IMPORTANCEThe burden of injury and costs of wrist fractures are substantial. Surgical treatment became popular without strong supporting evidence.OBJECTIVE To assess whether current surgical treatment for displaced distal radius fractures provided better patient-reported wrist pain and function than nonsurgical treatment in patients 60 years and older. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this multicenter randomized clinical trial and parallel observational study, 300 eligible patients were screened from 19 centers in Australia and New Zealand from December 1, 2016, until December 31, 2018. A total of 166 participants were randomized to surgical or nonsurgical treatment and followed up at 3 and 12 months by blinded assessors. Those 134 individuals who declined randomization were included in a parallel observational cohort with the same treatment options and follow-up. The primary analysis was intention to treat; sensitivity analyses included as-treated and per-protocol analyses. INTERVENTION Surgical treatment was open reduction and internal fixation using a volar-locking plate (VLP). Nonsurgical treatment was closed reduction and cast immobilization (CR).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire score, health-related quality of life, pain, major complications, patient-reported treatment success, bother with appearance, and therapy use. RESULTS In the 300 study participants (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [7.5] years; 269 [90%] female; 166 [81 VLP and 85 CR] in the randomized clinical trial sample and 134 [32 VLP and 102 CR] in the observational sample), no clinically important between-group difference in 12-month Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation scores (mean [SD] score of 19.8 [21.1] for VLP and 21.5 [24.3] for CR; mean difference, 1.7 points; 95% CI −5.4 to 8.8) was observed. No clinically important differences were found in quality of life, wrist pain, or bother at 3 and 12 months. No significant difference was found in total complications between groups (12 of 84 [14%] for the CR group vs 6 of 80 [8%] for the VLP group; risk ratio [RR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.21-1.33). Patient-reported treatment success favored the VLP group at 12 months (very successful or successful: 70 [89%] vs 57 [70%]; RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48; P = .005). There was greater use of postoperative physical therapy in the VLP group (56 [72%] vs 44 [54%]; RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69; P = 0.02).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial found no between-group differences in improvement in wrist pain or function at 12 months from VLP fixation over CR for displaced distal radius fractures in older people.

Background Buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) is a current first-line treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). The standard induction method of buprenorphine/naloxone requires patients to be abstinent from opioids and therefore experience withdrawal symptoms prior to induction, which can be a barrier in starting treatment. Rapid micro-induction (micro-dosing) involves the administration of small, frequent does of buprenorphine/naloxone and removes the need for a period of withdrawal prior to the start of treatment. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of rapid micro-induction versus standard induction of buprenorphine/naloxone in patients with OUD. Methods This is a randomized, open-label, two-arm, superiority, controlled trial comparing the safety and effectiveness of rapid micro-induction versus standard induction of buprenorphine/naloxone for the treatment of OUD. A total of 50 participants with OUD will be randomized at one Canadian hospital. The primary outcome is the completion of buprenorphine/naloxone induction with low levels of withdrawal. Secondary outcomes are treatment retention, illicit drug use, self-reported drug use behaviour, craving, pain, physical health, safety, and client satisfaction. Discussion This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of rapid micro-induction versus standard induction of buprenorphine/naloxone. This study will thereby generate evidence for a novel induction method which eliminates substantial barriers to the use of buprenorphine/naloxone in the midst of the ongoing opioid crisis. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04234191; date of registration: January 21, 2020; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04234191

Background and Objectives Buprenorphine extended‐release (BUP‐XR) is a monthly injectable form of opioid agonist therapy. Before its administration, a minimum 7‐day induction period with a transmucosal buprenorphine‐containing product is recommended. Methods Case report (n = 1). Results A 16‐year‐old female with active, severe opioid use disorder (OUD) and stimulant use disorder, hepatitis C virus, co‐occurring mental health disorders, and complex social stressors had five recent overdoses requiring naloxone. She had previously been treated with methadone and several trials of sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone, but would quickly discontinue the treatment. Using a rapid micro‐induction protocol, buprenorphine/naloxone was administered for 3 days. On day 4, 300 mg BUP‐XR was administered subcutaneously. Minimal withdrawal symptoms occurred, despite recent fentanyl use. Discussion and Conclusions A rapid sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone micro‐induction was successfully used to initiate BUP‐XR, thereby eliminating the abstinence period prior to buprenorphine/naloxone administration, shortening the induction period, and minimizing withdrawal. Scientific Significance This is the first reported case of using rapid micro‐induction as a bridge to initiate BUP‐XR. By reducing the length of induction to 4 days and minimizing withdrawal, this induction method can make BUP‐XR more accessible to patients who would otherwise refuse the medication due to concerns of enduring withdrawal. (Am J Addict 2020;29:531–535)

Drug markets are dynamic systems which change based on demand, competition, legislation and revenue. Shifts that are not met with immediate and appropriate responses from the healthcare system can lead to public health crises with tragic levels of morbidity and mortality, as experienced Europe in the early 1990s and as is the case in North America currently. The major feature of the current drug market shift in North America is towards highly potent synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. An additional spike in stimulant use further complicates this issue. Without understanding the ever-changing dynamics of drug markets and consequent patterns of drug use, the healthcare system will continue to be ineffective in its response, and morbidity and mortality will continue to increase. Economic perspectives are largely neglected in research and clinical contexts, but better treatment alternatives need to consider the large-scale macroeconomic conditions of drug markets as well as the behavioural economics of individual substance use. It is important for policy makers, health authorities, first responders and medical providers to be aware of the clinical implications of drug market changes in order to best serve people who use drugs. Only with significant clinical research, a comprehensive reorganization of the system of care across all sectors, and an evidence-driven governance, will we be successful in addressing the challenges brought on by the recent shifts in drug markets.