Figure 1.
A 67-year-old women underwent PLF ten years ago, the right leg radicular pain for three years. The height of L5/S1 disc was declining on the X-ray image at the final follow-up.
Despite federal legislation intended to increase the prescribing of buprenorphine as medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) of 2000, most providers have continued to prescribe to some patients or to not prescribe at all. We aimed to determine the continuing barriers and supports needed for expanding buprenorphine prescribing and compared barriers experienced by emergency department (ED) physicians with those in other practice settings, given the unique aspects of the ED practice setting. We obtained survey data from August through November 2021 from 412 X-waivered Illinois physicians licensed to prescribe buprenorphine as MOUD, 95 (23.1%) of whom worked primarily in a hospital-based ED. Survey questions included: 1) Professional background, practice characteristics, and prescribing practices; 2) barriers to prescribing buprenorphine; 3) barriers to expanding prescribing; and 4) training/additional supports needed to facilitate buprenorphine prescribing. We used bivariate crosstabulations and multivariable OLS and binary logistic regressions to compare the responses of physicians practicing in the ED versus other practice settings and to compare physicians who prescribed buprenorphine in the past year with those who had not. There were few statistically significant differences among the examined subgroups indicating general agreement regardless of practice setting and prescribing status. The most frequently perceived barrier was having an inadequate community-based behavioral health treatment system to which OUD patients could be referred. Insurance reimbursement, difficulties building practice- and community-based systems to support buprenorphine prescribing, and challenges knowing where and how to refer patients for follow-up and ongoing support services were also prominent concerns. Based on study findings, efforts to expand buprenorphine for OUD might focus on providing support to make and manage treatment referrals and expanding the availability of community-based behavioral healthcare services. Building networks of care could potentially have a greater impact on MOUD availability than increasing the number of practitioners trained to prescribe buprenorphine.
Citation: James A. Swartz, Dana Franceschini, Nora M. Marino, Adrienne H. Call, Lisa Rosenberger, Sarah Whitehouse. Barriers and facilitators to prescribing buprenorphine for treating opioid use disorder among emergency department and other practice setting physicians[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2025, 12(1): 56-76. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2025005
| [1] | Xuan Zhang, Huiqin Jin, Zhuoqin Yang, Jinzhi Lei . Effects of elongation delay in transcription dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2014, 11(6): 1431-1448. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2014.11.1431 |
| [2] | Heli Tan, Tuoqi Liu, Tianshou Zhou . Exploring the role of eRNA in regulating gene expression. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(2): 2095-2119. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022098 |
| [3] | S. Hossein Hosseini, Marc R. Roussel . Analytic delay distributions for a family of gene transcription models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(6): 6225-6262. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024273 |
| [4] | Xiyan Yang, Zihao Wang, Yahao Wu, Tianshou Zhou, Jiajun Zhang . Kinetic characteristics of transcriptional bursting in a complex gene model with cyclic promoter structure. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(4): 3313-3336. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022153 |
| [5] | Linda J. S. Allen, P. van den Driessche . Stochastic epidemic models with a backward bifurcation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2006, 3(3): 445-458. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2006.3.445 |
| [6] | Qi Wang, Lifang Huang, Kunwen Wen, Jianshe Yu . The mean and noise of stochastic gene transcription with cell division. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(5): 1255-1270. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018058 |
| [7] | Qiuying Li, Lifang Huang, Jianshe Yu . Modulation of first-passage time for bursty gene expression via random signals. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2017, 14(5&6): 1261-1277. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017065 |
| [8] | Wai-Tong (Louis) Fan, Yifan (Johnny) Yang, Chaojie Yuan . Constrained Langevin approximation for the Togashi-Kaneko model of autocatalytic reactions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 4322-4352. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023201 |
| [9] | Ying He, Junlong Tao, Bo Bi . Stationary distribution for a three-dimensional stochastic viral infection model with general distributed delay. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(10): 18018-18029. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023800 |
| [10] | Pierre Degond, Maxime Herda, Sepideh Mirrahimi . A Fokker-Planck approach to the study of robustness in gene expression. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 6459-6486. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020338 |
Despite federal legislation intended to increase the prescribing of buprenorphine as medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) of 2000, most providers have continued to prescribe to some patients or to not prescribe at all. We aimed to determine the continuing barriers and supports needed for expanding buprenorphine prescribing and compared barriers experienced by emergency department (ED) physicians with those in other practice settings, given the unique aspects of the ED practice setting. We obtained survey data from August through November 2021 from 412 X-waivered Illinois physicians licensed to prescribe buprenorphine as MOUD, 95 (23.1%) of whom worked primarily in a hospital-based ED. Survey questions included: 1) Professional background, practice characteristics, and prescribing practices; 2) barriers to prescribing buprenorphine; 3) barriers to expanding prescribing; and 4) training/additional supports needed to facilitate buprenorphine prescribing. We used bivariate crosstabulations and multivariable OLS and binary logistic regressions to compare the responses of physicians practicing in the ED versus other practice settings and to compare physicians who prescribed buprenorphine in the past year with those who had not. There were few statistically significant differences among the examined subgroups indicating general agreement regardless of practice setting and prescribing status. The most frequently perceived barrier was having an inadequate community-based behavioral health treatment system to which OUD patients could be referred. Insurance reimbursement, difficulties building practice- and community-based systems to support buprenorphine prescribing, and challenges knowing where and how to refer patients for follow-up and ongoing support services were also prominent concerns. Based on study findings, efforts to expand buprenorphine for OUD might focus on providing support to make and manage treatment referrals and expanding the availability of community-based behavioral healthcare services. Building networks of care could potentially have a greater impact on MOUD availability than increasing the number of practitioners trained to prescribe buprenorphine.
