Use of a novel prescribing approach for the treatment of opioid use disorder: Buprenorphine/naloxone micro‐dosing – a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Buprenorphine/naloxone is an evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder, but an identified limitation is the period of required opioid abstinence prior to induction on the medication. 'Micro-dosing', or using incrementally increasing doses of buprenorphine/naloxone over time, may be a way to overcome this challenge as it can be done in parallel with the ongoing use of other opioids (either illicit or prescribed). DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective case series (January to December 2018) was completed of seven participants who underwent buprenorphine/naloxone induction using micro-dosing at two outpatient addiction clinics in Vancouver, Canada. RESULTS: Seven participants completed a 7-day buprenorphine/naloxone micro-dosing protocol. Prior to and during the induction, one participant was prescribed methadone, three were prescribed slow release oral morphine and three used only illicit fentanyl. Participants were prescribed sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone: 0.5 mg once daily (day 1), 0.5 mg twice daily (BID; day 2), 1 mg BID (day 3), 2 mg BID (day 4), 3 mg BID (day 5), 4 mg BID (day 6) and 12 mg once daily (day 7). On day 7, all prescribed or illicit full opioid agonists were discontinued. Buprenorphine/naloxone was subsequently titrated to a daily dose of between 12 and 32 mg. All patients reported success with buprenorphine/naloxone induction with no precipitated withdrawal. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine/naloxone micro-dosing may offer a promising alternative approach for successful induction for individuals with opioid use disorder who desire treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone, and further research to determine effectiveness is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".