Search

This prospective, randomized, active-controlled, non-inferiority study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablet (Zubsolv®; buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablet) versus generic buprenorphine for induction of opioid maintenance among dependent adults. The study, conducted at 13 sites from June 2013 to January 2014, included a 2-day blinded induction phase and a 27-day open-label stabilization/maintenance phase. During the blinded induction, patients received fixed doses of buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets or generic buprenorphine. During open-label stabilization/early maintenance, all patients received buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets. The primary efficacy assessment was treatment retention at day 3; buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets were considered non-inferior to generic buprenorphine if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the treatments was ≥-10% in patients retained on day 3. Secondary assessments included opioid withdrawal symptoms and cravings as measured using the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, and the opioid cravings visual analogue scale. Safety was also assessed. A total of 313 patients were randomly assigned to induction with generic buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets. The mean age was 38.4 years, and the mean duration of opioid dependence was 12.4 years. For the primary efficacy assessment, 235 of 256 patients (91.8%) were retained at day 3 and continued to the maintenance phase. The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was -13.7; thus, buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets did not demonstrate non-inferiority to generic buprenorphine, and significantly more patients who received induction with generic buprenorphine (122/128 [95.3%]) were retained at day 3 compared with those who received induction with buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets (113/128 [88.3%]; 95% confidence interval: -13.7, -0.4; p = 0.040). The rates of clinical response, as measured by the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, and the visual analogue scale, were comparable among patients regardless of the induction medication. Treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets was generally safe and reduced the severity of withdrawal symptoms and cravings.

The impact of regular marijuana use on executive cognitive abilities, including decision making, is not well understood. While cross-sectional studies have suggested that substance abusers exhibit impaired decision making, as assessed by the Iowa Gambling Task, the direct role of marijuana use in the Gambling Task performance of marijuana smokers has not been well defined. In this report, we present data on performance on a modified Gambling Task in experienced marijuana users after they had smoked marijuana under controlled laboratory conditions. A total of 36 marijuana users, who reported smoking approximately 24 marijuana cigarettes per week, completed this 3-session outpatient study. During each session, these volunteers completed the Gambling Task once at baseline and 3 times after smoking a single marijuana cigarette (0.0, 1.8, or 3.9% Delta9-THC). Marijuana cigarettes were administered in a double-blind fashion, and the sequence of Delta9-THC concentration was balanced across volunteers. Marijuana increased the time required to complete the task. However, advantageous card selection and money earned on the task were not disrupted by marijuana. These data are consistent with previous findings that indicated that speed of performance on tests of executive function, but not accuracy, is disrupted in experienced marijuana users during marijuana intoxication.

This study attempts to determine how internal medicine housestaff screen and intervene for problematic alcohol and illicit drug use, as well as identify factors correlating with favorable practices. A cross-sectional survey was administered to 93 medical housestaff. Of 64 (69%) respondents, 94% reported routinely screening new patients for alcohol or illicit drug use, while only 52% routinely quantified alcohol consumption and 28% routinely used a screening instrument. Housestaff were unfamiliar with national guidelines and felt unprepared to diagnose substance use disorders, particularly prescription drug abuse. Most routinely counseled patients with alcohol (89%) or illicit-drug problems (91%), although only a third of these patients were referred for formal treatment. More thorough screening practices were associated with greater treatment optimism, while favorable referral practices were associated with greater optimism about 12-step program benefit and difficulty with management. These findings suggest areas to be addressed in residency curricula on substance abuse.