Buprenorphine for Chronic Pain in a Pediatric Patient With Sickle-Cell Disease

"Buprenorphine, It Works so Differently": Adults with Sickle Cell Disease Describe Transitioning to Buprenorphine for Treatment of Chronic Pain

A growing body of literature describes the use of buprenorphine for the treatment of chronic pain in people with sickle cell disease. The experiences of people with sickle cell disease who have tried buprenorphine have not yet reported. This qualitative descriptive study was conducted to explore perspectives on buprenorphine for chronic pain in sickle cell disease. We interviewed 13 participants with sickle cell disease who had been prescribed buprenorphine and had a clinic visit between December 1, 2020, and April 2022 in our Sickle Cell Center for Adults. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Eleven out of 13 participants were taking buprenorphine at the time of the interview, with a mean treatment duration of 33 months (SD 18, range 7-78 months). Five major themes were identified: 1) dissatisfaction with full agonist opioids; 2) navigating uncertainty with autonomy in deciding to try buprenorphine; 3) functional and relational changes after starting buprenorphine, 4) enduring systemic barriers to pain treatment, and 5) trusting treatment relationships are necessary when approaching patients about buprenorphine. The experience of adulthood living with sickle cell disease before and after starting buprenorphine is qualitatively different with significant improvements in social functioning. PERSPECTIVE: This study examined the experience of adults with sickle cell disease and chronic pain transitioning from full agonist opioids to buprenorphine. It is the first qualitative study of buprenorphine in people with sickle cell disease, contributing to a small but growing literature about buprenorphine and sickle cell disease.

A Guide to Expanding the Use of Buprenorphine Beyond Standard Initiations for Opioid Use Disorder

Buprenorphine has become an important medication in the context of the ongoing opioid epidemic. However, complex pharmacologic properties and varying government regulations create barriers to its use. This narrative review is intended to facilitate buprenorphine use-including non-traditional initiation methods-by providers ranging from primary care providers to addiction specialists. This article briefly discusses the opioid epidemic and the diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). We then describe the basic and complex pharmacologic properties of buprenorphine, linking these properties to their clinical implications. We guide readers through the process of initiating buprenorphine in patients using full agonist opioids. As there is no single recommended approach for buprenorphine initiation, we discuss the details, advantages, and disadvantages of the standard, low-dose, bridging-strategy, and naloxone-facilitated initiation techniques. We consider the pharmacology of, and evidence base for, buprenorphine in the treatment of pain, in both OUD and non-OUD patients. Throughout, we address the use of buprenorphine in children and adolescent patients, and we finish with considerations related to the settings of pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Converting adults with sickle cell disease from full agonist opioids to buprenorphine: A reliable method with safety and early evidence of reduced acute care utilization

Buprenorphine, a novel opioid with complex pharmacology, is effective for treating pain and is qualitatively safer than high-dose full agonist opioid therapy; but transitioning to buprenorphine can be technically complex and carries some risk of precipitated withdrawal. We report our clinic's experience converting 36 patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) from full agonist opioids to buprenorphine using a method developed in the past 10 years. Thirty of these patients were induced using a standard outpatient protocol and six were induced during medical admissions. Typically, patients were on high-dose chronic opioid therapy (COT) with inadequate response, and often with very high acute care utilization. Unlike prior case series, the method of induction, dosing, and management of withdrawal are detailed, as are post-induction adverse events. There were seven adverse events in the first 3 days following standard induction, and two of which were judged to be definitely related to the induction but none with any lasting sequelae. At 6 months follow-up, five participants had discontinued buprenorphine (16.67%), and overall acute care visits dropped from a mean of 10.50 (SD 11.35) in the 6 months pre-induction to 2.89 (SD 3.40) in the 6 months post-induction. In an appropriately interdisciplinary care setting, buprenorphine shows promise as a safe alternative to COT with early evidence of benefit for high-utilizing patients with SCD.

Buprenorphine initiation strategies for opioid use disorder and pain management: A systematic review

Buprenorphine possesses many unique attributes that make it a practical agent for adults and adolescents with opioid use disorder (OUD) and/or acute or chronic pain. Sublingual buprenorphine has been the standard of care for treating OUD, but its use in pain management is not as clearly defined. Current practice guidelines recommend a period of mild‐to‐moderate withdrawal from opioids before transitioning to buprenorphine due to its ability to displace full agonists from the μ‐opioid receptor. However, this strategy can lead to negative physical and psychological outcomes for patients. Novel initiation strategies suggest that concomitant administration of small doses of buprenorphine with opioids can avoid the unwanted withdrawal associated with buprenorphine initiation. We aim to systematically review the buprenorphine initiation strategies that have emerged in the last decade. Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Databases were searched for relevant literature. Studies were included if they were published in the English language and described the transition to buprenorphine from opioids. Data were collected from each study and synthesized using descriptive statistics. This review included 7 observational studies, 1 feasibility study, and 39 case reports/series which included 924 patients. The strategies utilized between the literature included traditional initiation (47.9%), microdosing with various buprenorphine formulations (16%), and miscellaneous methods (36.1%). Traditional initiation and microdosing initiation were compared in the data synthesis and analysis; miscellaneous methods were omitted given the high variability between methods. Overall, 95.6% of patients in the traditional initiation group and 96% of patients in the microdosing group successfully rotated to sublingual buprenorphine. Initiation regimens can vary widely depending on patient‐specific factors and buprenorphine formulation. A variety of buprenorphine transition strategies are published in the literature, many of which were effective for patients with OUD, pain, or both.

Buprenorphine Microdosing for the Pain and Palliative Care Clinician

Buprenorphine (BUP) can be a safe and effective alternative to traditional opioids for many patients with chronic pain. For patients on higher doses of opioids, rotation to BUP is complicated by the requirement of an opioid-free interval or withdrawal during the transition. Microdosing inductions, in which BUP is gradually titrated, while full agonist opioids are continued, are a viable alternative to traditional inductions. The objective of this article is to review the current literature on BUP microdosing induction, with a focus on patients using opioids for pain. A literature review of the PubMed database was performed in the United States on articles published from inception to May 2021. A total of 34 publications were included. The most commonly utilized microdosing strategy involved administering divided doses of sublingual (SL) products marketed for opioid use disorder treatment, with 25 (73.5%) articles reporting use of partial SL tablets or films (ranging from 1/8 to 1/2 of a 2 mg product) at some point during the induction. Transdermal patches, low-dose SL BUP available in Europe, intravenous BUP, and buccal BUP have also been used. Beyond the products used, the speed of the microinduction, setting, final BUP dosing, and management of concomitant full agonists vary widely in the literature. Microdosing regimens should be individualized based on local guidelines and patient-specific factors. Further studies comparing the safety and efficacy of different protocols are warranted.