Background and ObjectivesBuprenorphine/naloxone has been shown to be effective in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Due to its pharmacological properties, induction can be challenging, time‐consuming, and result in sudden onset of withdrawal symptoms.MethodsRetrospective case series (n = 2).ResultsTwo patients with opioid use disorder were successfully started on buprenorphine/naloxone using a rapid micro‐induction technique that did not cause precipitated withdrawal or require preceding cessation of other opioids.Discussion and ConclusionsThese cases provide an alternative method for starting buprenorphine/naloxone that offers unique benefits compared to protocols previously described in the literature.Scientific SignificanceThis method can be used to minimize barriers to opioid agonist therapy. (Am J Addict 2019;28:262–265)

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

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.

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 successful induction of buprenorphine/naloxone 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.

The current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly spread across the world. Individuals with stimulant use disorder are a vulnerable population, who are particularly at risk of negative outcomes during this pandemic due to several risk factors, including mental and physical comorbidities, weakened immune responses, high-risk behaviors, and barriers to healthcare access. Engaging patients with stimulant use disorder in regular treatment has become even more difficult during this pandemic, which has resulted in many cuts to addiction treatment programs. The most effective treatment options for stimulant use disorder are psychosocial interventions, which rely heavily on in-person interactions, posing an added challenge during physical distancing. In particular, contingency management (CM) is a behavioral therapy that utilizes tangible reinforcements to incentivize targeted behavior changes, and is an effective treatment intervention used for stimulant use disorder. This paper highlights the treatment challenges for individuals with stimulant use disorder and the importance of adapting CM programs during COVID-19. We present strategies for how CM can be adapted and its role expanded in a safe way during the COVID-19 pandemic to help prevent infection spread, stimulant use relapse, and worsened psychosocial consequences.

Frequent prescription opioid use has been recognized as a growing problem but there have been no studies specifically among veterans with serious mental illness (SMI). National data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during Fiscal Year 2012 show that VHA patients with SMI receive more opioid prescriptions than other veterans. Additionally, high numbers of opioid prescriptions is associated with greater use of anxiolytics/sedative-hypnotics, drug dependence and COPD-all of which pose an increased risk of respiratory depression and falls and warrant substantial caution and improved coordination between mental health and non-mental health prescribers to evaluate risk-benefit tradeoffs.

Objectives Efforts to safely reduce hospital LOS while maintaining quality outcomes and patient satisfaction are paramount. The primary goal of this study was to assess trends in LOS at a high-volume quaternary care spine center. Secondary goals were to assess trends in factors most associated with prolonged LOS. Methods This is a prospective study of all consecutive patients admitted from January 2006 to December 2019. Data included demographics, diagnostic category (degenerative, oncology, deformity, trauma, other), LOS (mean, median, interquartile range, standard deviation, defined as days from admission to discharge), and in-hospital adverse events. Results A total of 13,493 patients were included. Overall LOS has not changed over time with an overall median of 6.3 days ( p = 0.451). Median LOS significantly increased for patients treated for degenerative pathology from 2.2 days in 2006 to 3.2 days in 2019 ( p = 0.019). LOS has not changed for patients treated for deformity (overall median 6.8 days, p = 0.411), oncology (overall median 11.0 days, p = 0.051), or trauma (overall median 11.8 days, p = 0.582). Emergency admissions increased 3.2%/year for degenerative pathologies ( p =  < 0.001). Mean age has increased from 48.4 years in 2006 to 58.1 years in 2019 ( p =  < 0.001). This trend was observed in the deformity, degenerative and trauma group, not for patients treated for oncological disease. More adverse events were significantly associated with increasing age. Conclusion This is the first North American study to comprehensively analyze trends in LOS for spinal surgery overtime in an academic center. Overall, LOS has not changed from 2006–2019. Various factors that influence LOS appear to have balanced each other. It may also be explained by the changing epidemiology of both elective and emergency surgeries. These findings provide opportunities for intervention and improvement, targeted at the geriatric population, to reduce length of hospitalization.

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegenerative syndrome that has been linked to serious psychiatric symptoms, including depression, aggression, and suicidal behavior. This review critically examines the extant research on the behavioral manifestations of CTE and concludes that the paucity of longitudinal prospective studies on CTE, combined with a lack of research-accepted diagnostic criteria for identifying individuals who are considered at risk for CTE, makes it difficult to reliably establish a causal relationship between CTE and the onset of behavioral health problems. Selection and reporting bias and inconsistency in data collection methods are other concerns. To advance the field, there is a critical need for more empirical research on the behavioral manifestations of CTE. Recommendations and intervention models are also discussed.