Archive for the ‘Complications from IV drug use’ Category

Avoiding Overdoses

August 31: Overdose Awareness Day

 

 

 

“I’m not gonna overdose. I know my limits.”

I really hate hearing these words. Usually patients say this in response to my concerns about their pattern of drug use while I’m prescribing methadone or buprenorphine. But many patients feel like they are the experts. They can’t imagine making a deadly mistake with their drug use. But I’ve heard this phrase, or something close to it, from at least five people who are now dead from overdoses.

I was reminded of this situation after reading an article in the latest issue of Journal of Addiction Medicine. Najman et al. wrote an article titled “When Knowledge and Experience Do Not Help: A Study of Nonfatal Drug Overdoses.”

The author of the study looked at nonfatal overdoses in Australia in 2013, where overdose deaths have risen steadily since 2007. In that country, unlike the U.S., heroin use is declining while pharmaceutical opioid misuse is rising.

This study looked at nonfatal overdoses in people who inject drugs. These people, identified by the needle and syringe exchange programs in Australia, were interviewed about the circumstances surrounding these overdoses, in order to get a better understanding of the risks. A total of 50 people were interviewed for this study.

Most of these people were male, middle-aged, single, and unemployed. Nearly all were smokers. Half had a diagnosis of liver disease and almost all reported a mental health diagnosis. Most injected pharmaceutical opioids, though some also injected heroin and methamphetamine. These were very experienced drug users, with an average of 21 years of intravenous drug use.

Surprisingly, more than half of the study subjects were in some form of treatment for substance use disorder. This finding is contrary to other studies, which have found being in treatment lowered the risk for overdose. Around 46% were in medication-assisted treatment with either methadone or buprenorphine. However, some of the overdoses happened on days that the person missed dosing for some reason, and substituted another opioid such as heroin or fentanyl. Thirty-two percent of study subjects dosed with either methadone or buprenorphine in the twenty-four hours prior to experiencing their overdose.

Most of these overdoses happened in private homes, and around half received some sort of folk remedy for overdose such as being slapped, put into cold water, or being shaken. Naloxone kits weren’t routinely being distributed at the time of this study.

When asked about the cause of their overdose, many the subjects said they were impaired by alcohol or benzodiazepines. Over half said they used benzodiazepines within twenty-four hours of their overdose. Of the 50 subjects, 64% said they had been prescribed anti-anxiety medications sometime in the year prior to overdose, and 38% said they’d been prescribed sleeping pills. Another 36% said they’d been prescribed some sort of tranquilizer in the year prior to overdose. I’m assuming many of the subjects were prescribed more than one of these groups of medications.

Alcohol was not as prominent as sedative medications as contributory cause of overdose; only 34% of subjects said they had some amount of alcohol in the twenty-four hours prior to their overdose.

Over a third of subjects had used fentanyl, a very powerful opioid, leading up to the overdose.

The authors of the study concluded that these experienced drug users were aware of common risks for overdose, yet drug intoxication from sedatives such as alcohol or benzodiazepines may have clouded the user’s thinking when injecting opioids. They also found that unexpected availability of drugs contributed to overdoses.

It’s an interesting study, and a little disturbing to me, particularly the data about overdoses in people who were enrolled in medication-assisted treatments. It does underline the importance of daily dosing of MAT, and the importance of avoiding alcohol and benzodiazepines in patients on MAT.

And if you didn’t know…August 31 is International Overdose Awareness Day.

Advertisements

News You Can Use

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New ACOG Recommendations:

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) just released an updated recommendation about the treatment of opioid use disorder in pregnant women: https://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Obstetric-Practice/Opioid-Use-and-Opioid-Use-Disorder-in-Pregnancy

Their last statement was issued in 2012, in cooperation with the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). This newer statement was released earlier this month, also in cooperation with ASAM.

By my reading, this update is more direct about recommending medication-assisted treatment for pregnant women with opioid use disorder, and specifically discouraged medically supervised withdrawal from opioids during pregnancy.

This statement was in the update’s conclusions: “For pregnant women with an opioid use disorder, opioid agonist pharmacotherapy is the recommended therapy and is preferable to medically supervised withdrawal because withdrawal is associated with high relapse rates, which lead to worse outcomes. More research is needed to assess the safety (particularly regarding maternal relapse), efficacy, and long-term outcomes of medically supervised withdrawal.”

