Training in office-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine in US residency programs: A national survey of residency program directors

Background: The prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) has increased sharply. Office-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine (OBOT) is effective but often underutilized because of physicians' lack of experience prescribing this therapy. Little is known about US residency training programs' provision of OBOT and addiction medicine training. Methods: The authors conducted a survey of residency program directors (RPDs) at all US residency programs in internal medicine, family medicine, and psychiatry to assess the frequency with which their residents provide care for OUD, presence and features of curricula in OBOT and addiction medicine, RPDs' beliefs about OBOT, and potential barriers to providing OBOT training. Results: The response rate was 49.5% (476 of 962). Although 76.9% of RPDs reported that residents frequently manage patients with OUD, only 23.5% reported that their program dedicates 12 or more hours of curricular time to addiction medicine, 35.9% reported that their program encourages/requires training in OBOT, and 22.6% reported that their program encourages/requires obtaining a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. Most RPDs believe that OBOT is an important treatment option for OUD (88.1%) and that increased residency training in OBOT would improve access to OBOT (73.7%). The authors also found that programs whose RPD had favorable views of OBOT were more likely to provide OBOT and addiction medicine training. Psychiatry programs were most likely to provide OBOT training and their RPDs most likely to have beliefs about OBOT that were positive. Commonly cited barriers to implementing OBOT training include a lack of waivered preceptors (76.9%), competing curricular priorities (64.1%), and a lack of support (social work and counseling) services (54.0%). Conclusions: Internal medicine, family medicine, and psychiatry residents often care for patients with OUD, and most RPDs believe that increased residency training in OBOT would increase access to this treatment. Yet, only a minority of programs offer training in OBOT.     

Severity of Pain and Sleep Problems during Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa Korth.) Cessation among Regular Kratom Users

Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa Korth.) is traditionally used in Southeast Asia for its medicinal value and psychoactive properties. Nonetheless, cessation from regular kratom use is reported to cause unpleasant dose-dependent withdrawal symptoms. This study aims to evaluate the severity of pain and sleep problems following the cessation of kratom tea/juice consumption among regular kratom users. A total of 170 regular users were recruited through snowball sampling for this cross-sectional study. The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scales were administered to assess the severity of pain and sleep problems. Most participants experienced moderate pain intensity (84%) and moderate pain interference (70%) during kratom cessation; 46% experienced more sleep problems during kratom cessation. Individuals who consumed ≥4 glasses of kratom tea/juice (about 76–115 mg of mitragynine) daily had higher odds of reporting some pain interference (OR: 2.0; CI: 1.04–3.93: p < .028), and sleep problems during kratom cessation (OR: 2.0; CI: 1.08–3.68: p < .020), as compared to those who consumed 1–3 glasses of kratom tea/juice daily. However, the effects were still relatively mild. Cessation from regular kratom tea/juice consumption is not associated with prolonged pain and sleep problems, as compared to those reported for opioid analgesics.     

Stimulant Medication for ADHD in Opioid Maintenance Treatment

Objective: The use of central stimulant medication in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who receive opioid maintenance treatment remains controversial and empirical evidence is limited. Because of the abuse potential of stimulant drugs, Norway has restrictions on prescribing central stimulants to individuals who have substance use disorders or who are on opioid maintenance treatment. In this naturalistic study, we describe experiences from a program through which central stimulant medication was administered to patients with ADHD receiving opioid maintenance treatment. Methods: This report is based on a program evaluation of a combined treatment project designed to provide stimulant medication to patients with adult ADHD who were receiving opioid maintenance treatment. As part of the clinical treatment, patients were monitored closely for any medical issues or adverse medication reactions and provided regular urine samples for analysis and information regarding demographics, treatment goals, legal involvement, diagnoses, substance abuse, and ADHD symptoms. Monitoring occurred at baseline, at 2 months (after patients being stabilized on the central stimulant), and again at 3, 6 and 24 months. Results: Among 42 patients initially offered the combined treatment, 24 were actually eligible, 20 started the combined treatment, and 10 stayed in the program. We were not able to identify a single major cause of treatment dropout. Patients reported significantly fewer symptoms of ADHD at the 6- to 8-week point, regardless of whether the data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat (all participants) or per-protocol (only those with complete data at all points) method. Even though self-assessed ADHD scores dropped significantly during treatment, the scores still remained fairly high, suggesting persistent functional impairment. Neither severe complications nor increase in substance abuse were observed during treatment with central stimulants. Conclusions: These findings show some promise with regard to the safety and utility of central stimulant medications for patients with ADHD who are receiving opioid maintenance treatment. Our study has methodological limitations, and systematic, well-designed clinical investigations are needed to increase the knowledge base.     

