Search

Background: Patients who are newly screened HIV positive by EIA are lost to follow-up due to complicated HIV testing procedures. Because this is the first step in care, it affects the entire continuum of care. This is a particular concern in rural China. Objective(s): To assess the routine HIV testing completeness and treatment initiation rates at 18 county-level general hospitals in rural Guangxi. Methods: We reviewed original hospital HIV screening records. Investigators also engaged with hospital leaders and key personnel involved in HIV prevention activities to characterize in detail the routine care practices in place at each county. Results: 699 newly screened HIV-positive patients between January 1 and June 30, 2013 across the 18 hospitals were included in the study. The proportion of confirmatory testing across the 18 hospitals ranged from 14% to 87% (mean of 43%), and the proportion of newly diagnosed individuals successfully initiated antiretroviral treatment across the hospitals ranged from 3% to 67% (mean of 23%). The average interval within hospitals for individuals to receive the Western Blot (WB) and CD4 test results from HIV positive screening (i.e. achieving testing completion) ranged from 14–116 days (mean of 41.7 days) across the hospitals. The shortest interval from receiving a positive EIA screening test result to receiving WB and CD4 testing and counseling was 0 day and the longest was 260 days. Conclusion: The proportion of patients newly screened HIV positive that completed the necessary testing procedures for HIV confirmation and received ART was very low. Interventions are urgently needed to remove barriers so that HIV patients can have timely access to HIV/AIDS treatment and care in rural China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four decades of concerted pharmacotherapy research has netted us three medications approved for the treatment of opioid addiction. The clinical pharmacology, safety, efficacy, and clinical use of these medications are familiar to most clinical researchers and clinicians in addiction medicine. Less common is an understanding of the social and political forces behind the choice of these particular agents for their development and how these forces continue to influence how clinicians interact with patients who have opioid use disorder. This review brings into focus those forces and puts into context how we came to have these particular medications. What we know determines our views of the world we live in, including our patients and ourselves, as well as those to whom we give power to govern us. The issues are raised by the author, who does not provide resolutions; answers to the questions of how to address the issues must come from the reader. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To examine the safety and effectiveness of buprenorphine + naloxone sublingual tablets (BUP, as Suboxone®) provided after administration of extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX, as Vivitrol®) to reduce cocaine use in participants who met DSM-IV criteria for cocaine dependence and past or current opioid dependence or abuse. Methods This multi-centered, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, conducted under the auspices of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network, randomly assigned 302 participants at sites in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Texas, Georgia, Ohio, New York and Washington DC, USA to one of three conditions provided with XR-NTX: 4 mg/day BUP (BUP4, n = 100), 16 mg/day BUP (BUP16, n = 100, or no buprenorphine (placebo; PLB, n = 102). Participants received pharmacotherapy for 8 weeks, with three clinic visits per week. Cognitive behavioral therapy was provided weekly. Follow-up assessments occurred at 1 and 3 months post-intervention. The planned primary outcome was urine drug screen (UDS)-corrected, self-reported cocaine use during the last 4 weeks of treatment. Planned secondary analyses assessed cocaine use by UDS, medication adherence, retention and adverse events. Results No group differences were found between groups for the primary outcome (BUP4 versus PLB, P = 0.262; BUP16 versus PLB, P = 0.185). Longitudinal analysis of UDS data during the evaluation period using generalized linear mixed equations found a statistically significant difference between BUP16 and PLB [ P = 0.022, odds ratio (OR) = 1.71] but not for BUP4 ( P = 0.105, OR = 1.05). No secondary outcome differences across groups were found for adherence, retention or adverse events. Conclusions Buprenorphine + naloxone, used in combination with naltrexone, may be associated with reductions in cocaine use among people who meet DSM-IV criteria for cocaine dependence and past or current opioid dependence or abuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This 2-stage open-label pilot study evaluated the safety and potential efficacy of naltrexone+ bupropion as a pharmaco-therapy for methamphetamine (MA) use disorder. Methods: The study was conducted in 2 stages of recruitment across 3 sites; 20 participants were enrolled in stage 1 and 29 participants were enrolled in stage 2. Eight weeks of open-label pharmacotherapy with a combination of extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX; Vivitrol) plus extended-release oral bupropion (BRP; Wellbutrin XL) were provided with a smartphone-assisted medi cation adherence platform. Participants met Diagnostic and Statisti cal Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition criteria for severe MA use disorder, self-reported ≥20 days of MA use in the 30 days priorto consent, and submitted 3 MA-positive urine drug screens (UDS) out of 4 collected during screening. Participants attended clinic twice weekly for observed BRP dosing, UDS testing, assessments, and medical management; XR-NTX was administered at weeks 1 and 5. A BRP taper and follow-up visit occurred in week 9. Results: Analyses evaluated effects of XR-NTX + BRP to determine the number of "responders" according to a statistically predefined response criterion (6 of 8 MA-negative UDS during the last 4 weeks of medication). The 2-stage design required that stage 1 yield ≥3 responders to continue to stage 2; 11 of the 49 participants met responder criteria across both stages (5 in stage 1, 6 in stage 2). Conclusions: Under the statistical analysis plan, study "success" required ≥9 responders. With 11 responders, the study demonstrated sufficient potential of naltrexone plus bupropion as a combination pharmacotherapy for MA use disorder to warrant further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To compare long-term outcomes among participants randomized to buprenorphine or methadone. Design, Setting and Participants Follow-up was conducted in 2011-14 of 1080 opioid-dependent participants entering seven opioid treatment programs in the United States between 2006 and 2009 and randomized (within each program) to receive open-label buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone for up to 24 weeks; 795 participants completed in-person interviews (~74% follow-up interview rate) covering on average 4.5 years. Measurements Outcomes were indicated by mortality and opioid use. Covariates included demographics, site, cocaine use and treatment experiences. Findings Mortality was not different between the two randomized conditions, with 23 (3.6%) of 630 participants randomized to buprenorphine having died versus 26 (5.8%) of 450 participants randomized to methadone. Opioid use at follow-up was higher among participants randomized to buprenorphine relative to methadone [42.8 versus 31.7% positive opioid urine specimens, P < 0.01, effect size (h) = 0.23 (0.09, 0.38); 5.8 days versus 4.4 days of past 30-day heroin use, P < 0.05, effect size (d) = 0.14 (0.00, 0.28)]. Opioid use during the follow-up period by randomization condition was also significant (F(7,39 600) = 3.16; P < 0.001) due mainly to less treatment participation among participants randomized to buprenorphine than methadone. Less opioid use was associated with both buprenorphine and methadone treatment (relative to no treatment); no difference was found between the two treatments. Individuals who are white or used cocaine at baseline responded better to methadone than to buprenorphine. Conclusions There are few differences in long-term outcomes between buprenorphine and methadone treatment for opioid dependence, and treatment with each medication is associated with a strong reduction in opioid use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]