I suspect this released update may have been prompted by the actions of obstetricians in certain locations (Tennessee, for example), where medically supervised withdrawal is routinely recommended by obstetricians. As you recall in a blog earlier this summer, I showed you a letter written by OBs from TN, recommending “medically supervised withdrawal” for patients on medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorders.

As the ACOG update emphasizes, there’s scant evidence to show medically supervised withdrawal provides any better outcomes for the baby, but certainly places the mother at risk for relapse.

I am pleased to see this update, and plan to mail it to a few obstetrics practices in my own area. Some OBs may be giving patients recommendations not supported by their own professional organization out of ignorance, in which case more information can help. Other OBs do it for ideological reasons, in which case I doubt any amount of information can help, but at least I’ll know I’ve tried to do something.

Screening for substance use disorders was also strongly emphasized in the new document, with specific recommendations about how this should be done. In other words, asking a pregnant patient, “You don’t take any drugs, do you?” is not considered to be adequate or recommended screening.

Increased Risk for Death in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder who Leave Buprenorphine Treatment

We have multiple studies, dating back decades, showing patients with opioid use disorder who leave treatment with methadone have higher risks of overdose deaths. We believe the same thing is true with buprenorphine treatment, but now we have more data to support that assumption.

A French study of 713 buprenorphine patients showed that being out of buprenorphine treatment was associated with a 30-fold increase in death, compared with patients who stay on buprenorphine treatment.

Now that’s impressive.

This was a study done in France, where most patients with opioid use disorder are treated by general practitioners in private practice. This would be roughly equivalent to what physicians do now in the U.S. in their office-based buprenorphine practices, often called OBOT treatment.

The study was published in the July/August 2017 issue of the Annals of Family Medicine, by Dupouy et al. It looked at new patients admitted onto buprenorphine treatment from early 2007 until the end of 2011, and covered over 3,000 person -years of treatment.

The authors say that the data showed, “…being out of treatment was associated with sharply elevated mortality risk.”

We already knew that people with opioid use disorder have an increased risk of death. Early in this article, the authors state that the accepted mortality rate of untreated heroin use disorder is around 2 people per 100 patient years. This means that if you follow 100 heroin users for a year, it is likely that 2 will be dead at the end of the year. An older study, by Hser et al., followed people with opioid use disorder over time, and found that around 50% were dead at 30 years.

We’ve had other studies that show being in treatment with buprenorphine or methadone decreases risk of death, but this may be the first study showing that getting help in a primary care setting reduces the risk of death so remarkably.

This was a very large study, so the data is more impressive to me All this data supports the conclusion that opioid use disorder is a serious and potentially fatal disease, and that being in medication-assisted treatment markedly reduces the risk of death.

 

Mismanagement of Opioid Use Disorder

aaaaaa

 

 

 

 

I’m going to give an overview of what happened to one patient with opioid use disorder, changing enough details to keep people from recognizing the person. I’ve changed non-essential data, but not the medical facts as I learned them from the patient. The facts were confirmed by medical records that I obtained from two local hospitals, a local cardiologist, and a teaching hospital. I could not get records from the mental health clinic that is mentioned because none were made. All of this happened a few years ago.

This 31 year-old man had years of opioid use disorder which progressed to intravenous use for a little over a year before he started feeling ill. He went to his local hospital and was correctly diagnosed with endocarditis, which is a serious and life-threatening infection of the delicate valves of the heart. He was transferred to a teaching hospital, had a surgical repair of a heart alve, given six weeks of antibiotics, and sent home.

He says no one mentioned any sort of addiction treatment, but he admits he probably would not have agreed to treatment anyway. He also admits it’s possible he just doesn’t remember and treatment was discussed. His records contain no mention of substance use treatment referral upon his discharge from the hospital.

About a year later, he was re-admitted to our local hospital with fever and suspected endocarditis. His attending physician in the hospital started treatment with appropriate antibiotics but correctly identified he needed to be seen by a specialist too. As his medical record reveals, two teaching hospitals refused to accept this patient in transfer because he had no insurance, no money, and because he didn’t quit using drugs after the first illness. The physicians that could have accepted the patient in transfer said they don’t want to waste resources treating him again.

His admitting physician explained all of this to the patient. Since it appeared he would die without surgery, Hospice care was arranged to ease his remaining days. He was sent home to die. Somehow, qualifying for Hospice care also got him approved for Medicaid.

