RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Buprenorphine's high-binding affinity as a partial µ-opioid agonist displaces preexisting full agonists causing precipitated withdrawal, which requires most individuals starting buprenorphine to endure moderate withdrawal prior to induction to avoid precipitated withdrawal. A novel approach called microinduction has emerged to remove this prerequisite. Our aim is to review the literature on these alternative approaches. METHODS: Using keywords including buprenorphine, buprenorphine/naloxone, transdermal buprenorphine, suboxone, microinduction, microdosing, rapid induction, buprenorphine-dosing protocol, the authors searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsychARTICLES, and Scopus databases from the date of inception through April 30, 2020, which yielded 1726 results, which, in turn, after manual exclusion for irrelevant content and publication in languages other than English, generated a total of 18 papers. RESULTS: On the basis of 18 papers included in this review, 63 patients were successfully transitioned to buprenorphine using different microdosing techniques, primarily in the inpatient setting. From the available data, patients were transitioned from a variety of opioids over a range of dosing without significant withdrawal, and initial doses ranged most frequently from 0.2 to 0.5 mg. While the timeframe for the various schedules ranged from 3 to 112 days, most transitioned over a period of 4 to 8 days, and most participants completed the cross titration at 8 to 16 mg. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The growing literature demonstrates some initial promise for alternative induction models, specifically targeting patients averse to withdrawal, patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain, patients on high-dose methadone, and patients using illicit or pharmaceutical fentanyl. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This manuscript provides a review of the existing literature to help clinicians better understand the approaches to microdosing of buprenorphine in various clinical settings and populations. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00-00).
Asunto(s)
Buprenorfina/administración & dosificación , Naloxona/administración & dosificación , Esquema de Medicación , HumanosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The study's objectives were to assess the psychotherapy interests and needs of psychiatry residents, to develop a psychotherapy didactic curriculum for psychiatry residents on the inpatient service, and to evaluate residents' self-reported understanding and confidence with skills-based interventions. METHODS: Psychiatry residents within a major metro region in the Northeast were asked if they would voluntarily participate in a survey to assess their interest and skills. Based on the results of this survey, the authors devised an 8-week course for seventeen residents on the inpatient unit. Topics included general cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), sleep hygiene, behavioral activation, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), mind-body skills, and motivational interviewing. Residents completed post-course questionnaires on comprehension and confidence in providing psychotherapy skills using 5-point Likert scales. RESULTS: Participants (N = 39) reported a strong interest in learning psychotherapy and in education focused on inpatient skills-based interventions. At the end of the course, 12/17 (70.6%) participants provided feedback to indicate that 9/12 (75%) respondents experienced increased confidence in therapy skills, 10/12 (83.3%) reported a basic understanding of skills-based psychotherapy, and 10/12 (83.4%) believed they could teach at least one new technique. CONCLUSION: Psychiatry residents in this study overwhelmingly requested additional training focused on skills relevant to inpatient service, and the curriculum the authors developed led to a subjective self-reported understanding of and confidence in providing these psychotherapy skills on the inpatient unit. These very preliminary results suggest that provision of increased skills-based psychotherapy training for inpatient psychiatry residents is important and beneficial within resident education.
Asunto(s)
Curriculum , Internado y Residencia , Evaluación de Necesidades , Psiquiatría/educación , Psicoterapia/educación , Terapia Cognitivo-Conductual , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina , Humanos , Pacientes Internos , Entrevista Motivacional , Proyectos Piloto , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Many clinical trials use composite end points to reduce sample size, but the relative importance of each individual end point within the composite may differ between patients and researchers. METHODS AND RESULTS: We asked 785 cardiovascular patients and 164 clinical trial authors to assign 25 "spending weights" across 5 common adverse events comprising composite end points in cardiovascular trials: death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for angina. We then calculated end point ratios for each participant's ratings of each nonfatal end point relative to death. Whereas patients assigned an average weight of 5 to death, equal or greater weight was assigned to myocardial infarction (mean ratio, 1.12) and stroke (ratio, 1.08). In contrast, clinical trialists were much more concerned about death (average weight, 8) than myocardial infarction (ratio, 0.63) or stroke (ratio, 0.53). Both patients and trialists considered revascularization (ratio, 0.48 and 0.20, respectively) and hospitalization (ratio, 0.28 and 0.13, respectively) as substantially less severe than death. Differences between patient and trialist end point weights persisted after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics (P<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinical trialists did not weigh individual components of a composite end point equally. Whereas trialists are most concerned about avoiding death, patients place equal or greater importance on reducing myocardial infarction or stroke. Both groups considered revascularization and hospitalization as substantially less severe. These findings suggest that equal weights in a composite clinical end point do not accurately reflect the preferences of either patients or trialists.