Search

Background: Conventional buprenorphine inductions for OUD are clinically useful but require patients to experience mild to moderate opioid withdrawal symptoms to avoid precipitated withdrawal. This may be intolerable/unreasonable for some, which may have precluded successful buprenorphine treatment in the past. Microdosing buprenorphine, allowing for full agonist opioid overlap, has emerged as a clinically useful strategy for those unable to complete conventional buprenorphine induction. However, many questions remain such as preclusions regarding the amount of full agonist opioid overlap, speed of buprenorphine microdose titration, and overcoming implementation barriers in U.S. hospitals. Case presentation: A female between the ages of 30 and 40 with severe OUD admitted to the hospital for IDU-related osteomyelitis wished to begin buprenorphine for OUD. Her hospitalization was subject to premature discharge at any time due to competing interests of potential foreclosure on her home, so buprenorphine needed to be started rapidly for safety and improved outcomes. Due to her significant acute pain requirements managed with full agonist opioids, it was unreasonable to consider conventional buprenorphine induction. Buprenorphine microdose strategy was employed at more rapid titration and previously described in the literature, starting at 1 mg TDD on day 1, 3 mg TDD on day 2, and 8 mg TDD on day 3 with full agonist opioid overlap starting at 1,944 MME tapered down to 473 MME. The patient prematurely left the hospital, at which time buprenorphine 8 mg TDD was held at this dose for days 3-8 while full agonist opioid was tapered from 473 MME to 117 MME. BUP was then further titrated to 8 mg TID. This patient tolerated buprenorphine microdosing well, without any treatment-emergent opioid symptoms or worsening of baseline symptoms. Discussion: This case demonstrates the success of buprenorphine microdose induction despite very high doses of full agonist opioid overlap and demonstrates the ability to titrate buprenorphine microdoses faster than originally described. Strategies to overcoming implementation barriers are also discussed.

Background: As opioid-related overdose deaths climb in the U.S., risk reduction measures are increasingly important. One such measure recommended involves provision of proactive substance use counseling regarding the risks of opioid analgesics. This is particularly important in patients at increased risk of overdose, such as those with substance use disorders (SUD) or those receiving concomitant medications that further increase the overdose risk (eg, benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, or Z-hypnotics). However, previous research regarding the likelihood that such counseling is provided during outpatient prescriber visits is lacking., Objectives: To determine the percentage of U.S. ambulatory care visits in which patients taking prescription opioids received substance use counseling, and whether counseling was more common in patients with concomitant GABAergic medication(s) (benzodiazepine, gabapentinoid or Z-hypnotic) or substance use disorder (SUD) diagnosis., Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of all patients aged ⩾18 years identified as having a prescription opioid on their medication list within the 2014-2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data., Results: Among 162.7 million visits in which patients were taking opioid medication(s), substance use counseling was provided in 2.4%. During visits for patients receiving opioid(s) plus GABAergic(s), substance use counseling was marginally more common (3.1% versus 2.0%, P < .0001). Substance use counseling was also more common among visits for patients taking opioid(s) with SUD (18.9% versus 1.5%, P < .0001). Among visits in which a patient was diagnosed with SUD and taking opioid(s) plus GABAergic(s), counseling was more common (23.1% versus 1.4%, P < .0001) compared to patients taking opioid(s) plus GABAergic(s) without SUD., Conclusions: Among national ambulatory care visits in the United States, substance use counseling is provided infrequently for patients taking opioids, even when significant risk factors are present. Increasing patient education may help reduce opioid-related overdose mortality., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interest:The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: CEL serves on the Executive Committee of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training. The Center receives unrestricted funding from Pfizer and Sanofi. CEL’s spouse is employed by a health technology company that receives funding from AbbVie, Adamas, Celgene, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Sunovion. JRC has received previous research funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals and the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists unrelated to this project. The other authors of this study have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Objective: The aim of this article is to update ADHD diagnosis/treatment trends by age, gender, and race. Method: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data were obtained for 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. Physician office visits including ADHD diagnosis and pharmacotherapy were measured per 1,000 population and per 1,000 office visits overall, and by demographic group. Logistic regression models controlled for demographics, psychiatric comorbidities, insurance type, and time period. Interactions of time, demographics, comorbidities, and insurance type were tested. Results: Diagnoses of ADHD increased by 36% in adults and 18% in youth, and diagnosis + drug by 29% in female and 10% in male youths. ADHD diagnosis was 77% less likely among Black than White adults but 24% more likely among Black than White youths in 2012-2013. Conduct disorder (CD) in youths multiplied odds of diagnosis + drug by 3.31; interaction of Black race × CD by 3.78. Conclusion: Upward trends in ADHD diagnosis and treatment have continued but vary markedly by group. Studies of undertreatment/overtreatment are needed.

Tardive dyskinesia is a potentially irreversible, debilitating, hyperkinetic movement disorder that can result from dopamine receptor antagonists. Prompt recognition and resolution of symptoms are instrumental in preventing disease irreversibility, though current treatment options have fallen short of robust, effective, and long-term symptom control. In April 2017, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 2 new vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors, deutetrabenazine and valbenazine, for chorea related to Huntington's disease and tardive dyskinesia, respectively. These agents were pharmacologically modified from tetrabenazine, a VMAT2 inhibitor used off-label in the treatment of tardive dyskinesia. Despite FDA-labeled indications of deutetrabenazine and valbenazine, each agent was explored as a treatment option for those with tardive dyskinesia. In this study, the pharmacologic modifications of the 2 new VMAT2 inhibitors are described, with detailed explanation as to how these may impact clinical practice. The associated case series, observational studies, and clinical trials exploring their use in the treatment of tardive dyskinesia are reported with expert opinion on practice implication.

Gabapentin is widely used in the United States for a number of off-label indications, often as an alternative to opioid therapy. Increasing evidence has emerged suggesting that gabapentin may not be as benign as once thought and may be associated with substance abuse in concert with opioids. With concerns for safety mounting, it is prudent to examine the efficacy of gabapentin across its many uses to understand the risk-benefit balance. Reviews on off-label indications such as migraine, fibromyalgia, mental illness, and substance dependence have found modest to no effect on relevant clinical outcomes. This high-quality evidence has often been overshadowed by uncontrolled studies and limited case reports. Furthermore, the involvement of gabapentin in questionable marketing schemes further calls its use into question. Overall, clinicians should exercise rigorous appraisal of the available evidence for a given indication, and researchers should conduct larger, higher-quality studies to better assess the efficacy of gabapentin for many of its off-label uses., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests:The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: J.R.C. acknowledges current and previous research funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals and the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists, unrelated to this work. The other authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.