UNASSIGNED: The Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) classified pregabalin as a controlled substance in 2018; however, whether this policy change has affected pregabalin use is unclear. This study examined the trends in pregabalin prescriptions before and after the SFDA restriction. In addition, the co-prescription of controlled analgesics and the use of pregabalin for approved indications were also evaluated.
UNASSIGNED: A cross-sectional study was conducted on outpatient pregabalin prescriptions from three healthcare centers in Saudi Arabia. Interrupted time series analysis was used to assess changes over time in pregabalin prescriptions and the number of patients receiving pregabalin. June 2016 to June 2017 was identified as the pre-restriction period, and July 2018 to July 2019 as the post-restriction period.
UNASSIGNED: In this study, 77,760 pregabalin prescriptions were identified. There were 9,076 patients on pregabalin in the pre-restriction period with 16,875 prescriptions, compared with 7,123 patients and 19,484 prescriptions post-restriction. The total number of pregabalin users decreased by 21.5% post-restriction, and prescriptions increased by 15.5%. There was no significant change in the monthly trends in pregabalin prescriptions before and after the restriction. However, the of tramadol and acetaminophen/codeine prescriptions in patients who were using pregabalin increased in the post-restriction period by 21% and 16.1%, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: Pregabalin use was reduced after the SFDA-enforced prescription restriction was implemented. This was accompanied by increased narcotics use in the post-implementation phase.

The goal of this study was to determine whether a drug combination using nalbuphine with dexmedetomidine and tiletamine/zolazepam is non-inferior to one that uses butorphanol.
All healthy cats presenting solely for gonadectomy to two trap-neuter-return mobile clinic days were randomly assigned to induction with a combination of tiletamine/zolazepam 3 mg/kg, dexmedetomidine 7.5 µg/kg and either butorphanol or nalbuphine at 0.15 mg/kg. All participants were blinded to the identity of the combinations. The primary endpoint was clinician satisfaction, comprised of the mean of four satisfaction ratings on a 7-point Likert scale (highly dissatisfied through to highly satisfied) recorded for induction, maintenance of anesthesia, surgery and recovery. Exploratory endpoints included each individual score, number of injections, duration of induction, duration of recovery and need for reversal agent. To assess non-inferiority for the primary endpoint and individual scores, the difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference between the mean clinical scores for the nalbuphine and butorphanol-based combinations were calculated and compared with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 20% (1.4 points).
Seventy-two cats were enrolled, 36 in each group. The mean ± SD composite score for the combination with nalbuphine was 6.06 ± 0.59 (95% CI 5.86-6.25) points, while the combination with butorphanol was 6.22 ± 0.62 (95% CI 6.01-6.43). The difference between mean scores was 0.17 (-0.12 to 0.45), which did not exceed the prespecified boundary of 1.4, establishing the non-inferiority of nalbuphine. No individual clinical score for nalbuphine was inferior to butorphanol, and there were no significant differences for any secondary endpoints.
The clinical experience of the nalbuphine-based combination was non-inferior to the butorphanol-based combination. Nalbuphine is an effective substitute for butorphanol, providing another option if butorphanol is unavailable due to shortage, controlled status or cost, without requiring a change in anesthetic workflow.

In October 2014, the Drug Enforcement Administration in the U.S. reclassified hydrocodone combination products (HCPs) from Schedule III to Schedule II, initiating one of the most significant and controversial regulatory changes for opioids in recent national history. The aim of the present study was to determine community pharmacist opinions on the effect of the rescheduling of HCPs on their personal practice. A web-based pilot survey was emailed to a convenience sample through online newsletters of professional pharmacy organizations in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia in April/May 2015. A total of 62 surveys were initiated, yielding 56 complete responses. More than 75% of respondents noted increases in their workload as a result of the rescheduling of HCPs. Opinions regarding the intended outcomes of rescheduling were only weakly positive, with only 37.5% of respondents believing it has increased safety and 44.6% of respondents believing it has lessened abuse/diversion. For overall attitudes regarding the rescheduling, respondents were split between positive (26.8%), neutral (26.8%) and negative (46.4%). These initial data suggest that pharmacists have encountered barriers in practice resulting from the rescheduling. Further expanded work is necessary to verify these results from the small sample, and to assess the intended effects of the rescheduling upon the safe and effective use of hydrocodone.