Aim: Exploring prescribing trends and economic burden of chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients prescribed buprenorphine buccal film (Belbuca®) or transdermal patches. Methods: In the MarketScan® commercial insurance claims (employees and their spouses/dependents, 2018-2021), the first film or patch prescription date was an index event. The observation covered 6-month pre-index and 12-month post-index periods. Results: Patients were propensity-score matched (708 per cohort). Buprenorphine initiation had stable cost trends in buccal film and increasing trends in transdermal patch cohort. Between-cohort comparisons of healthcare expenditures, cost trends and resource utilization showed significant differences, mostly in favor of buccal film. Buccal film also had higher daily doses and wider dosing range. Conclusion: Buprenorphine film is more cost-effective cLBP treatment with more flexible dosing.
What is this article about? This retrospective study included patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) and commercial insurance in the USA. Only patients treated with Belbuca®, a buprenorphine buccal film, or a buprenorphine transdermal patch were included. Patients were observed 6 months prior to and 12 months after the first buprenorphine prescription. Healthcare costs, cost trends, resource use and buprenorphine treatment characteristics were explored.What were the results? Patients with cLBP on buccal film had lower costs, stable cost trends and less healthcare resources used. Also, they had higher buprenorphine daily doses.What do the results mean? The results imply that buccal film is less costly for cLBP patients than patches. The buccal film had more flexible dosing with higher daily doses, which might be associated with better pain control.

BACKGROUND: In a previously reported randomized controlled trial, formerly opioid-dependent prisoners were more likely to enter community drug abuse treatment when they were inducted in prison onto buprenorphine/naloxone (hereafter called buprenorphine) than when they received counseling without buprenorphine in prison (47.5% vs. 33.7%, p=0.012) (Gordon et al., 2014). In this communication we report on the results of the induction schedule and the adverse event profile seen in pre-release prisoners inducted onto buprenorphine.
METHODS: This paper examines the dose induction procedure, a comparison of the proposed versus actual doses given per week, and side effects reported for 104 adult participants who were randomized to buprenorphine treatment in prison. Self-reported side effects were analyzed using generalized estimated equations to determine changes over time in side effects.
RESULTS: Study participants were inducted onto buprenorphine at a rate faster than the induction schedule. Of the 104 (72 males, 32 females) buprenorphine recipients, 64 (37 males, 27 females) remained on medication at release from prison. Nine participants (8.6%) discontinued buprenorphine because of unpleasant opioid side effects. There were no serious adverse events reported during the in-prison phase of the study. Constipation was the most frequent symptom reported (69 percent).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that buprenorphine administered to non-opioid-tolerant adults should be started at a lower, individualized dose than customarily used for adults actively using opioids, and that non-opioid-tolerant pre-release prisoners can be successfully inducted onto therapeutic doses prior to release.