low Threshold Substitution Treatment in Oslo), using exclusively Suboxone® (buprenorphine-naloxone [BPNX]) in out-patient settings. Adequate abstinence prior to induction is necessary to avoid acute onset opioid withdrawal symptoms; thus, its use in low threshold settings is far less common than methadone. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if BPNX is a safe and feasible medication to use in a low threshold setting. METHODS: The analysis is based on daily supervised BPNX medication. The standardized induction regime started with 4-mg BPNX increasing by 4 mg daily until 16 mg, with individual adjustments based on clinical status. Treatment effect was evaluated by the number of medication induction attempts, treatment length and lag time between initial contact and medication start. Statistical computations were performed with SPSS®. RESULTS: There were 331 out of 394 registered patient inquires that started on BPNX. Two hundred fifty-three patients (76.4%) completed induction on first attempt with 95% Wilson score CIs of (0.716-0.807). The accumulated percentage increased to 85.2% during successive inductions. No significant association was found between lag time and (i) the number of days on medication during the first induction; or (ii) total treatment length. Patients had a median lag time of 5 days, remained in treatment a median of 52.0 days with an average of 3.9 inductions. There were no cases of severe precipitated withdrawal and only 2 cases of adverse reactions among the 1,293 inductions and 25,544 administered dosages. CONCLUSION: This study shows that BPNX is highly effective in treating marginalized heroin addicts in low threshold settings. Even during their first attempt, 76.4% completed induction. There were no cases of severe precipitated withdrawal. Prolonged lag time affected neither the length of first treatment nor the total treatment length. Individualized induction readiness approach and motivation were central to the above results.

Oxford House Residents' Attitudes Toward Medication Assisted Treatment Use in Fellow Residents.

Methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone are medication assisted treatment (MAT) options for treating opioid use disorder, yet attitudes regarding their use within abstinence-based recovery homes have not been assessed. The present investigation examined attitudes regarding MAT utilization among residents living in Oxford Houses. This cross-sectional investigation compared residents (n = 87) receiving MAT whose recent drug use involved opioids, and two groups not receiving MATs; those who had used opioids and those who had used substances other than opioids. The vast majority of residents were not receiving MAT, yet 32% reported MAT histories. Negative attitudes regarding MAT were observed among residents who were not receiving MAT. Those presently receiving MAT reported mixed attitudes regarding the use of methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone, and two of these residents reported they had never been prescribed MAT. Findings suggest that abstinence-based recovery homes such as Oxford Houses may not be optimal resources for persons receiving MATs.

Assessing and improving organizational readiness to implement substance use disorder treatment in primary care: findings from the SUMMIT study.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people with substance use disorders (SUDs) need, but do not receive, treatment. Delivering SUD treatment in primary care settings could increase access to treatment because most people visit their primary care doctors at least once a year, but evidence-based SUD treatments are underutilized in primary care settings. We used an organizational readiness intervention comprised of a cluster of implementation strategies to prepare a federally qualified health center to deliver SUD screening and evidence-based treatments (extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) for alcohol use disorders, buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NX) for opioid use disorders and a brief motivational interviewing/cognitive behavioral -based psychotherapy for both disorders). This article reports the effects of the intervention on key implementation outcomes. METHODS: To assess changes in organizational readiness we conducted pre- and post-intervention surveys with prescribing medical providers, behavioral health providers and general clinic staff (N = 69). We report on changes in implementation outcomes: acceptability, perceptions of appropriateness and feasibility, and intention to adopt the evidence-based treatments. We used Wilcoxon signed rank tests to analyze pre- to post-intervention changes. RESULTS: After 18 months, prescribing medical providers agreed more that XR-NTX was easier to use for patients with alcohol use disorders than before the intervention, but their opinions about the effectiveness and ease of use of BUP/NX for patients with opioid use disorders did not improve. Prescribing medical providers also felt more strongly after the intervention that XR-NTX for alcohol use disorders was compatible with current practices. Opinions of general clinic staff about the appropriateness of SUD treatment in primary care improved significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with implementation theory, we found that an organizational readiness implementation intervention enhanced perceptions in some domains of practice acceptability and appropriateness. Further research will assess whether these factors, which focus on individual staff readiness, change over time and ultimately predict adoption of SUD treatments in primary care.