Safety of stimulant treatment in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: part II

Importance of the field: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common childhood psychiatric disorder and in at least 50% of cases persists into adulthood. Treatment of ADHD with stimulants is one of the oldest and most effective pharmacological treatments in psychiatry. Yet, there continues to be controversy over the safety of stimulant medications in the treatment of ADHD.

Areas covered in this review: This paper is a continuation of an earlier paper that reviewed the safety profile of newer stimulant agents, especially in relation to special populations. This part II reviews, through essentially an organ-system approach, the various clinical concerns that have been raised over the safety of stimulant medications. This includes neuropsychiatric, cardiovascular effects on growth and development, and a number of other less common concerns.

What the reader will gain: A thorough review of safety concerns in stimulants that emphasizes clinical information, case reports, open series or controlled trials relating to stimulant use in the treatment of ADHD.

Take home message: While many safety concerns have been raised in the use of stimulants, the vast majority of treatment complications are either quickly reversible or easily manageable with appropriate clinical care. The negative consequences of untreated ADHD clearly outweigh the risks of the stimulant medicines when used in an appropriate and careful manner.     

Background,clinical features and treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children

Introduction: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is an early onset, clinically heterogeneous, complex neurobiological disorder, defined by symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity and has been associated with a broad range of impairments for those affected. Additionally, ADHD in children and adolescents is frequently associated with psychiatric comorbidities. This review provides an overview of the epidemiology, neurobiology, genetics, diagnosis and most recent pharmacological approaches for treatment with a focus on safety and efficacy and describes the use of medications used to treat ADHD in special populations.

Areas covered: PubMed, Cochrane database, Essential Evidence and Uptodate were searched for relevant articles about stimulant and non-stimulant pharmacological approaches in ADHD.

Expert opinion: Data supporting the safety and efficacy of both stimulant and non-stimulant formulations have significantly grown over the past decade and more efforts are being made to tailor medications to the needs of the patients and their families. Pharmacogenomics research is evolving, but predictors of treatment response and side effects remain largely unknown. Other unmet clinical needs include long-term follow-up studies of the safety and efficacy of medications for those with ADHD alone, or with comorbidities and in special populations including preschoolers.     

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.     

A qualitative review of issues arising in the use of psycho­stimulant medications in patients with ADHD and co‑morbid substance use disorders

ABSTRACT

Objective: This review addresses the relationship between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance use disorders (SUDs), with an emphasis on factors that determine the potential for psychostimulant abuse. Strategies for identification and treatment of patients with ADHD who are at risk for, or have, co-morbid SUD are also addressed.

Research design and methods: The article was based on a qualitative review of current literature addressing co-morbid ADHD and SUD.

Discussion: Adolescent and adult patients with ADHD are at increased risk for SUD, as well as a number of other psychiatric disorders. Psychostimulant agents like methyl­phenidate (MPH) and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) are effective first-line pharmacotherapies for ADHD; however, they are Schedule II controlled substances with a potential for abuse. Evidence suggests that treatment of ADHD during childhood with stimulant agents may reduce the risk of developing SUD later on. Factors associated with the highest risk of SUD in patients with ADHD include co-morbid antisocial personality disorder, bipolar disorder, an eating disorder, severe ADHD and/or antisocial behavior symptoms, and dropping out of school. Treatment initiation during adolescence or young adulthood also has been linked to increased risk of polydrug use and non-medical stimulant use, a pattern of behavior consistent with a risk of SUD development. Treatment plans for patients with ADHD and co-morbid SUD should include behavioral interventions, careful monitoring, and when appropriate, pharmacotherapy. When oral formulations of psychostimulants are used at recommended doses and frequencies, they are unlikely to yield effects consistent with abuse potential in patients with ADHD. Long-acting stimulant formulations and non-stimulants, like atomoxetine or bupropion, have a lower potential for abuse, and provide several safe and effective treatment options for the development of a comprehensive manage­ment plan for patients with co-morbid ADHD and SUD.

