Commentary on Gregory et al.: Fear of precipitated opioid withdrawal should not prevent buprenorphine initiation

IF 5.2 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Addiction Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1111/add.16701
Sandra A. Springer
{"title":"Commentary on Gregory et al.: Fear of precipitated opioid withdrawal should not prevent buprenorphine initiation","authors":"Sandra A. Springer","doi":"10.1111/add.16701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Gregory and colleagues [<span>1</span>] conducted a systematic review of published original research between 2002 and 2023 that reported on the incidence of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal in adults with opioid use disorder (OUD). Secondary outcomes explored were baseline type of opioids used, buprenorphine induction dose, initial Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score, location of induction (e.g. home, healthcare setting), definition and severity of precipitated withdrawal and adverse events. A total of 26 studies were included where the majority were conducted within the United States (US) (84.6%, <i>n</i> = 22) and (80.7%, <i>n</i> = 21) were cohort studies with only 19.2% (<i>n</i> = 5) being RCTs. The majority of participants reported heroin use at baseline with four studies having participants who reported fentanyl use. A variety of types of induction protocols were used from standard, high dose, to micro induction strategies and there were various initial induction doses of buprenorphine ranging from 0.75 to 24 mg, with the majority reporting 2 to 8 mg, far lower than the recommended induction target of 16 mg [<span>2</span>] or more recent recommended 24 mg dose or higher in persons who use fentanyl [<span>3, 4</span>].</p><p>The bottom line of this systematic review was that there was hardly any precipitated withdrawal (range of 0%–13.2%) out of an overall total sample size of 4497 individuals. In fact, 11 of the 26 studies representing 2117 persons, reported no opioid withdrawal at all. Further, the majority of the 87 cases of reported precipitated withdrawal were in outpatient settings with only one person who received buprenorphine via a home induction protocol requiring inpatient hospitalization. This information is important and is in line with many other studies showing that the prevalence of precipitated withdrawal is relatively low when initiating buprenorphine, and clinicians should not be guided by fear that they will cause withdrawal when deciding about initiation of this life-saving treatment. If a person wants and needs buprenorphine treatment for their OUD and is denied treatment, then they are at high risk of overdose and death.</p><p>The significance of these findings cannot be overstated. Although there has been recent good news of a 10% reduction of overdose deaths in the United States from 2023 to 2024 [<span>5</span>], over one million Americans have died from drug overdoses [<span>6</span>]. The majority of all overdose deaths involve an opioid largely driven by the presence of illicitly manufactured synthetic fentanyl, which contributes to almost 90% of fatal opioid overdoses in the United States. All three forms of US Food and Drug Administration approved medications for opioid-use disorder (MOUD): buprenorphine, methadone and extended-release naltrexone, which reduce opioid craving, opioid use, overdose and death. Additionally, buprenorphine and methadone also treat opioid withdrawal because of their opioid agonist properties. Buprenorphine has been found to be the most effective form of MOUD [<span>7</span>] through reducing death from overdose by 50% [<span>8</span>] and can be provided in various care settings from primary care to specialty substance use treatment programs. Unfortunately, however, only 22% of the 2.5 million American adults with OUD receive MOUD treatment [<span>9</span>].</p><p>There have been numerous reported reasons why so few people who could benefit from this effective treatment are not receiving it; however, one of the main issues is reluctance from clinicians to initiate treatment for fear of precipitating opioid withdrawal as discussed in Gregory <i>et al</i>. [<span>1</span>]. There is a reason to be concerned if buprenorphine is given too soon or at too high a dose among patients who report use of full opioid agonists and after cessation of full agonists like fentanyl [<span>10-12</span>]. Although this review only included studies published up through 2023, more recent studies continue to show that there is relatively low precipitated withdrawal among persons with OUD who use fentanyl either during traditional sublingual buprenorphine induction as well as with long-acting injectable forms of buprenorphine in the emergency room [<span>13, 14</span>] and in-patient settings [<span>15, 16</span>]. Careful strategies to ensure a low likelihood of precipitated withdrawal while treating OUD can lead to successful treatment [<span>17, 18</span>]. It is our job as clinicians to ensure our patients have access to this life saving form of treatment when they ask for it as opposed to not providing treatment for fear of eliciting withdrawal. Although this is, of course, an important consideration, there are numerous strategies published that involve patient shared decision making and education to successfully start treatment safely. Withholding buprenorphine treatment in someone who wants and needs it only puts that person at risk of overdose and death. Let us not let fear guide us, rather let the evidence guide us to ensure our patients get the treatment they need when they need it.</p><p>Sandra Springer has provided paid scientific consultation to Alkermes, and received in-kind study drug donations from Alkermes and Indivior Pharmaceutical Company for National Institutes of Health funded research.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":"120 1","pages":"21-22"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11645183/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16701","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gregory and colleagues [1] conducted a systematic review of published original research between 2002 and 2023 that reported on the incidence of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal in adults with opioid use disorder (OUD). Secondary outcomes explored were baseline type of opioids used, buprenorphine induction dose, initial Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score, location of induction (e.g. home, healthcare setting), definition and severity of precipitated withdrawal and adverse events. A total of 26 studies were included where the majority were conducted within the United States (US) (84.6%, n = 22) and (80.7%, n = 21) were cohort studies with only 19.2% (n = 5) being RCTs. The majority of participants reported heroin use at baseline with four studies having participants who reported fentanyl use. A variety of types of induction protocols were used from standard, high dose, to micro induction strategies and there were various initial induction doses of buprenorphine ranging from 0.75 to 24 mg, with the majority reporting 2 to 8 mg, far lower than the recommended induction target of 16 mg [2] or more recent recommended 24 mg dose or higher in persons who use fentanyl [3, 4].