Total Joint Arthroplasty in Patients Taking Methadone or Buprenorphine/Naloxone Preoperatively for Prior Heroin Addiction: A Prospective Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative narcotic use has been associated with poor outcomes after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The purpose of this study is to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing elective TJA while concurrently being treated with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone for prior heroin addiction to a matched control group. METHODS: From an electronic medical record, we collected age, gender, body mass index, the presence of back pain, smoking status, history of alcohol abuse, preoperative use of a pain clinic, and use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, or systemic corticosteroids. Validated outcome measures including the 12-Item Short Form Survey, Knee Society Score (KSS), and Harris Hip Score were used to assess functional outcomes preoperatively and postoperatively. Perioperative data were retrospectively obtained from patient charts. Postoperative functional outcomes were prospectively collected at follow-up visits. Subjects were matched to 2:1 control group on the basis of procedure, sex, diagnosis, age (±5 years), and body mass index (±5 kg/m(2)). Average follow-up was 27.2 months. RESULTS: Significant preoperative differences between the groups included mean morphine-equivalent requirements (997.1 mg for study group vs 24.8 mg for controls), 12-Item Short Form Survey Mental Component Scores (MCS-12; 37.8 for study group vs 49.0 for controls), smoking history, and antipsychotic medication use. Perioperative referral to inpatient Acute Pain Service and mean in-hospital morphine-equivalent narcotic usage (793 mg/24 h for study group vs 109 mg/24 h for controls) also significantly differed between groups. Knee range of motion differed significantly between the cohorts at 1 year (77.5 for study group vs 109.4); however, no significant difference in KSS pain (87.6 vs 84.4), KSS function (61 vs 80.9), Harris Hip Score (89.2 vs 85.3), MCS-12 (47.1 vs 52.9), or complications was observed. CONCLUSION: Equivalent pain control and successful clinical outcome at 1 year can be achieved in patients who use methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone preoperatively.

Evaluation of opioid use disorder treatment outcomes in patients receiving split daily versus once daily dosing of buprenorphine-naloxone.

INTRODUCTION: In clinical practice, sublingual (SL) buprenorphine-naloxone is prescribed as once daily or split daily dosing for the management of opioid use disorder (OUD). Evidence is lacking that assesses how split daily buprenorphine-naloxone affects OUD outcomes. This study aims to evaluate how the dosing frequency of SL buprenorphine-naloxone impacts therapy effectiveness when treating patients with OUD. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included adult outpatients prescribed treatment with SL buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD between July 1, 2016, and March 1, 2020. The study excluded patients with sickle cell disease, recent methadone treatment, or pregnancy. We characterized study groups by dosing frequency, either once daily or split dosing. The study compared retention in treatment, medication adherence, adherence to treatment program, and hospital encounters between groups. RESULTS: The study screened eight-hundred and seven patients, and included 250 patients newly prescribed SL buprenorphine-naloxone. Fifty-seven patients (22.8 %) were prescribed once daily dosing and 193 patients (77.2 %) were prescribed split daily dosing. The study found no significant differences noted in 12-month rates of treatment retention (52.6 % vs. 45.6 %, p = .35). These outcomes remained similar when assessed at three and six months. Within a year of buprenorphine-naloxone initiation, the study found no differences in the percentage of patients with hospitalizations (26.3 % vs. 38.3 %, p = .10), median number of hospitalizations (2 vs. 2), or proportion of days covered by a prescription ≥80 % (93.3 % vs. 92.0 %, p = .82). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients receiving once daily buprenorphine-naloxone had similar treatment outcomes to patients receiving split dosing. Further controlled studies are necessary to evaluate which patients are more likely to benefit from split dosing.