After his Medicaid came through and he’d been on antibiotics waiting to die for some weeks, he started wondering what would happen if he arranged an appointment with a cardiologist on his own. Since he now had Medicaid, he was able to make an appointment with a local cardiologist. Though he hadn’t died yet, he was very sick, with fluid building in his lungs and backing up into his feet and legs.

I got the cardiologists’ records, and between the lines I could sense he had been as puzzled as I was now– why was this man turned down for medical care? The cardiologist correctly suspected the patient didn’t have a severe endocarditis, since he probably wouldn’t still be alive at that point. He arranged a referral to a cardiologist friend of his at the local teaching hospital, and a more sophisticated evaluation was done. It showed a hole in the patient’s heart. Blood was flowing in the wrong direction, causing heart failure and severe shortness of breath.

The patient was admitted to the hospital and had a procedure to patch this hole. As it turned out, this procedure could be done without open-heart surgery.

All is well, right? Nope. The original problem, opioid use disorder, has still not been comprehensively treated, although this teaching hospital did at least give this patient a few days of buprenorphine during his short hospitalization. He was told to follow up with a Suboxone doctor in his area.

He tried. He called several office-based buprenorphine physicians in his area. But he had Medicaid, and couldn’t find a doctor to accept this form of payment, or else the few that did accept Medicaid didn’t have appointments for many weeks.

He relapsed to intravenous opioid use, and became sick with fever, had trouble breathing, and went to his local hospital’s emergency department. He was given some fluids, some antibiotics for “pneumonia,” and told to go home.

Before he left, he asked if he could be referred for treatment of his addiction, and was told he would have to go to the local mental health provider that contracts with Medicaid in his county.

He went in person to that facility the next day, and asked the receptionist if he could be referred to the local methadone clinic. He was told they didn’t make referrals to the methadone clinic, so he left, discouraged. He never imagined it could be so hard to get treatment for his addiction.

He continued to feel very bad, with fevers, cough, and then developed severe back pain. He went to another local hospital’s emergency department, was again told he had pneumonia, and that he needed different antibiotics. He was sent home from the emergency department, but went back a few days later, when his back pain worsened.

He says he got the feeling the hospital personnel felt he was drug seeking for pain medication. He admits he did want pain medication, but mainly because of severe back pain. He was told to be patient, and give the antibiotics time to work.

The day before he came to our opioid treatment center, he went back to the first local hospital with fever, back pain, and trouble breathing. He was told for a fourth time that he had pneumonia, and was sent home with new antibiotics.

He got the address of our opioid treatment program from one of his friends, and came in person to see if we could help him. Since I wasn’t there that day, we set him up with an intake appointment for the next day, and he arrived bright and early to start the intake process.

When I first laid eyes on this patient, my impression was that he was seriously ill and not stable enough to start treatment with us that day. He looked bad. However, I listened with fascination to his entire story, which he told in short bursts of conversation between gasping breaths.

I didn’t want to start treatment. I wanted to get him to a teaching hospital as quickly as possible. He was sweaty, breathless, wincing in pain and clutching his back, and running a low-grade fever. He did have sounds in his lungs consistent with pneumonia, but at this point he’d been on antibiotics for over a week. Clearly something more than pneumonia was going on.

But I knew I could not turn him away without doing something for him. More as a gesture than as a real treatment, I gave him an induction dose of buprenorphine and sent him to the teaching hospital, located about an hour from us.

I got a call back later that day from the resident physician who admitted this patient. The severe back pain that my patient had reported at four hospital emergency department visits turned out to be osteomyelitis, which is a bacterial bone infection needing antibiotic treatment for several months. He also had an abscess on the spine nearby the infected bone. The bacteria they finally cultured was methicillin-resistant Staph aureus, also known as MRSA.

He spent months in several hospitals. He had to undergo a debridement of the bone to get rid of infected and dead material, and had to be on very heavy intravenous antibiotics for a prolonged time.

Because he had been started on buprenorphine at our opioid treatment program, I convince the residents they could continue that medication, and gave some suggestions for increasing it a little bit.

Finally, he was healthy enough to leave the acute care hospital to go to a physical rehabilitation hospital, where he stayed for about six weeks. Thankfully, since he had already been started on buprenorphine, these providers were also willing to continue his medication. He was re-admitted to our opioid treatment program the day after he was discharged from the physical rehab hospital so that we could continue his treatment.