Conclusions: The present review is neither exhaustive nor systematic. Moreover, the reviewed studies vary wide­ly with regards to methodology and patient populations. In light of these limitations, several conclusions are still warranted. Patients with ADHD are at increased risk for SUD. Under certain conditions, psychostimulants may be a pharmacologic option in the treatment of patients with co-morbid ADHD and SUD. However, clinicians should be mindful of the risks and benefits of this treatment approach in a high-risk population and should also bear in mind the labeling guidelines when working with this co-morbidity.     

Symptoms of Depression and ADHD in Relation to Stimulant Medication Misuse Among College Students

Background: The misuse of stimulant medications, commonly used for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is a concern on college campuses. Objective: This study sought to examine the relations between the misuse of stimulant medications and symptoms of depression and ADHD. Method: Eight hundred and ninety students ages 18–26 from one public university took a web-based survey including rating scales measuring symptoms of depression and ADHD. Results: The prevalence rate of misuse in the past year was 23%. Symptoms of depression were significantly related to misuse; however, once symptoms of ADHD were included in the analysis, depression was no longer a significant predictor. Further, there was not a significant interaction between ADHD and depression, but symptoms of ADHD were significantly related to misuse. Conclusions/Importance: Results suggest that attention difficulties may be one of the most important factors in predicting stimulant medication misuse. Therefore, prevention efforts to reduce the misuse of stimulant medication would be most successful when targeting students with symptoms of inattention.     

Evaluation of Opioid Modulation in Major Depressive Disorder

Although opioids have known antidepressant activity, their use in major depressive disorder (MDD) has been greatly limited by risk of abuse and addiction. Our aim was to determine whether opioid modulation achieved through a combination of a μ-opioid partial agonist, buprenorphine (BUP), and a potent μ-opioid antagonist, samidorphan (SAM), would demonstrate antidepressant activity without addictive potential. A placebo-controlled crossover study assessed the opioid pharmacodynamic profile following escalating doses of SAM co-administered with BUP in opioid-experienced adults. A subsequent 1-week, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted in subjects with MDD and an inadequate response to standard antidepressant therapy. This second study evaluated safety and efficacy of ratios of BUP/SAM that were associated with partial and with maximal blockade of opioid responses in the initial study. Pupillometry, visual analog scale assessments, and self-reported questionnaires demonstrated that increasing amounts of SAM added to a fixed dose of BUP resulted in dose-dependent reductions in objective and subjective opioid effects, including euphoria and drug liking, in opioid-experienced adults. Following 7 days of treatment in subjects with MDD, a 1 : 1 ratio of BUP and SAM, the ratio associated with maximal antagonism of opioid effects, exhibited statistically significant improvement vs placebo in HAM-D17 total score (p=0.032) and nearly significant improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score (p=0.054). Overall, BUP/SAM therapy was well tolerated. A combination of BUP and SAM showed antidepressant activity in subjects with MDD. Balanced agonist–antagonist opioid modulation represents a novel and potentially clinically important approach to the treatment of MDD and other psychiatric disorders.     

Kratom policy: The challenge of balancing therapeutic potential with public safety

Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) is a tree-like plant indigenous to Southeast Asia. Its leaves, and the teas brewed from them have long been used by people in that region to stave off fatigue and to manage pain and opioid withdrawal. Evidence suggests kratom is being increasingly used by people in the United States and Europe for the self-management of opioid withdrawal and treatment of pain. Recent studies have confirmed that kratom and its chemical constituents have potentially useful pharmacological actions. However, there have also been increasing numbers of reports of adverse effects resulting from use of kratom products. In August 2016, the US Drug Enforcement Administration announced plans to classify kratom and its mitragynine constituents as Schedule I Controlled Substances, a move that triggered a massive response from pro-kratom advocates. The debate regarding the risks, and benefits and safety of kratom continues to intensify. Kratom proponents tout kratom as a safer and less addictive alternative to opioids for the management of pain and opioid addiction. The anti-kratom faction argues that kratom, itself, is a dangerous and addictive drug that ought to be banned. Given the widespread use of kratom and the extensive media attention it is receiving, it is important for physicians, scientists and policy makers to be knowledgeable about the subject. The purpose of this commentary is to update readers about recent developments and controversies in this rapidly evolving area. All of the authors are engaged in various aspects of kratom research and it is our intention to provide a fair and balanced overview that can form the basis for informed decisions on kratom policy. Our conclusions from these analyses are: (a) User reports and results of preclinical studies in animals strongly suggest that kratom and its main constituent alkaloid, mitragynine may have useful activity in alleviating pain and managing symptoms of opioid withdrawal, even though well-controlled clinical trials have yet to be done. (b) Even though kratom lacks many of the toxicities of classic opioids, there are legitimate concerns about the safety and lack of quality control of purported “kratom” products that are being sold in the US. (c) The issues regarding the safety and efficacy of kratom and its mitragynine constituent can only be resolved by additional research. Classification of the Mitragyna alkaloids as Schedule I controlled substances would substantially impede this important research on kratom.     

Sociodemographic and Substance Use Disorder Determinants of HIV Sexual Risk Behavior in Men and Women in Outpatient Drug Treatment in the NIDA National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network

Background: Sexual risk behavior is now the primary vector of HIV transmission among substance users in the United States with gender as a crucial moderator of risk behavior. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine gender differences in factors (age, race/ethnicity, education) that predict main-partner unprotected sexual occasions (USO) using the unique platform of two parallel NIDA National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network gender-specific safer sex intervention trials. Methods: Baseline assessments of male (N = 430) and female (N = 377) participants included demographic characteristics; past 3-month sexual activity; and a diagnostic assessment for alcohol, cocaine/stimulant, and opioid use disorders. Using mixed effects generalized linear modeling of the main outcome USO, two-way interactions of gender with age, race/ethnicity, and education were evaluated and adjusted by alcohol, cocaine/stimulant, or opioid use disorder. Results: When adjusted for alcohol use disorder, the interaction of education and gender was significant. For men, a high school or greater education was significantly associated with more USO compared to men with less than high school. For women, greater than high school education was significantly associated with less USO compared to women with a high school education. None of the other interactions were significant when adjusted for cocaine/stimulant or opioid use disorder. Conclusions/Importance: This study demonstrates gender differences in the relationship of education, alcohol use disorder, and main-partner USO in individuals in substance abuse treatment. This underscores the importance of considering demographic and substance use factors in HIV sexual risk behavior and in crafting prevention messages for this population.     

A Prospective Examination of the Association of Stimulant Medication History and Drug Use Outcomes among Community Samples of ADHD Youths

A continuing debate in the child psychopathology literature is the extent to which pharmacotherapy for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), in particular stimulant treatment, confers a risk of subsequent drug abuse. If stimulant treatment for ADHD contributes to drug abuse, then the risk versus therapeutic benefits of such treatment is greatly affected. We have prospectively followed an ADHD sample (N = 149; 81% males) for approximately 15 years, beginning at childhood (ages 8 to 10 years) and continuing until the sample has reached young adulthood (ages 22 to 24 years). The sample was originally recruited via an epidemiologically derived community procedure, and all youths were diagnosed with ADHD during childhood. We report on the association of childhood psychostimulant medication and subsequent substance use disorders and tobacco use. The substance use outcomes were based on data collected at three time points when the sample was in late adolescence and young adulthood (age range approximately 18 to 22 years old). We did not find evidence to support that childhood treatment with stimulant medication, including the course of stimulant medication, was associated with any change in risk for adolescent or young adulthood substance use disorders and tobacco use. These results from a community-based sample extend the growing body of literature based on clinically derived samples indicating that stimulant treatment does not create a significant risk for subsequent substance use disorders.     

