Medical Record Documentation About Opioid Tapering: Examining Benefit-to-Harm Framework and Patient Engagement

Serum cytokine and inflammatory markers in individuals with heroin use disorder: potential biomarkers for diagnosis and disease severity

Opioid use disorders cause major morbidity and mortality, and there is a pressing need for novel mechanistic targets and biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis. Exposure to mu-opioid receptor (MOR) agonists causes changes in cytokine and inflammatory protein networks in peripheral blood, and also in brain glia and neurons. Individuals with heroin use disorder (iHUD) show dysregulated levels of several cytokines in blood. However, there is limited data on a comprehensive panel of such markers in iHUD versus healthy controls (HC), especially as a multi-target biomarker. We used a validated proximity extension assay for relative quantification of 92 cytokines and inflammatory proteins in serum of iHUD on medication assisted therapy (MAT; n=21), versus HC (n=24). Twenty-nine targets showed significant group differences (primarily iHUD>HC), surviving multiple comparison correction (p=0.05). This included 19 members of canonical cytokine families, including specific chemokines, interleukins, growth factors, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-related proteins. For dimensionality reduction, data from these 19 cytokines were entered into a principal component (PC) analysis, and PC1 scores were iHUD>HC (p<0.0001). A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis yielded an AUROC=91.7% (p<0.0001). This PC1 score remained a positive predictor of being in the HUD group in a multivariable logistic regression, which included demographic/clinical variables. Overall, this study shows a panel of cytokines that differ significantly between iHUD and HC, and provides a multi-target "cytokine biomarker score" for potential diagnostic purposes, and examination of disease severity.

Paths Forward for Clinicians Amidst the Rise of Unregulated Clinical Decision Support Software: Our Perspective on NarxCare

Amidst the US overdose epidemic, policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and healthcare institutions have contributed to a decrease in opioid prescribing, assuming reduced mortality would result-an assumption we now understand was oversimplified. At this intersection between public health and public safety domains as they relate to opioid prescribing, unregulated and proprietary clinical decision support tools have emerged without rigorous external validation or public data sharing. In the following piece, we discuss challenges facing clinicians practicing medicine amidst unregulated clinical decision support tools, using the case of Bamboo Health's NarxCare-a prescription drug monitoring program-based analytics platform marketed as a clinical decision support tool-that is already positioned to impact over 1 billion patient encounters annually. We argue that sufficient evidence does not yet exist to support NarxCare's wide implementation, and that clinical decision support tools like NarxCare have flourished in recent years due to a lack of federal regulatory oversight and shielding by their proprietary formulas, which have facilitated their unchecked and outsized influence on patient care. Finally, we suggest specific actions by federal regulatory agencies, healthcare institutions, individual clinicians, and researchers, as well as academic journals, to mitigate potential harms associated with unregulated clinical decision support tools.

Low-dose buprenorphine initiation and treatment continuation among hospitalized patients with opioid dependence: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for both opioid use disorder (OUD) and chronic pain, but buprenorphine's pharmacology complicates treatment initiation for some patients. Low-dose buprenorphine initiation is a novel strategy that may reduce precipitated withdrawal. Few studies describe what patient populations benefit most from low-dose initiations and the clinical parameters that impact treatment continuation. This study aimed to 1) describe experiences with low-dose buprenorphine initiation, including both successes and failures among hospitalized patients in an urban underserved community; 2) identify patient- and treatment-related characteristics associated with unsuccessful initiation and treatment discontinuation; and 3) assess buprenorphine treatment continuation after discharge.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study with opioid-dependent (meaning OUD or receiving long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain) patients who underwent low-dose buprenorphine initiation during hospital admission from October 2021 through April 2022. The primary outcome was successful completion of low-dose initiation. Bivariate analysis identified patient- and treatment-related factors associated with unsuccessful initiation. Secondary outcomes were buprenorphine treatment discontinuation at post-discharge follow-up, 30- and 90-days.

RESULTS

Of 28 patients who underwent low-dose buprenorphine initiation, 68 % successfully completed initiation. Unsuccessful initiation was associated with receipt of methadone during admission and higher morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of supplemental opioids. Of 22 patients with OUD, the percent receiving a buprenorphine prescription at a follow-up visit, 30 days, and 90 days, respectively, was 46 %, 36 %, and 36 %. Of 6 patients with chronic pain, the percent receiving a buprenorphine prescription at a follow-up visit, 30 days, and 90 days, respectively, was 100 %, 100 %, and 83 %.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose buprenorphine initiation can be successful in opioid-dependent hospitalized patients. Patients taking methadone or requiring higher MME of supplemental opioids may have more difficulty with the low-dose buprenorphine initiation approach, but these findings should be replicated in larger studies. This study suggests patient- and treatment-related factors that clinicians could consider when determining the optimal treatment strategy for patients wishing to transition to buprenorphine.

Collaboration between adult patients and practitioners when making decisions about prescribing opioid medicines for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Long-term opioid therapy (>12 months) is not effective for improving chronic non-cancer pain and function. Where patients are not experiencing pain relief with long-term opioids, the opioid should be tapered and discontinuation considered. Practitioners may find it challenging to tell patients experiencing pain that they are better off reducing or not taking medicines that do not help. This review aims to ascertain what is published about: (1) the interaction and (2) the nature of the relationship between practitioners and patients when prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care.

METHOD

A scoping review of English-language qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method studies in databases including: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, BNI, CINALH EMCARE and HMIC. The identified papers were reviewed to provide a descriptive summary of the literature.

RESULTS

The review identified 20 studies. The studies used a range of methods including interviews, focus groups, audio and video recordings of clinical consultations, telephone survey and data from patient records. One study reported that researchers had engaged with a patient advisory group to guide their research. Patients expressed the importance of being treated as individuals, not being judged and being involved in prescribing decisions. Practitioners expressed difficulty in managing patient expectations and establishing trust. Opioid risk and practitioner suspicion shape opioid prescribing decisions. There is a paucity of literature about how precisely practitioners overcome interactional challenges and implement personalised care in practice.

CONCLUSION

The studies in this review ascertain that practitioners and patients often find it challenging to achieve shared decisions in opioid review consultations. Effective communication is essential to achieve good clinical practice. Collaborative research with PPI partners should be aimed at identifying communication practices that support practitioners to achieve shared decisions with patients when reviewing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.