He had to have strong opioids early in his hospitalization but by the time he came back to our OTP, he was only on buprenorphine 8mg sublingually per day. I did have to increase his dose a little for fine-tuning, and he’s been healthy ever since, with no positive UDS, no illicit drug use.

He looks fantastic. He’s healthy, energetic, and works every day. He’s usually smiling, and he makes me smile too. I don’t think he’s using any illicit opioids for many months.

He asked me a difficult question. He wanted to know how his medical treatment could have been better. I told him that I had the luxury of hindsight and the pile of his medical records, but I did see some mismanagement of his care. I told him these were the things that bothered me about his treatment:

  1. He was turned down for medical care when he came to his local hospital for what they thought was endocarditis. It turned out to be something different, but the small hospital didn’t have the technology to diagnose and manage the problem. They did the right thing by attempting to transfer him to another hospital, but were refused. I don’t know what recourse a physician at a small hospital has if teaching hospitals refuse to accept a patient, and I’m sure this patient was refused because he had drug addiction, and judged as a person not worthy of care.
  2. There was an appalling lack of attention to his underlying medical disease that fueled all of his medical problems. He should have been told about buprenorphine and methadone as treatments for his problem, and referrals should have been made. Ideally, he should have been referred after his endocarditis infection, or by any of the half-dozen doctors who saw him after that. Then even when he specifically asked for referral for that sort of treatment, the mental health facility missed an opportunity to help this man, saying they didn’t refer to the methadone clinic.

Believe me, we notified people who supervise this mental health facility about their failure to act, and what we thought of this failure. We have been assured this will never happen again.

3.This patient sensed an attitude of distain in his caregivers, and I also sensed it in the wording of the documents from the hospital. The emergency department records are sketchy, with little documentation of the medical reasoning of the attending physician. I worry that the physician saw the patient as a bad person seeking drugs, rather than a sick person with a treatable illness. I know I’m sensitized to this issue, so it’s possible I’m jumping to the wrong conclusion.

I’ve tried my best to talk to local physicians. In a few enjoyable exceptions, I’ve had great responses and cooperation. In other cases, I’ve had rude responses. Most responses are neutral, neither rude nor friendly, and I sense a disinterest in the topic.

I wish all of the doctors who treated this patient when he was sick with opioid use disorder could see him now. He’s a happy and productive member of society, and yes, he does plan to stay on buprenorphine indefinitely. I support that decision.

This patient, and hundreds like him, are why I love my job.

Karmic Chickens Coming Home to Roost

Rate of Hep C infection among women giving birth in Tennessee per 1,000 live births – 2014

 

 

 

 

 

A recent report in the CDC’s MMWR (Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) described the incidence of Hepatitis C virus infection rates among women giving birth in Tennessee, and the U.S., during the time frame 2009-2014.

In essence, the number of pregnant women delivering babies who were infected with Hep C doubled in the U.S. during this time, but in Tennessee, it tripled. The factors that increased the risk of Hep C included having a history of injection drug use, living in a rural county, smoking during pregnancy, and co-occurring Hepatitis B virus infection. The highest incidence was in the Eastern mountainous part of the state.

Obviously, this increase in Hep C incidence coincides with the rise in incidence of opioid use disorders.

Eastern Tennessee has been uniquely vehement in its rejection of evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorders, while maintaining one of the highest opioid prescribing rates of the nation. You do not have to be psychic to foresee the inevitable: increased burden of disease, death, poverty, disability, and crime.

I’ve been blogging about the sorry state of Tennessee’s approach, or lack of approach, to treating opioid use disorder since I started this blog in 2010 – see entries from 11/13/10, 1/26/12, 1/30/12, 11/14/12, 7/7/13, 10/19/13, 10/23/13, 4/12/14, 4/26/14,  8/25/14, and 12/12/14. Since late 2014, I grew tired of blogging about the same issue and moved on to other topics

I started working at opioid treatment programs in 2001. In 2005, I worked for a non-profit opioid treatment program with eight sites scattered across Western North Carolina. Because their OTP in Boone had so many people driving from Tennessee for treatment, this organization tried to open an opioid treatment program in Eastern Tennessee. These patients drove an hour or more, one-way, to get treatment in NC because it wasn’t available in Tennessee.

The state of Tennessee and the officials of Johnson City would not allow an OTP to open there. I’m not sure what reason they gave, but we all know the real reason: stigma against medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder.