The bottom line of this systematic review was that there was hardly any precipitated withdrawal (range of 0%–13.2%) out of an overall total sample size of 4497 individuals. In fact, 11 of the 26 studies representing 2117 persons, reported no opioid withdrawal at all. Further, the majority of the 87 cases of reported precipitated withdrawal were in outpatient settings with only one person who received buprenorphine via a home induction protocol requiring inpatient hospitalization. This information is important and is in line with many other studies showing that the prevalence of precipitated withdrawal is relatively low when initiating buprenorphine, and clinicians should not be guided by fear that they will cause withdrawal when deciding about initiation of this life-saving treatment. If a person wants and needs buprenorphine treatment for their OUD and is denied treatment, then they are at high risk of overdose and death.

The significance of these findings cannot be overstated. Although there has been recent good news of a 10% reduction of overdose deaths in the United States from 2023 to 2024 [5], over one million Americans have died from drug overdoses [6]. The majority of all overdose deaths involve an opioid largely driven by the presence of illicitly manufactured synthetic fentanyl, which contributes to almost 90% of fatal opioid overdoses in the United States. All three forms of US Food and Drug Administration approved medications for opioid-use disorder (MOUD): buprenorphine, methadone and extended-release naltrexone, which reduce opioid craving, opioid use, overdose and death. Additionally, buprenorphine and methadone also treat opioid withdrawal because of their opioid agonist properties. Buprenorphine has been found to be the most effective form of MOUD [7] through reducing death from overdose by 50% [8] and can be provided in various care settings from primary care to specialty substance use treatment programs. Unfortunately, however, only 22% of the 2.5 million American adults with OUD receive MOUD treatment [9].

There have been numerous reported reasons why so few people who could benefit from this effective treatment are not receiving it; however, one of the main issues is reluctance from clinicians to initiate treatment for fear of precipitating opioid withdrawal as discussed in Gregory et al. [1]. There is a reason to be concerned if buprenorphine is given too soon or at too high a dose among patients who report use of full opioid agonists and after cessation of full agonists like fentanyl [10-12]. Although this review only included studies published up through 2023, more recent studies continue to show that there is relatively low precipitated withdrawal among persons with OUD who use fentanyl either during traditional sublingual buprenorphine induction as well as with long-acting injectable forms of buprenorphine in the emergency room [13, 14] and in-patient settings [15, 16]. Careful strategies to ensure a low likelihood of precipitated withdrawal while treating OUD can lead to successful treatment [17, 18]. It is our job as clinicians to ensure our patients have access to this life saving form of treatment when they ask for it as opposed to not providing treatment for fear of eliciting withdrawal. Although this is, of course, an important consideration, there are numerous strategies published that involve patient shared decision making and education to successfully start treatment safely. Withholding buprenorphine treatment in someone who wants and needs it only puts that person at risk of overdose and death. Let us not let fear guide us, rather let the evidence guide us to ensure our patients get the treatment they need when they need it.