Prescription opioid abuse,chronic pain,and primary care: A Co-Occurring Disorders Clinic in the chronic disease model

Abuse of opioids has become a public health crisis. The historic separation between the addiction and pain communities and a lack of training in medical education have made treatment difficult to provide, especially in primary care. The Co-occurring Disorders Clinic (COD) was established to treat patients with co-morbid chronic pain and addiction. This retrospective chart review reports results of a quality improvement project using buprenorphine/naloxone to treat co-occurring chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and opioid dependence in a primary care setting. Data were collected for 143 patients who were induced with buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NLX) between June 2009 and November 2011. Ninety-three patients (65%) continued to be maintained on the medication and seven completed treatment and were no longer taking any opioid (5%). Pain scores showed a modest, but statistically significant improvement on BUP/NLX, which was contrary to our expectations and may be an important factor in treatment retention for this challenging population.     

Sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone treatment is not affected by OPRM1 A118G and BDNF Va66Met polymorphisms,but alters the plasma beta-endorphin and BDNF levels in individuals with opioid use disorder

The study aimed to examine the genetic contribution to buprenorphine (BUP) treatment in individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), with a specific focus on BDNF and OPRM1 genes. A total of 113 controls and 111 OUD patients receiving sublingual BUP/naloxone were enrolled. OPRM1 A118G and BDNF Val66Met polymorphisms were investigated by PCR-FRLP. Plasma BDNF and beta-endorphin levels were assessed by ELISA kits in both groups. Blood BUP levels were measured by LC-MS/MS and normalized with daily BUP dose (BUP/D). OPRM1 A118G and BDNF Val66Met polymorphisms didn’t have an effect on plasma beta-endorphin and BDNF levels in OUD patients, respectively. Interestingly, OUD patients had significantly higher plasma BDNF and lower beta-endorphin levels compared to the controls (p < 0.001). A negative and significant correlation between plasma BUP/D and BDNF levels was found. Age onset of first use was associated with OPRM1 A118G polymorphism. The findings indicated that sublingual BUP/naloxone may increase plasma BDNF levels, but may decrease beta-endorphin levels in individuals with OUD. Plasma BDNF level seemed to be decreased in a BUP/D concentration-dependent manner.     

Buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder: recent progress

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Opioid use disorder (OUD) has risen globally and is exerting an enormous toll on public health in many countries, particularly in the United States (US). Buprenorphine (BUP) has become one of the mainstays of pharmacological treatment for OUD and newer delivery methods have been developed to improve its effectiveness in treatment.

Areas covered: We provide a review of BUP products available for OUD, with a focus on the newer long-acting formulations. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov to find randomized clinical trials of long-acting BUP products. Four randomized clinical trials were found: two with BUP implant and two with subcutaneous injectable BUP.

Expert opinion: In these clinical trials, new BUP formulations were found to be non-inferior to sublingual (SL) BUP and more effective than placebo in reducing opioid use. Longer-acting formulations can improve flexibility in dosing but superiority over existing SL BUP with regards to outcomes needs to be ascertained. There is a need for more comparative studies between longer-acting BUP formulations and currently available SL BUP. Future studies should also include other clinically meaningful outcomes such as quality of life measures, long-term remission rates, and cost-effectiveness.     

Opioid,cocaine, and amphetamine use disorders are associated with higher30-day inpatient readmission rates in the United States

Abstract

Background: Patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) are more likely to experience serious health problems, high healthcare utilization, and premature death. However, little is known about the contribution of SUDs to medical 30-day readmission risk. We examined the association between SUDs and 30-day all cause readmission among non-pregnant adult in-patients in the US. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study using 2010–2014 data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database. Our primary focus was on opioid use compared to stimulant use (cocaine and amphetamine) identified by ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes in index hospitalizations. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios and 95% CI representing the association between substance use and 30-day readmission, overall and stratified by the principal reason for the index hospitalization. Results: Nearly 118 million index hospitalizations were included in the study, 4% were associated with opioid or stimulant use disorder. Readmission rates for users (19.5%) were higher than for nonusers (15.7%), with slight variation by the type of substance used: cocaine (21.8%), opioid (19.0%), and amphetamine (17.5%). After adjusting for key demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and health system characteristics, SUDs and stimulant use disorders increased the odds of 30-day all-cause readmission by 20%. Conclusions: Reducing the frequency of inpatient readmission is an important goal for improving the quality of care and ensuring proper transition to residential/outpatient care among patients with SUDs. Differences between groups may suggest directions for further investigation into the distinct needs and challenges of hospitalized opioid- and other drug-exposed patients.