If we fast forward to 2013, I was working for CRC Health when they attempted to open an opioid treatment program in Johnson City. Despite the open knowledge of a large population of people with untreated opioid use disorder in that area, state officials in Tennessee’s Health and Human Services maintained there was no need for an opioid treatment program, because there was an insignificant number of people who needed treatment. By that time, there were a number of office-based practices prescribing buprenorphine, but those physicians couldn’t legally prescribe methadone. As we know, one drug will never work for all patients.

A few years ago, the Crossroads group, which has opioid treatment programs in North Carolina, sued to get the right to put an OTP in Johnson City. They were also defeated.

People who know these things tell me there have been at least ten attempts to start an opioid treatment program in Tennessee’s Eastern part of the state over the last fifteen years, and all were refused.

The newspaper of that area, the Johnson City Press, reported earlier this year that an opioid treatment program is set to open in Gray, Tennessee, this summer. However, even though it’s going to be operated by the East Tennessee State University and the Mountain States Health Alliance, both reputable health agencies, local citizens are still picketing in an attempt to thwart the opening of this OTP, too.

I really hope science defeats ideology this time.

Also in Tennessee, as I described in several of my blogs, the state legislature passed a law making it illegal for a person with substance use disorder to become pregnant. Once the woman is pregnant, she is breaking their law, and subject to being jailed. Of course, all of the women jailed under this law so far have been poor and/or minorities, unable to afford lawyers to work on their behalf. Some of these jailed women tried to get help, but no treatment facilities would accept them, because they were pregnant.

Knowing this, pregnant women with substance use disorders may avoid pre-natal care.

I suggest this might contribute to this state’s high Hep C rate in women delivering babies, and also to their high rate of neonatal abstinence syndrome.

So…if an OTP finally opens – about seventeen years into our opioid epidemic – it will be built on the backs of scandalous numbers of people who suffered due to this backwoods misanthropy.

Ten or twenty years from now, we may look back at this disgraceful behavior of state and local officials of Eastern Tennessee with mortification, and vow never again to allow such a travesty crush ordinary people with a bad but treatable disease.

I think Tennessee will continue to give us information we can use – about how NOT to approach substance use disorders. It’s just a shame affected people have paid – and will continue to pay – the ultimate price for this information.

 

Naloxone in Action


At the recent American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) conference, I read a poster describing a study entitled “Lives Saved with Take-home Naloxone for Patients in Medication Assisted Treatment.” The article, by Katzman et al., from the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, described the outcomes from providing naloxone overdose reversal kits to patients enrolling in medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorders

The study subjects were admitted to medication-assisted treatment over three months in 2016. The poster didn’t say whether they started buprenorphine, naltrexone, or methadone, but I’m guessing the patients were admitted to methadone maintenance.

In the end, 244 subjects enrolled and had education about opioid overdose and how to use a naloxone auto injector kit.

Twenty-nine subjects were lost to follow up, leaving 215 subjects available for inclusion in the study. Of these 215 subjects, 184 didn’t witness or experience overdose.

That means 31 subjects either experienced or witnessed at least one opioid overdose episode.

The scientists conducting the study interviewed these 31 subjects, and discovered that 39 opioid overdoses had been reversed and all of those lives were saved. Thirty-eight people were saved with the naloxone kits distributed by the opioid treatment program, and one study subject was revived by EMS personnel.

When study authors looked at who was saved by these study subjects, they discovered 11% of people saved were acquaintances of the study subjects, 16% were family members, 58% were friends, 6% were the significant others of study subjects, and 13% were strangers.

The study authors concluded that “a significant number of lives can be saved by using take-home naloxone for patients treated in MAT [medication assisted treatment] programs.” The authors also felt the study showed that naloxone isn’t usually on the patient who entered treatment, but more frequently on friends, relatives, and acquaintances that the MAT patient encounters.

I was intrigued by this study because it mirrors what I’ve heard in the opioid treatment program where I work. We are fortunate to get naloxone kits from Project Lazarus to give to our patients. It’s rare that one of our patients enrolled in treatment needs naloxone for an overdose, but much more frequently, I hear our patients say they used their kit to save another person’s life.

If anyone doubted the abilities of people with opioid use disorders, and felt they couldn’t learn to give naloxone effectively, this study should put that idea to rest. If anyone mistaken thought people with opioid use disorders wouldn’t care enough about other people to put forth an effort to save another person, this study should put that idea to rest, too.