Patient outcomes following buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder: A retrospective analysis of the influence of patient- and prescriber-level characteristics in Massachusetts, USA.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is treatable with buprenorphine/naloxone (buprenorphine), but many patients discontinue treatment prematurely. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patient- and prescriber-level characteristics relative to several patient outcomes following the initiation of buprenorphine treatment for OUD. DESIGN: This was a retrospective observational investigation. We used the Public Health Data Warehouse from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to construct a sample of patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment between 2015 and 2019. We attributed each patient to a prescriber based on information from prescription claims. We used multilevel models to assess the influence of patient- and prescriber-level characteristics on each outcome. SETTING: Massachusetts, USA. PARTICIPANTS: The study cohort comprised 37 955 unique patients and 2146 prescribers. Among patients, 64.6% were male, 52.6% were under the age of 35 and 82.2% were White, non-Hispanic. For insurance coverage, 72.1% had Medicaid. MEASUREMENTS: The outcome measures were poor medication continuity, treatment discontinuation and opioid overdose, all assessed within a 12-month follow-up period that began with a focal prescription for buprenorphine. Each patient had a single follow-up period. Poor medication continuity was defined as medication gaps totaling more than 7 days during the initial 180 days of buprenorphine treatment and treatment discontinuation was defined as having a medication gap for 2 consecutive months within the 12-month follow-up period. FINDINGS: The patient-level rates for poor medication continuity, treatment discontinuation and opioid overdose were 59.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 59.2-60.2], 57.4% (95% CI = 56.9-57.9) and 10.3% (95% CI = 10.0-10.6), respectively, with 1.1% (95% CI = 1.0-1.2) experiencing a fatal opioid overdose. At the patient level, after adjustment for covariates, adverse outcomes were associated with race/ethnicity as both Black, non-Hispanic and Hispanic patients had worse outcomes than did White, non-Hispanic patients (Black, non-Hispanic -- poor continuity: 1.50, 95% CI = 1.34-1.68; discontinuation: 1.44, 95% CI = 1.30-1.60; Hispanic -- poor continuity: 1.21, 95% CI = 1.12-1.31; discontinuation: 1.38, 95% CI = 1.28-1.48). Patients with insurance coverage through Medicaid also had worse outcomes than those with commercial insurance (poor continuity: 1.18, 95% CI = 1.11-1.26; discontinuation: 1.09, 95% CI = 1.03-1.16; overdose: 1.98, 95% CI = 1.75-2.23). Pre-treatment mental health conditions and other types of chronic illness were also associated with worse outcomes (History of mental health conditions -- poor continuity: 1.11, 95% CI = 1.06-1.17; discontinuation: 1.05, CI = 1.01-1.10; overdose: 1.47, 95% CI = 1.36-1.60; Chronic health conditions -- poor continuity: 1.15, 95% CI = 1.05-1.27; discontinuation: 1.15, 95% CI = 1.05-1.26; overdose: 1.83, 95% CI = 1.60-2.10; History of substance use disorder other than for opioids -- poor continuity: 1.54, 95% CI = 1.46-1.62; discontinuation: 1.54, 95% CI = 1.47-1.62; overdose: 1.93, 95% CI = 1.80-2.07). At the prescriber level, after adjustments for covariates, adverse outcomes were associated with clinical training, as primary care physicians had higher rates of adverse outcomes than psychiatrists (poor continuity: 1.12, 95% CI = 1.02-1.23; discontinuation: 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01-1.09). A larger prescriber panel size, based on number of patients being prescribed buprenorphine, was also associated with higher rates of adverse outcomes (poor continuity: 1.36, 95% CI = 1.27-1.46; discontinuation: 1.21, 95% CI = 1.14-1.28; overdose: 1.10, 95% CI = 1.01-1.19). Between 9% and 15% of the variation among patients for the outcomes was accounted for at the prescriber level. CONCLUSIONS: Patient- and prescriber-level characteristics appear to be associated with patient outcomes following buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. In particular, patients' race/ethnicity and insurance coverage appear to be associated with substantial disparities in outcomes, and prescriber characteristics appear to be most closely associated with medication continuity during early treatment.

