Unobserved "home" induction onto buprenorphine

Joshua Lee, Frank Vocci, David A. Fiellin

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Background: Unobserved, or "home" buprenorphine induction is common in some clinical practices. Patients take the initial and subsequent doses of buprenorphine after, rather than during, an office visit. This review summarizes the literature on the feasibility and acceptability, safety, effectiveness, and prevalence of unobserved induction. Methods: We searched the English language literature for studies describing unobserved buprenorphine induction and associated outcomes. Clinical studies were assessed by strength of design, bias, and internal and external validity. Surveys of provider practices and unobserved induction adoption were reviewed for prevalence data and key findings.We also examined previous review papers and international buprenorphine treatment guidelines. Results: N = 10 clinical studies describing unobserved induction were identified: 1 randomized controlled trial, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 6 retrospective cohort studies. The evidence supports the feasibility of unobserved induction, particularly in office-based primary care practices. Evidence is weak to moderate in support of no differences in adverse event rates between unobserved and observed inductions. There is insufficient orweak evidence in terms of any or no differences in overall effectiveness (treatment retention, medication adherence, illicit opioid abstinence, other drug use). N = 9 provider surveys assessed unobserved induction: observed induction logistics are seen as barriers to buprenorphine prescribing; unobserved induction appearswidespread in specific locations. International guidelines reviewed emphasize clinician or pharmacist observed induction (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia); only one (Denmark) explicitly endorses unobserved induction. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence supporting unobserved induction as more, less, or as effective as observed induction. However, the predominantly observational and naturalistic studies of unobserved induction reviewed, all of which have significant sources of bias and limited external validity, document feasibility and low rates of adverse events. Unobserved induction seems to be widely adopted in US and French regional provider surveys. Prescribers, policy makers, and patients should balance the benefits of observed induction such as maximum clinical supervision with the ease-of-use and comparable safety profile of unobserved induction.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)299-308
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Addiction Medicine
Volume8
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2014

Fingerprint

Buprenorphine
Cohort Studies
Guidelines
Safety
Office Visits
Medication Adherence
Denmark
Administrative Personnel
Pharmacists
Opioid Analgesics
France
Observational Studies
Primary Health Care
Language
Randomized Controlled Trials
Retrospective Studies
Prospective Studies
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Buprenorphine
  • Induction
  • Medication adherence
  • Opioid-related disorders
  • Patient compliance
  • Unobserved induction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Unobserved "home" induction onto buprenorphine. / Lee, Joshua; Vocci, Frank; Fiellin, David A.

In: Journal of Addiction Medicine, Vol. 8, No. 5, 01.09.2014, p. 299-308.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Lee, Joshua ; Vocci, Frank ; Fiellin, David A. / Unobserved "home" induction onto buprenorphine. In: Journal of Addiction Medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 8, No. 5. pp. 299-308.
@article{8d2ac176fc8648b28d456407ef1d4109,
title = "Unobserved {"}home{"} induction onto buprenorphine",
abstract = "Background: Unobserved, or {"}home{"} buprenorphine induction is common in some clinical practices. Patients take the initial and subsequent doses of buprenorphine after, rather than during, an office visit. This review summarizes the literature on the feasibility and acceptability, safety, effectiveness, and prevalence of unobserved induction. Methods: We searched the English language literature for studies describing unobserved buprenorphine induction and associated outcomes. Clinical studies were assessed by strength of design, bias, and internal and external validity. Surveys of provider practices and unobserved induction adoption were reviewed for prevalence data and key findings.We also examined previous review papers and international buprenorphine treatment guidelines. Results: N = 10 clinical studies describing unobserved induction were identified: 1 randomized controlled trial, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 6 retrospective cohort studies. The evidence supports the feasibility of unobserved induction, particularly in office-based primary care practices. Evidence is weak to moderate in support of no differences in adverse event rates between unobserved and observed inductions. There is insufficient orweak evidence in terms of any or no differences in overall effectiveness (treatment retention, medication adherence, illicit opioid abstinence, other drug use). N = 9 provider surveys assessed unobserved induction: observed induction logistics are seen as barriers to buprenorphine prescribing; unobserved induction appearswidespread in specific locations. International guidelines reviewed emphasize clinician or pharmacist observed induction (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia); only one (Denmark) explicitly endorses unobserved induction. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence supporting unobserved induction as more, less, or as effective as observed induction. However, the predominantly observational and naturalistic studies of unobserved induction reviewed, all of which have significant sources of bias and limited external validity, document feasibility and low rates of adverse events. Unobserved induction seems to be widely adopted in US and French regional provider surveys. Prescribers, policy makers, and patients should balance the benefits of observed induction such as maximum clinical supervision with the ease-of-use and comparable safety profile of unobserved induction.",
keywords = "Buprenorphine, Induction, Medication adherence, Opioid-related disorders, Patient compliance, Unobserved induction",
author = "Joshua Lee and Frank Vocci and Fiellin, {David A.}",
year = "2014",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/ADM.0000000000000059",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "299--308",
journal = "Journal of Addiction Medicine",
issn = "1932-0620",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Unobserved "home" induction onto buprenorphine

AU - Lee, Joshua

AU - Vocci, Frank

AU - Fiellin, David A.