In fact, I’ve seen a real enthusiasm among our patients to make sure they have a kit, in case they get the opportunity to save a life. They are eager to help other people, and I find that to be an admirable attitude that’s nearly universal among the people we treat.

Sometimes I get into discussions with patients about what they think about the naloxone kits, and where they think the kits can do the most good. I’ve heard some good ideas. One patient said every fast food restaurant should have a naloxone kit, since she knew many people with opioid use disorder inject in the bathrooms of these facilities. Actually, I just an online article discussing something similar: http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2017/04/03/public-bathrooms-opioids  

This article expresses the problems that injection drug use has become for public restrooms, and makes a case for safe injection centers. This is presently illegal in the U.S.

Even Massachusetts General Hospital armed its security guards with naloxone kits, so they could give this life-saving medication to people they found who had overdosed in the hospital’s public bathrooms.

Another patient suggested giving naloxone kits to people living in trailer parks.

I know that feeds into a kind of stereotype of those who live in trailer parks, but apparently there is some basis for saying such residential areas have high density of people with opioid use disorders. It’s worth looking at.

Several patients said that all people receiving opioid prescriptions for chronic pain should also be prescribed naloxone kits, and I think that’s been recommended by many health organizations too.

Most communities have at least talked about arming law enforcement and first responders with naloxone kits, and hopefully that’s a trend that will continue to spread.

Naloxone isn’t a permanent solution for opioid use disorder, but it can keep the people alive until they can enter opioid use disorder treatment. Because dead addicts don’t recover.

 

Fentanyl is the New Heroin

aaaaoverdose-deaths

 

 

 

Big drug labs in China and Mexico have found it’s cheaper to manufacture the potent synthetic opioid fentanyl than it is to harvest and process opium into heroin. Therefore, much of what is sold as heroin is now mixed with fentanyl and its more potent analogues, sufentanil and carfentanil.

This is causing heroin overdose deaths in the U.S.  The National Institute on Drug Abuse issued a recent report saying that heroin overdose deaths increased over six-fold from 2002 to 2015. This is shown in the graphic at the beginning of this blog.

This problem is worse in some regions of our country than others; the Northeast has traditionally been plagued with heroin deaths at a high rates, but other areas of the country have higher rates of increase in heroin deaths.

There’s no way to know the potency of drugs sold as heroin, making it much easier to overdose and die.

There are some basic precautions that drug users can take to prevent overdose deaths. This is data all comes from the Harm Reduction Coalition:

  • Don’t use alone. Use with a friend, and stagger your injection times so that one person is alert enough to summon help if needed.
  • Have a naloxone kit available and know how to use it. You can get a free kit from many places, including harm reduction organizations. http://harmreduction.org/issues/overdose-prevention/tools-best-practices/od-kit-materials/
  • Do a test dose. This means instead of injecting your usual amount, try a tiny bit of the drug first, to help assess how strong it is.
  • Use new equipment, if possible. Some pharmacies are willing to sell new needles and syringes with no questions asked. Other drug users in your community may be able to tell you which pharmacies are willing to do this.
  • Remember that if you’ve had a period of time where you’ve been unable to use any drugs, your tolerance may be much lower. Highest overdose risk is seen in patients who have just been released from jail, from detox units, or from the hospital. Do NOT go back to the same amount you were using in the past.
  • Don’t mix drugs. Opioid overdose risk increases when other drugs are used too.
  • Consider getting into addiction treatment. https://findtreatment.samhsa.gov/

 

aaaaodpills

 

Treatment Implications for Intravenous Buprenorphine Use

Hokey Pokey

 

 

During the admission of new patients for opioid use disorder treatment, I ask about prior use of all drugs. I include the medications we use for treatment. I’ve done this since I started working at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) fifteen years ago.

Over the last few years, more patients say they’ve used illicit buprenorphine in the past. At first, I saw patients who were using it sublingually (under the tongue), as recommended, though still illicitly. Most of them wanted to see if this medication would work for them before they committed to the time and expense of entering a treatment program.

Over the past six months, I’m seeing more and more new patients who say they’re using buprenorphine intravenously. This past month, I’d estimate that a fourth of the patients who use buprenorphine illicitly are injecting it. Only a few said they snort buprenorphine.

This presents a big wrinkle to the treatment process.

