Primary Care Office-based Buprenorphine Treatment: Comparison of Heroin and Prescription Opioid Dependent Patients

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid dependence is increasing, but treatment outcomes with office-based buprenorphine/naloxone among these patients have not been described. METHODS: We compared demographic, clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes among 200 patients evaluated for entry into a trial of primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment stratifying on those who reported exclusive heroin use (n = 124), heroin and prescription opioid use (n = 47), or only prescription opioid use (n = 29). RESULTS: Compared to heroin-only patients, prescription-opioid-only patients were younger, had fewer years of opioid use, and less drug treatment history. They were also more likely to be white, earned more income, and were less likely to have Hepatitis C antibodies. Prescription-opioid-only patients were more likely to complete treatment (59% vs. 30%), remained in treatment longer (21.0 vs. 14.2 weeks), and had a higher percent of opioid-negative urine samples than heroin only patients (56.3% vs. 39.8%), all p values < .05. Patients who used both heroin and prescription opioids had outcomes that were intermediate between heroin-only and prescription-opioid-only patients. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals dependent on prescription opioids have an improved treatment response to buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance in an office-based setting compared to those who exclusively or episodically use heroin

Misuse of "study drugs:" prevalence, consequences, and implications for policy

BACKGROUND: Non-medical/illegal use of prescription stimulants popularly have been referred to as "study drugs". This paper discusses the current prevalence and consequences of misuse of these drugs and implications of this information for drug policy. RESULTS: Study drugs are being misused annually by approximately 4% of older teens and emerging adults. Yet, there are numerous consequences of misuse of prescription stimulants including addiction, negative reactions to high dosages, and medical complications. Policy implications include continuing to limit access to study drugs, finding more safe prescription drug alternatives, interdiction, and public education. CONCLUSION: Much more work is needed on prescription stimulant misuse assessment, identifying the extent of the social and economic costs of misuse, monitoring and reducing access, and developing prevention and cessation education efforts

The nonmedical use of prescription ADHD medications: results from a national Internet panel

© 2007 Novak et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Do computerised clinical decision support systems for prescribing change practice? A systematic review of the literature (1990-2007)

Computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are used widely to improve quality of care and patient outcomes. This systematic review evaluated the impact of CDSSs in targeting specific aspects of prescribing, namely initiating, monitoring and stopping therapy. We also examined the influence of clinical setting (institutional vs ambulatory care), system- or user-initiation of CDSS, multi-faceted vs stand alone CDSS interventions and clinical target on practice changes in line with the intent of the CDSS. We searched Medline, Embase and PsychINFO for publications from 1990-2007 detailing CDSS prescribing interventions. Pairs of independent reviewers extracted the key features and prescribing outcomes of methodologically adequate studies (experiments and strong quasi-experiments). 56 studies met our inclusion criteria, 38 addressing initiating, 23 monitoring and three stopping therapy. At the time of initiating therapy, CDSSs appear to be somewhat more effective after, rather than before, drug selection has occurred (7/12 versus 12/26 studies reporting statistically significant improvements in favour of CDSSs on = 50% of prescribing outcomes reported). CDSSs also appeared to be effective for monitoring therapy, particularly using laboratory test reminders (4/7 studies reporting significant improvements in favour of CDSSs on the majority of prescribing outcomes). None of the studies addressing stopping therapy demonstrated impacts in favour of CDSSs over comparators. The most consistently effective approaches used system-initiated advice to fine-tune existing therapy by making recommendations to improve patient safety, adjust the dose, duration or form of prescribed drugs or increase the laboratory testing rates for patients on long-term therapy. CDSSs appeared to perform better in institutional compared to ambulatory settings and when decision support was initiated automatically by the system as opposed to user initiation. CDSSs implemented with other strategies such as education were no more successful in improving prescribing than stand alone interventions. Cardiovascular disease was the most studied clinical target but few studies demonstrated significant improvements on the majority of prescribing outcomes. Our understanding of CDSS impacts on specific aspects of the prescribing process remains relatively limited. Future implementation should build on effective approaches including the use of system-initiated advice to address safety issues and improve the monitoring of therapy