AimsTo assess the safety of buprenorphine compared with methadone to treat pregnant women with opioid use disorder.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational cohort studies (OBS) that compared buprenorphine with methadone for treating opioid‐dependent pregnant women. Two reviewers assessed independently the titles and abstracts of all search results and full texts of potentially eligible studies reporting original data for maternal/fetal/infant death, preterm birth, fetal growth outcomes, fetal/congenital anomalies, fetal/child neurodevelopment and/or maternal adverse events. We ascertained each study's risk of bias using validated instruments and assessed the strength of evidence for each outcome using established methods. We computed effect sizes using random‐effects models for each outcome with two or more studies.ResultsThree RCTs (n = 223) and 15 cohort OBSs (n = 1923) met inclusion criteria. In meta‐analyses using unadjusted data and methadone as comparator, buprenorphine was associated with lower risk of preterm birth [RCT risk ratio (RR) = 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.18, 0.91; OBS RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.50, 0.90], greater birth weight [RCT weighted mean difference (WMD) = 277 g, 95% CI = 104, 450; OBS WMD = 265 g, 95% CI = 196, 335] and larger head circumference [RCT WMD = 0.90 cm, 95% CI = 0.14, 1.66; OBS WMD = 0.68 cm, 95% CI = 0.41, 0.94]. No treatment differences were observed for spontaneous fetal death, fetal/congenital anomalies and other fetal growth measures, although the power to detect such differences may be inadequate due to small sample sizes.ConclusionsModerately strong evidence indicates lower risk of preterm birth, greater birth weight and larger head circumference with buprenorphine treatment of maternal opioid use disorder during pregnancy compared with methadone treatment, and no greater harms.

ObjectiveTo validate a risk index that estimates the likelihood of overdose or serious opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) among medical users of prescription opioids.Subjects and MethodsA case-control analysis of 18,365,497 patients with an opioid prescription from 2009 to 2013 in the IMS PharMetrics Plus commercially insured health plan claims database (CIP). An OIRD event occurred in 7,234 cases. Four controls were selected per case. Validity of the Risk Index for Overdose or Serious Opioid-induced Respiratory Depression (RIOSORD), developed previously using Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient data, was assessed. Multivariable logistic regression was used within the CIP study population to develop a slightly refined RIOSORD. The composition and performance of the CIP-based RIOSORD was evaluated and compared with VHA-based RIOSORD.ResultsVHA-RIOSORD performed well in discriminating OIRD events in CIP (C-statistic = 0.85). Additionally, re-estimation of logistic model coefficients in CIP yielded a 0.90 C-statistic. The resulting comorbidity and pharmacotherapy variables most highly associated with OIRD and retained in the CIP-RIOSORD were largely concordant with VHA-RIOSORD. These variables included neuropsychiatric and cardiopulmonary disorders, impaired drug excretion, opioid characteristics, and concurrent psychoactive medications. The average predicted probability of OIRD ranged from 2% to 83%, with excellent agreement between predicted and observed incidence across risk classes.ConclusionsRIOSORD had excellent predictive accuracy in a large population of US medical users of prescription opioids, similar to its performance in VHA. This practical risk index is designed to support clinical decision-making for safer opioid prescribing, and its clinical utility should be evaluated prospectively.

In contrast to daily smokers, LITS show few or no signs of dependence as currently defined by DSM-IV criteria, appear to exercise more self-control, seem to be less impulsive, and their smoking experience is primarily associated with positive rather than negative reinforcement. Conclusions drawn from the reviewed literature highlight the multivariate factors that must be taken into account when defining LITS and emphasize the importance of further research on this increasing fraction of smokers. The potential implications of increased LITS prevalence on smoking-related disease risks remain to be thoroughly investigated.