BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine can be used for the treatment of opioid dependence in primary care settings. National guidelines recommend directly observed initial dosing followed by multiple in-clinic visits during the induction week. We offered buprenorphine treatment at a public hospital primary care clinic using a home, unobserved induction protocol. METHODS: Participants were opioid-dependent adults eligible for office-based buprenorphine treatment. The initial physician visit included assessment, education, induction telephone support instructions, an illustrated home induction pamphlet, and a 1-week buprenorphine/naloxone prescription. Patients initiated dosing off-site at a later time. Follow-up with urine toxicology testing occurred at day 7 and thereafter at varying intervals. Primary outcomes were treatment status at week 1 and induction-related events: severe precipitated withdrawal, other buprenorphine-prompted withdrawal symptoms, prolonged unrelieved withdrawal, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: Patients (N = 103) were predominantly heroin users (68%), but also prescription opioid misusers (18%) and methadone maintenance patients (14%). At the end of week 1, 73% were retained, 17% provided induction data but did not return to the clinic, and 11% were lost to follow-up with no induction data available. No cases of severe precipitated withdrawal and no SAEs were observed. Five cases (5%) of mild-to-moderate buprenorphine-prompted withdrawal and eight cases of prolonged unrelieved withdrawal symptoms (8% overall, 21% of methadone-to-buprenorphine inductions) were reported. Buprenorphine-prompted withdrawal and prolonged unrelieved withdrawal symptoms were not associated with treatment status at week 1. CONCLUSIONS: Home buprenorphine induction was feasible and appeared safe. Induction complications occurred at expected rates and were not associated with short-term treatment drop-out.
BACKGROUND:Buprenorphine can be used for the treatment of opioid dependence in primary care settings. National guidelines recommend directly observed initial dosing followed by multiple in-clinic visits during the induction week. We offered buprenorphine treatment at a public hospital primary care clinic using a home, unobserved induction protocol. METHODS:Participants were opioid-dependent adults eligible for office-based buprenorphine treatment. The initial physician visit included assessment, education, induction telephone support instructions, an illustrated home induction pamphlet, and a 1-week buprenorphine/naloxone prescription. Patients initiated dosing off-site at a later time. Follow-up with urine toxicology testing occurred at day 7 and thereafter at varying intervals. Primary outcomes were treatment status at week 1 and induction-related events: severe precipitated withdrawal, other buprenorphine-prompted withdrawal symptoms, prolonged unrelieved withdrawal, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS:Patients (N = 103) were predominantly heroin users (68%), but also prescription opioid misusers (18%) and methadone maintenance patients (14%). At the end of week 1, 73% were retained, 17% provided induction data but did not return to the clinic, and 11% were lost to follow-up with no induction data available. No cases of severe precipitated withdrawal and no SAEs were observed. Five cases (5%) of mild-to-moderate buprenorphine-prompted withdrawal and eight cases of prolonged unrelieved withdrawal symptoms (8% overall, 21% of methadone-to-buprenorphine inductions) were reported. Buprenorphine-prompted withdrawal and prolonged unrelieved withdrawal symptoms were not associated with treatment status at week 1. CONCLUSIONS: Home buprenorphine induction was feasible and appeared safe. Induction complications occurred at expected rates and were not associated with short-term treatment drop-out.
Authors: Ira L Mintzer; Mark Eisenberg; Maria Terra; Casey MacVane; David U Himmelstein; Steffie Woolhandler Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: W Ling; C Charuvastra; J F Collins; S Batki; L S Brown; P Kintaudi; D R Wesson; L McNicholas; D J Tusel; U Malkerneker; J A Renner; E Santos; P Casadonte; C Fye; S Stine; R I Wang; D Segal Journal: Addiction Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Gail D'Onofrio; Marek C Chawarski; Patrick G O'Connor; Michael V Pantalon; Susan H Busch; Patricia H Owens; Kathryn Hawk; Steven L Bernstein; David A Fiellin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Gail D'Onofrio; Patrick G O'Connor; Michael V Pantalon; Marek C Chawarski; Susan H Busch; Patricia H Owens; Steven L Bernstein; David A Fiellin Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joshua D Lee; Edward V Nunes; Patricia Novo Mpa; Genie L Bailey; Gregory S Brigham; Allan J Cohen; Marc Fishman; Walter Ling; Robert Lindblad; Dikla Shmueli-Blumberg; Don Stablein; Jeanine May; Dagmar Salazar; David Liu; John Rotrosen Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Michael D Stein; Celeste M Caviness; Kristin Grimone; Daniel Audet; Allison Borges; Bradley J Anderson Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2014-11-20