I see why people use intravenous buprenorphine. It has low sublingual bioavailability, at around thirty percent. That means injecting two or three milligrams gives the same blood level as eight milligrams sublingually. In the short term, people injecting buprenorphine feel like it saves them money. In the long term, I’m certain it will cost more than they can imagine.

Buprenorphine tablets and films were not designed to be injected. Pills and films have fillers in them, and they aren’t sterile. Heating a mixture prior to injection will kill off some of the bacteria, so that’s a harm reduction practice. Using a filter can remove some of the particulate matter, also reducing the potential for harm. However, heat and filters can’t remove all the risk of injecting.

People on the internet insist the bioavailability of snorted buprenorphine is higher than sublingual use, but I doubt that. Either way, you bypass the liver because it crosses to the bloodstream via the veins of the nose or tongue. Plus, alkaline environments increase absorption and bioavailability for this drug, and the mouth is more alkaline than the nose.

Of course there is another reason people with opioid use disorder inject or snort their medication. Their brains associate the act of injecting or snorting with pleasure and euphoria, and can become addicted to the process and feeling of both means of ingestion.

Due to the ceiling on buprenorphine’s opioid effect, it is… arguably… one of the safest opioids a person could inject. But intravenous use is never safe.

Here’s only a partial list of complications from intravenous drug use:

  1. Overdose resulting in death, brain damage from low oxygen, stroke or heart attack from prolonged low oxygen
  2. Pulmonary edema (lungs fill with fluid)
  3. Skin abscesses and cellulitis
  4. Endocarditis (infection of heart valve that is life-threatening)
  5. Deep vein thrombosis (blood clot)
  6. Septic thrombophlebitis (infected blood clot)
  7. Contracting infections: HIV, Hep C or B
  8. Bacterial infections and abscesses in weird places like the spine, brain, joints, spleen, muscles, or eye
  9. Necrotizing fasciitis – rapid, “flesh- eating” infection, also botulism
  10. Pneumonia
  11. Septic emboli – when infected clots break off and go to the lungs, brain from infected heart valves
  12. Fungal blood/eye infections – (seen frequently when pills mixed with saliva are injected)

I have seen patients with every one of these complications. Most of them were in the distant past, when I was an Internal Medicine resident during the late 1980’s, but not all of them. Over the past six months, I’ve seen two patients with spinal abscesses from injecting drugs, though not necessarily buprenorphine.

The last time I posted about intravenous use of buprenorphine (November 2015), Dr. Wartenberg M.D. (pioneer in the addiction treatment field) wrote about the mitochondrial disease, which has caused liver failure, in European IV buprenorphine drug users. This disorder is specific to buprenorphine

So what are the treatment implications for a new patient who has injected buprenorphine?

First of all, these patients aren’t appropriate for office-based practices, even if the physician plans to prescribe the combination product with buprenorphine/naloxone. Clearly there are some patients who inject combination products and monoproducts. Granted, it’s less common, but it still occurs. There’s usually not enough oversight available at office-based practices to treat more complicated patients. I think they should be referred to opioid treatment programs, where they can be offered treatment with methadone.

What if the patient refuses methadone for some reason, or their risk with methadone is at too high from a medical view? Should patients with a history of injecting buprenorphine ever be treated with buprenorphine?

I think they can be – with great caution and daily dosing, on-site at the opioid treatment program.

At our OTP, we ask all buprenorphine patients to sit in a designated area while their dose dissolves. It usually takes around ten minutes, and they are watched by program personnel. Before they leave, each buprenorphine patient shows one of the staff their mouth, to show the medication is completely dissolved. It does feel a little “police-y” but we had a high incidence of diversion until we started this close observation.

If a patient tries to spit out their medication, they meet with me. I’m rarely willing to continue to prescribe buprenorphine if it appears they are trying to divert their medication. I meet with the patient and we discuss the option of methadone. If they refuse methadone, we try to refer them to another form of treatment.

If a patient with a history of injecting buprenorphine wants treatment with buprenorphine, I tell him I’m willing to give it a try, but that he can’t expect take home doses for a very long time, after months of observed dosing and stability. So far, this approach seems to be working. These patients are getting counseling, and haven’t attempted to divert their medication, so far as we can see. I’ve checked these patients for track marks, which in all cases appear to be healing, with no new marks.

When/if to grant these patients take homes remains a huge question. I don’t want to unduly burden a patient by insisting he must come every day forever, but I also don’t want to give the patient take home doses that could lead to a relapse back to intravenous use.