Acute pain control challenges with buprenorphine/naloxone therapy in a patient with compartment syndrome secondary to McArdle's disease: a case report and review.

OBJECTIVE: We report the first case of non-iatrogentic exertional rhabdomyolysis leading to acute compartment syndrome in a patient with McArdle's disease. We describe considerations of concurrent buprenorphine/naloxone therapy during episodes of severe acute pain. DESIGN: Case report. CASE PRESENTATION: A 50-year-old male with a history of McArdle's disease, taking buprenorphine/naloxone for chronic pain and opioid dependence, presented to the Emergency Department with severe bilateral anterior thigh pain. Over the following 8 hours, he was given a total of 12 mg of intravenous hydromorphone with minimal pain relief. The decision was made to initiate patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with hydromorphone started at 0.5 mg as needed with a 15-minute lockout. Subsequently, the patient's anterior thighs were found to be extremely tense. His creatine kinase level rose to 198,688 units/L and compartment pressures were greater than 90 mm Hg bilaterally. The patient was taken for emergent bilateral fasciotomies. The hydromorphone PCA was increased to 0.8 mg as needed with a 15-minute lockout and a basal rate of 0.5 mg/h. The patient's reported pain plateaued at 3/10 intensity 2 days after surgery, and he was transitioned to oxycodone and hydrocodone/acetaminophen. He followed up with his pain management physician 2 months later who restarted suboxone and a buphrenorphine transdermal patch. DISCUSSION: Buprenorphine/naloxone is being prescribed off-label with increasing frequency for pain management in patients with or without a history of opioid abuse. Severe acute pain is more difficult to control with opioid analgesics in patients taking buprenorphine/naloxone, requiring higher than usual doses. If buprenorphine/naloxone is discontinued to better treat acute pain with other opioids, monitoring for overdose must take place for at least 72 hours.

Assessing suboxone access in community pharmacies: Secret shopper model.

Objective: To assess whether Maryland community pharmacies had Suboxone available for dispensing. Methods: This cross-sectional study used a secret shopper model to contact public-facing community pharmacies in Maryland. The secret shopper, guided by a script, asked whether a prescription for Suboxone was available for the same or next day pick-up. A small convenience sample of pharmacies who did not have Suboxone available received an in-person visit to inquire about medication availability and dispensing barriers. Results: After contacting 99% (n = 1046) of Maryland public-facing pharmacies, Suboxone was confirmed available for immediate pick-up in 31% (n = 326). The remaining did not have, would not disclose, or had limited access (existing patients or specific providers only). Significant differences in Suboxone availability were found for National Capital vs. Baltimore metro region and when pharmacist asked questions vs. no questions. Of the 11 pharmacy visits completed, 10 said they had Suboxone currently in stock, with one clarifying medication was for existing patients only. Conclusion: About 69% of patients may face challenges when calling to find out whether they can obtain Suboxone in Maryland pharmacies. Better patient education and more thorough pharmacy-level investigation of system and workflow barriers could offer solutions.

A mobile addiction service for community-based overdose prevention.

Mainstays of opioid overdose prevention include medications for opioid use disorder (e.g., methadone or buprenorphine) and naloxone distribution. Inadequate access to buprenorphine limits its uptake, especially in communities of color, and people with opioid use disorders encounter multiple barriers to obtaining necessary medications including insurance, transportation, and consistent availability of telephones. UMass Memorial Medical Center and our community partners sought to alleviate these barriers to treatment through the deployment of a mobile addiction service, called the Road to Care. Using this approach, multidisciplinary and interprofessional providers deliver holistic addiction care by centering our patients' needs with respect to scheduling, location, and convenience. This program also extends access to buprenorphine and naloxone among people experiencing homelessness. Additional systemic and individualized barriers encountered are identified, as well as potential solutions for future mobile addiction service utilization. Over a two-year period, we have cared for 1,121 individuals who have accessed our mobile addiction service in over 4,567 encounters. We prescribed buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone®) to 330 individuals (29.4% of all patients). We have distributed nearly 250 naloxone kits directly on-site or and more than 300 kits via prescriptions to local pharmacies. To date, 74 naloxone rescue attempts have been reported back to us. We have demonstrated that a community-based mobile addiction service, anchored within a major medical center, can provide high-volume and high-quality overdose prevention services that facilitate engagement with additional treatment. Our experience is described as a case study below.

