BACKGROUND: Although the number of physicians credentialed to prescribe buprenorphine has increased over time, many credentialed physicians may be reluctant to treat individuals with opioid use disorders due to discomfort with prescribing buprenorphine. Although prescribing physicians are required to complete a training course, many have questions about buprenorphine and treatment guidelines have not been updated to reflect clinical experience in recent years. We report on an expert panel process to update and expand buprenorphine guidelines. METHODS: We identified candidate guidelines through expert opinion and a review of the literature and used a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to assess the validity of the candidate guidelines. An expert panel completed 2 rounds of rating, with a meeting to discuss the guidelines between the first and second ratings. RESULTS: Through the rating process, expert panel members rated 90 candidate guideline statements across 8 domains, including candidacy for buprenorphine treatment, dosing of buprenorphine, psychosocial counseling, and treatment of co-occurring depression and anxiety. A total of 65 guideline statements (72%) were rated as valid. Expert panel members had agreement in some areas, such as the treatment of co-occurring mental health problems, but disagreement in others, including the appropriate dosing of buprenorphine given patient complexities. CONCLUSIONS: Through an expert panel process, we developed an updated and expanded set of buprenorphine treatment guidelines; this additional guidance may increase credentialed physicians' comfort with prescribing buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorders. Future efforts should focus on appropriate dosing guidance and ensuring that guidelines can be adapted to a variety of practice settings.
BACKGROUND: Although the number of physicians credentialed to prescribe buprenorphine has increased over time, many credentialed physicians may be reluctant to treat individuals with opioid use disorders due to discomfort with prescribing buprenorphine. Although prescribing physicians are required to complete a training course, many have questions about buprenorphine and treatment guidelines have not been updated to reflect clinical experience in recent years. We report on an expert panel process to update and expand buprenorphine guidelines. METHODS: We identified candidate guidelines through expert opinion and a review of the literature and used a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to assess the validity of the candidate guidelines. An expert panel completed 2 rounds of rating, with a meeting to discuss the guidelines between the first and second ratings. RESULTS: Through the rating process, expert panel members rated 90 candidate guideline statements across 8 domains, including candidacy for buprenorphine treatment, dosing of buprenorphine, psychosocial counseling, and treatment of co-occurring depression and anxiety. A total of 65 guideline statements (72%) were rated as valid. Expert panel members had agreement in some areas, such as the treatment of co-occurring mental health problems, but disagreement in others, including the appropriate dosing of buprenorphine given patient complexities. CONCLUSIONS: Through an expert panel process, we developed an updated and expanded set of buprenorphine treatment guidelines; this additional guidance may increase credentialed physicians' comfort with prescribing buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorders. Future efforts should focus on appropriate dosing guidance and ensuring that guidelines can be adapted to a variety of practice settings.
Entities:
Keywords:
Buprenorphine; clinical practice guidelines; opioid use disorders
Authors: Adam J Gordon; David A Fiellin; Peter D Friedmann; Marc N Gourevitch; Kevin L Kraemer; Julia H Arnsten; Richard Saitz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-10-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Thomas Rotter; Leigh Kinsman; Erica James; Andreas Machotta; Jon Willis; Pamela Snow; Joachim Kugler Journal: Eval Health Prof Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Alexander L Miller; M Lynn Crismon; A John Rush; John Chiles; T Michael Kashner; Marcia Toprac; Thomas Carmody; Melanie Biggs; Kathy Shores-Wilson; Judith Chiles; Brad Witte; Christine Bow-Thomas; Dawn I Velligan; Madhukar Trivedi; Trisha Suppes; Steven Shon Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2004 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Walter Ling; Petra Jacobs; Maureen Hillhouse; Albert Hasson; Christie Thomas; Thomas Freese; Steven Sparenborg; Dennis McCarty; Roger Weiss; Andrew Saxon; Allan Cohen; Michele Straus; Gregory Brigham; David Liu; Paul McLaughlin; Betty Tai Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2010-06
Authors: Bradley D Stein; Adam J Gordon; Mark Sorbero; Andrew W Dick; James Schuster; Carrie Farmer Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: James E Egan; Paul Casadonte; Tracy Gartenmann; Judith Martin; Elinore F McCance-Katz; Julie Netherland; John A Renner; Linda Weiss; Andrew J Saxon; David A Fiellin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jaime R Bastian; Huijun Chen; Hongfei Zhang; Scott Rothenberger; Ralph Tarter; Dennis English; Raman Venkataramanan; Steve N Caritis Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Stacey L Klaman; Krystyna Isaacs; Anne Leopold; Joseph Perpich; Susan Hayashi; Jeff Vender; Melinda Campopiano; Hendrée E Jones Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2017 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Joie Acosta; Matthew Chinman; Andra Tharp; Jack Baker; Paul Flaspohler; Beverly Fortson; Amy Kerr; Andrea Lamont; Amanda Meyer; Sierra Smucker; Katelyn Wargel; Abraham Wandersman Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-02-05
Authors: Andrew W Bergen; James W Baurley; Carolyn M Ervin; Christopher S McMahan; Joe Bible; Randall S Stafford; Seshadri C Mudumbai; Andrew J Saxon Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 3.390