Sandra Springer has provided paid scientific consultation to Alkermes, and received in-kind study drug donations from Alkermes and Indivior Pharmaceutical Company for National Institutes of Health funded research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对 Gregory 等人的评论对阿片类药物戒断的恐惧不应妨碍丁丙诺啡的使用。
Gregory及其同事对2002年至2023年间发表的原始研究进行了系统回顾,这些研究报告了成人阿片类药物使用障碍(OUD)中丁丙诺啡沉淀戒断的发生率。次要结局包括使用阿片类药物的基线类型、丁丙诺啡诱导剂量、初始临床阿片类药物戒断量表(COWS)评分、诱导地点(如家庭、医疗机构)、沉淀戒断和不良事件的定义和严重程度。共纳入26项研究,其中大多数在美国(US)进行(84.6%,n = 22), (80.7%, n = 21)为队列研究,只有19.2% (n = 5)为随机对照试验。大多数参与者报告在基线时使用海洛因,四项研究的参与者报告使用芬太尼。从标准、高剂量到微诱导策略,使用了各种类型的诱导方案,丁丙诺啡的初始诱导剂量从0.75至24 mg不等,大多数报告为2至8 mg,远低于推荐的16 mg / bb0的诱导目标,或芬太尼患者最近推荐的24 mg或更高的诱导剂量[3,4]。本系统评价的底线是,在4497个个体的总样本量中,几乎没有任何沉淀戒断(范围为0%-13.2%)。事实上,在涉及2117人的26项研究中,有11项报告根本没有阿片类药物戒断。此外,报告的87例急性戒断病例中的大多数是在门诊环境中,只有一个人通过家庭诱导协议接受丁丙诺啡需要住院治疗。这一信息很重要,并且与许多其他研究一致,这些研究表明,在开始使用丁丙诺啡时,沉淀戒断的发生率相对较低,临床医生在决定开始使用这种救命的治疗时,不应该被担心会导致戒断的恐惧所引导。如果一个人想要并且需要丁丙诺啡治疗他们的OUD,但被拒绝治疗,那么他们就有服用过量和死亡的高风险。这些发现的重要性怎么强调都不过分。尽管最近有好消息表明,从2023年到2024年,美国的过量死亡人数减少了10%,但仍有100多万美国人死于药物过量。大多数过量死亡都涉及阿片类药物,这在很大程度上是由非法制造的合成芬太尼造成的,在美国,几乎90%的致命阿片类药物过量都是由芬太尼造成的。美国食品和药物管理局批准了治疗阿片类药物使用障碍(mod)的所有三种药物:丁丙诺啡、美沙酮和缓释纳曲酮,它们可以减少阿片类药物的渴望、使用、过量和死亡。此外,丁丙诺啡和美沙酮也治疗阿片类药物戒断,因为它们具有阿片类药物激动剂的特性。丁丙诺啡已被发现是最有效的mod[7]形式,通过减少50%的过量死亡[8],可以在从初级保健到特殊物质使用治疗方案的各种护理环境中提供。然而,不幸的是,在250万患有OUD的美国成年人中,只有22%的人接受了mod治疗。可以从这种有效治疗中受益的人很少没有接受治疗的原因有很多报道;然而,主要问题之一是临床医生不愿开始治疗,因为担心引发阿片类药物戒断,如Gregory等人所讨论的[10]。有理由担心丁丙诺啡在报告使用完全阿片类激动剂和芬太尼等完全激动剂停止后过早或剂量过高的患者中使用[10-12]。虽然本综述仅包括截至2023年的研究,但最近的研究继续表明,在传统的舌下丁丙诺啡诱导以及在急诊室和住院环境中使用长效注射丁丙诺啡的OUD患者中,芬太尼的沉淀戒断相对较低[13,14]。在治疗OUD时采取谨慎的策略,以确保较低的急性停药可能性,可以成功治疗[17,18]。作为临床医生,我们的工作是确保我们的病人在他们要求时能够获得这种挽救生命的治疗形式,而不是因为害怕引起戒断而不提供治疗。虽然这当然是一个重要的考虑因素,但已经发表的许多策略涉及患者共同决策和教育,以成功地安全开始治疗。对那些想要和需要丁丙诺啡的人不给予治疗只会让他面临服药过量和死亡的风险。让我们不要让恐惧引导我们,而是让证据引导我们确保我们的病人在需要的时候得到他们需要的治疗。 Sandra施普林格向Alkermes提供有偿科学咨询,并接受了Alkermes和个人制药公司为美国国立卫生研究院资助的研究提供的实物研究药物捐赠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Addiction
Addiction 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Addiction publishes peer-reviewed research reports on pharmacological and behavioural addictions, bringing together research conducted within many different disciplines. Its goal is to serve international and interdisciplinary scientific and clinical communication, to strengthen links between science and policy, and to stimulate and enhance the quality of debate. We seek submissions that are not only technically competent but are also original and contain information or ideas of fresh interest to our international readership. We seek to serve low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries as well as more economically developed countries. Addiction’s scope spans human experimental, epidemiological, social science, historical, clinical and policy research relating to addiction, primarily but not exclusively in the areas of psychoactive substance use and/or gambling. In addition to original research, the journal features editorials, commentaries, reviews, letters, and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Rare but relevant: The injection of tablet preparations and pulmonary hypertension. The world's first anabolic-androgenic steroid testing trial: A two-phase pilot combining chemical analysis, results dissemination and community feedback. Validation of the alcohol, smoking and substance involvement screening test (ASSIST) for identifying methamphetamine use among people on methadone maintenance treatment in Vietnam. Evaluating mediators of the effect of varenicline preloading on smoking abstinence in a randomized controlled trial. The use of financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnant women: A parallel-group randomised controlled trial protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1