Acute Psychotic Episode Precipitated by Opioid Withdrawal in a Case of Bipolar I Disorder.

Psychosis is a state of mind where an individual loses touch with reality and cannot differentiate between their perceptions and the real world. They experience one or more of the following: delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech or catatonic behavior. While it can have a sporadic onset, drug-induced psychosis is also very common. When a person consuming large quantities of a particular drug, such as opioids, stops consuming the drug and enters the rehabilitation stage, this is a vulnerable time due to abrupt chemical changes. It can predispose the individual to psychosis due to withdrawal from the drug. Here, we present a 30-year-old Caucasian female who underwent rehabilitation and was treated successfully with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) for eight months. However, due to a comorbid psychiatric condition, mania, she was not able to adhere to her medication regimen, which led to an abrupt discontinuation of her maintenance medication, and this led to psychotic symptoms, including agitation, hallucinations, delusions, and bizarre behavior surrounding her family and individual health. Later, she restarted on buprenorphine/naloxone, which led to a gradual recovery and disappearance of her psychotic symptoms.

Patient-provider relationships: Opioid use disorder and HIV treatment in Vietnam.

Background: The provider-patient relationship has been implicated as a positive force in health outcomes. This study examined the provider-patient relationship in the setting of integrated, partially-integrated, and non-integrated opioid use disorder (OUD) and HIV care models in Vietnam. Objective: To examine the provider-patient relationship in the setting of integrated, partially integrated, and non-integrated OUD and HIV treatment in North Vietnam. Methods: Between 2013 and 2018, we conducted face-to-face qualitative interviews with 44 patients living with HIV and OUD and 43 providers in northern Vietnam. These were analyzed using a semantic, inductive approach to qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Several themes were identified. 1) Trust was important to the patient-provider relationship and sensitive to provider attitudes and competence. 2) Patients perceived greater provider competence and understanding of patient health problems in integrated treatment. 3) Patient-provider relationships were initially superficial but deepened over time, facilitated by continuity of care. Conclusions: Patient perceptions of competence and respect were important to feeling cared for. Providers felt empathy and competence came with more experience caring for patients with OUD and HIV.

Buprenorphine involvement in opioid overdose deaths: A retrospective analysis of postmortem toxicology in Marion County, Indiana, 2015-2021.

Background: Amidst an unprecedented overdose epidemic, the opioid partial agonist buprenorphine is a medication for opioid use disorder associated with reductions in overdose. Despite its efficacy, buprenorphine prescribing remains closely regulated, owing to concerns about misuse, and its possible role in overdoses. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the Marion County, Indiana coroner's postmortem toxicology data for unintentional opioid-involved overdose deaths from 2015 through 2021. The county was chosen as a novel setting whose corner provided comprehensive overdose data. It contains Indianapolis, a large city in the US Midwest The 2,369 opioid-involved overdoses were analyzed for the presence of buprenorphine and its metabolite, as wel as potent substances associated with illicit drug use and overdose. Results: Of the 2,369 postmortem toxicology records analyzed, 55 (2.3%) indicated presence of buprenorphine. Of buprenorphine-involved cases, 51 (92.7%) involved other potent substances such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, methadone, and amphetamines; 4 (7.3%) were attributed to buprenorphine and liver failure, diabetic ketoacidosis, or relatively less potent substances. Fentanyl was present in 28 cases (50.9%), benzodiazepines were present in 24 (43.6%). Black opioid decedents were considerably less likely to have buprenorphine in their toxicology than White decedents. Conclusions: Buprenorphine was rarely detected in the postmortem toxicology of unintentional opioid overdoses in a major US city in the Midwest. In nearly all cases it was accompanied by other potent substances that more frequently cause fatal overdoses on their own. This study confirms findings from other geographic settings that the overdose mortality risks associated with buprenorphine are low.