暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this medicolegal case report are the following: 1) to present details of a chronic pain patient (CPP) who was placed on chronic opioid analgesic therapy (COAT), and subsequently overdosed on multiple drugs, some of which were not prescribed by his COAT physician; 2) to present both the plaintiff\'s and defendant\'s (the COAT prescriber) expert witnesses\' opinions as to the allegation that COAT prescribing was the cause of death; and 3) based on these opinions, to develop some recommendations on how pain physicians can utilize the use of Controlled Substances Model Guidelines in order to protect the patient and themselves from such an occurrence.
METHODS: This is a case report of a CPP treated by a pain physician.
RESULTS: Differences between the plaintiff\'s and defendant\'s expert\'s opinions are explained utilizing the Controlled Substances Model Guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: Some CPPs may withhold information critical to their COAT treatment. Application of the Controlled Substances Model Guidelines and the newer Federation of State Medical Boards\' policy on opioid prescribing can be helpful in improving patient care and may be helpful in protecting the physician medicolegally.

OBJECTIVE: There is growing concern about access to HIV/AIDS care among injection drug users (IDUs). We examined rates of CD4 cell count monitoring and correlates among HIV-infected IDUs.
METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study of 460 community-recruited HIV-infected IDUs was situated in a Canadian city where all medical care is provided free of charge. Over a median follow-up period of 76 months, we evaluated factors associated with CD4 cell count monitoring through a linkage with a centralized CD4 registry.
RESULTS: Overall, <5% of IDUs had CD4 monitoring consistent with local therapeutic guidelines. In multivariate analyses, after adjustment for being on antiretroviral therapy [odds ratio (OR) 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.84-2.70, P<0.001] female gender (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57-0.89, P=0.003), non-White ethnicity (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.94, P=0.014), use of methadone maintenance therapy (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.42-1.94, P<0.001) and daily heroin use (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.85, P<0.001) were independently associated with CD4 monitoring.
CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to improve CD4 surveillance among IDUs are critically important, particularly for female and non-White IDUs. Expanded treatment for heroin dependence appears to have the greatest potential for improved care.

The Multisite Opiate Substitution Treatment study evaluated whether adhering to clinical-trial-derived practice guidelines improves treatment outcomes of unselected opiate-dependent patients seen in everyday practice. Clinics that were relatively concordant (n = 4) or nonconcordant (n = 4) with guidelines concerning medication dose levels and psychosocial service provision were identified. Staff interviewed 256 patients at intake and 6-month follow-up regarding past month heroin use, criminal activities, and mental health. To represent real-world practice conditions, clinics provided care in accordance with their usual approach, and no patient exclusion criteria were employed. Patients in each type of clinic were similar at baseline, but by follow-up, heroin use and mental health outcomes were significantly better in guideline-concordant clinics than in guideline-discordant clinics. Notably, 60.6% of patients in concordant clinics had urinalysis-confirmed heroin abstinence versus only 40.0% in nonconcordant clinics. Following research-derived practice guidelines seems to increase opiate substitution treatment effectiveness for opiate-dependent patients in the real world.

Buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) are newly approved for office-based treatment of opioid dependence. Federal and non-federal regulatory and monitoring agencies, national and international researchers, national professional organizations, researchers involved in monitoring, opioid treatment programs and the pharmaceutical industry met to synthesize and disseminate practical information to guide training, practice, monitoring, regulation and evaluation efforts with these medications. We performed a review of the literature, training curricula and practice guidelines and commissioned manuscripts describing recently completed, or still in progress, studies or field experiences with BUP treatment. A consensus process generated fifteen statements: (1) The federal government should collect baseline data on opioid-related deaths and morbidity to assess the effect of BUP on public health, (2) the patient limit for group practices should apply to individual physicians rather than group practices, (3 and 4) telephone and Internet-based physician and pharmacist support is needed, (5) clinicians who provide psychosocial services to opioid dependent patients should be informed of the role of BUP, (6) opioid-dependent patients should be instructed to present for induction in mild withdrawal, (7) the existing Center for Substance Abuse Treatment guidelines provide a reasonable induction protocol, (8) physicians should be prepared to use ancillary medications with BUP induction, (9) a physician or nurse must be available to the patient during the induction period, (10) concurrent counseling and support services are necessary, (11) detoxification without appropriate followup addiction treatment leads to rapid relapse and is not as effective as maintenance, (12) pregnant opioid-dependent women should be treated using good clinical practice including specialist addiction care and prenatal care, (13) BUP induction and withdrawal treatment may benefit from different designations for payment, (14) take-home medication options should be tailored to patients\' needs, (15) there is a need for clinical and policy research in unique patient populations.

This overview of the March 2003 conference on the U.S. national buprenorphine implementation program is developed to inform the practitioner about the positive experience that has been accumulated worldwide on the use of buprenorphine for office-based practice. The first paper delineates the challenges for American psychiatry in moving buprenorphine forward into general practice. Most psychiatrists are unprepared to work with opiate-dependent patients or to use buprenorphine. The international successes with office-based buprenorphine from France and Australia are presented in the next papers, followed by presentations on several U.S. studies using buprenorphine in the community for detoxification and office-based maintenance. These experiences have thus far confirmed buprenorphine\'s utility and promise for opiate addiction treatment in the U.S. Finally, two national monitoring programs have been implemented to assess the public health impact of this new treatment opportunity. This opportunity has a three-year window, however, and a critical need will be to attract a sufficient number of physicians into prescribing buprenorphine/naloxone in order to allow our patients increased access to this treatment.

暂无摘要。