PY - 2014/9/1

Y1 - 2014/9/1

N2 - Background: Unobserved, or "home" buprenorphine induction is common in some clinical practices. Patients take the initial and subsequent doses of buprenorphine after, rather than during, an office visit. This review summarizes the literature on the feasibility and acceptability, safety, effectiveness, and prevalence of unobserved induction. Methods: We searched the English language literature for studies describing unobserved buprenorphine induction and associated outcomes. Clinical studies were assessed by strength of design, bias, and internal and external validity. Surveys of provider practices and unobserved induction adoption were reviewed for prevalence data and key findings.We also examined previous review papers and international buprenorphine treatment guidelines. Results: N = 10 clinical studies describing unobserved induction were identified: 1 randomized controlled trial, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 6 retrospective cohort studies. The evidence supports the feasibility of unobserved induction, particularly in office-based primary care practices. Evidence is weak to moderate in support of no differences in adverse event rates between unobserved and observed inductions. There is insufficient orweak evidence in terms of any or no differences in overall effectiveness (treatment retention, medication adherence, illicit opioid abstinence, other drug use). N = 9 provider surveys assessed unobserved induction: observed induction logistics are seen as barriers to buprenorphine prescribing; unobserved induction appearswidespread in specific locations. International guidelines reviewed emphasize clinician or pharmacist observed induction (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia); only one (Denmark) explicitly endorses unobserved induction. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence supporting unobserved induction as more, less, or as effective as observed induction. However, the predominantly observational and naturalistic studies of unobserved induction reviewed, all of which have significant sources of bias and limited external validity, document feasibility and low rates of adverse events. Unobserved induction seems to be widely adopted in US and French regional provider surveys. Prescribers, policy makers, and patients should balance the benefits of observed induction such as maximum clinical supervision with the ease-of-use and comparable safety profile of unobserved induction.

AB - Background: Unobserved, or "home" buprenorphine induction is common in some clinical practices. Patients take the initial and subsequent doses of buprenorphine after, rather than during, an office visit. This review summarizes the literature on the feasibility and acceptability, safety, effectiveness, and prevalence of unobserved induction. Methods: We searched the English language literature for studies describing unobserved buprenorphine induction and associated outcomes. Clinical studies were assessed by strength of design, bias, and internal and external validity. Surveys of provider practices and unobserved induction adoption were reviewed for prevalence data and key findings.We also examined previous review papers and international buprenorphine treatment guidelines. Results: N = 10 clinical studies describing unobserved induction were identified: 1 randomized controlled trial, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 6 retrospective cohort studies. The evidence supports the feasibility of unobserved induction, particularly in office-based primary care practices. Evidence is weak to moderate in support of no differences in adverse event rates between unobserved and observed inductions. There is insufficient orweak evidence in terms of any or no differences in overall effectiveness (treatment retention, medication adherence, illicit opioid abstinence, other drug use). N = 9 provider surveys assessed unobserved induction: observed induction logistics are seen as barriers to buprenorphine prescribing; unobserved induction appearswidespread in specific locations. International guidelines reviewed emphasize clinician or pharmacist observed induction (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia); only one (Denmark) explicitly endorses unobserved induction. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence supporting unobserved induction as more, less, or as effective as observed induction. However, the predominantly observational and naturalistic studies of unobserved induction reviewed, all of which have significant sources of bias and limited external validity, document feasibility and low rates of adverse events. Unobserved induction seems to be widely adopted in US and French regional provider surveys. Prescribers, policy makers, and patients should balance the benefits of observed induction such as maximum clinical supervision with the ease-of-use and comparable safety profile of unobserved induction.

KW - Buprenorphine

KW - Induction

KW - Medication adherence

KW - Opioid-related disorders

KW - Patient compliance

KW - Unobserved induction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84921848674&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84921848674&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000059

DO - 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000059

M3 - Review article

VL - 8

SP - 299

EP - 308

JO - Journal of Addiction Medicine

JF - Journal of Addiction Medicine

SN - 1932-0620

IS - 5

ER -