Abbreviations: ASD: Adjacent segment disease; ODI: Oswestry disability index; JOA: Japanese orthopedic association; VAS: Visual analogue scale; PLF: Posterior lumbar fusion; PLIF: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion; FE-TF: Full-endoscopic transforaminal
Posterior lumbar decompression and fusion surgery (PLF/PLIF) with instrumentation has been widely used to treat lumbar spine diseases. Solid internal fixation is regarded as the golden standard for lumbar spinal surgery. This procedure can markedly increase the rate and rapidity of fusion and primary stabilization [1,2], however, there is an increasing number of clinical cases indicate that lumbar fusion can accelerate the degeneration of adjacent segments [3,4]. The adjacent segment disease (ASD) contains two types: One was called "radiographical ASD", the other type "clinical ASD" refers to clinical symptoms and signs that appearing at the adjacent segment [2]. The patients usually suffered from "clinical ASD". Previously, a small portion of ASD patients reluctantly accepted the open-revision surgery and experienced more pain and additional costs. The traditional open-revision surgery increases trauma of surgery and unacceptable. This study which using mini-invasive technique to treat ASD is rare in the current English literature. The present study investigated a mini-invasive technique, the full-endoscopic transforaminal (FE-TF) approach to treat the single-level ASD.
We retrospectively analyzed 33 patients who underwent revision surgery by the corresponding authors using full-endoscopic transforaminal procedure in our institution between December 2013 and April 2016. These patients were enrolled according to the following criteria: 1) The patient underwent PLF or PLIF surgery and was diagnosed single-level "clinical ASD" based on their clinical symptoms and signs. The X-ray and MRI also tell us the disc height declining and disc herniation at the upper or lower adjacent segment (Figures 1 and 2); 2) Conservative treatment was not effective at least three months; 3) No deformity, tumor or trauma. There were 15 males and 18 females with an average age of 71.8 years (range, 65–84 years). The details were showed in the Table 1. All patients had the X-ray, CT scan and MR of lumbar spine examination preoperatively. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to their enrollment in this study.
| Number of Patients | |
| Age | 71.0 years (range, 65–84years) |
| Sex | |
| Male(N) | 15 |
| Female(N) | 18 |
| Involved level | |
| L3/4 | 6 |
| L4/5 | 9 |
| L5/S1 | 18 |
| Patients symptoms* | |
| Radical pain (Right/Left legs) | 19 |
| Sphincter dysfunction | 1 |
| Lower limbs numbness/ weakness | 21 |
| * There were many patients have several clinical symptoms. | |
DownLoad:
CSV
All patients took a lateral position with local anesthesia (Figure 3). The FE-TF procedure was performed with 12 to 13 cm lateral far from the midline, an atraumatic spinal cannula was inserted via the 2.0 cm skin incision (Figure 4). After the insertion of a lead wire, the cannulated dilator was pushed in larger and larger. A part of the superior articular process was removed, and the intervertebral foramen was expanded using burr drill. A work tube with beveled is placed, and the light and constant irrigation equipment were installed. Thereafter, decompression was performed while maintaining visual control and constant irrigation.
33 patients (average 71 years, ranged 65–84 years old) underwent full-endoscopic transforaminal procedure were involved. The improvement was analyzed using paired-samples t test pre- and post-operatively. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. All tests were performed using the statistical program SPSS (version 19.0, SPSS, Inc.).
The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score between 0 (no pain) and 10 (maximal pain), Modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) score (Table 2) [5,6], and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to evaluate the clinical effects. For all participants, The VAS, mJOA and ODI were measured mainly at two points in time: Pre-operative and one year after surgery. The hospital stay, hospitalization costs and blood loss were investigated according to the patients' records.
| Parameter | mJOA score |
| Subjective symptoms | 6 |
| Low back pain or leg pain | |
| none | 0 |
| occasional mild pain | 1 |
| frequent mild or occasional severe pain | 2 |
| frequent or continuous severe pain | 3 |
| Numbness | |
| none | 0 |
| occasional numbness | 1 |
| frequent numbness, alleviate spontaneously | 2 |
| continuous numbness | 3 |
| Objective signs | 12 |
| Paravertebral tenderness | |
| none | 0 |
| mild | 1 |
| moderate | 2 |
| severe | 3 |
| Myodynamia | |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4–5 | 1 |
| 3–4 | 2 |
| < 3 | 3 |
| Straight leg raise (Lasegue sign) | |
| > 70° Bragard sign (–) | 0 |
| > 45° Bragard sign (+) | 1 |
| > 30° Bragard sign (+) | 2 |
| < 30° Bragard sign (+) | 3 |
| Radicular pain | |
| none | 0 |
| hip or thigh | 1 |
| calf | 2 |
| foot | 3 |
| Restriction of activities of daily living | 12 |
| Bending down and lifting heavy objects | |
| bending down normal, lifting > 3 kg | 0 |
| bending down ok, lifting < 3 kg | 1 |
| unable to bend down, lifting < 3 kg | 2 |
| unable to bend down or lifting heavy objects | 3 |
| Gait | |
| able to walk > 1000 m or > 60 min | 0 |
| able to walk > 500 m or > 30 min | 1 |
| able to walk > 100 m or > 10 min | 2 |
| able to walk < 100 m | 3 |
| Bed rest time | |
| 10 h | 0 |
| 10–12 h | 1 |
| 12–16 h | 2 |
| > 16 h | 3 |
| Work ability | |
| full-time work | 0 |
| able to work, need occasional rest | 1 |
| able to work, need frequent rest | 2 |
| unable to work | 3 |
| Total score is 30. Improvement rate (IR) = (preoperative JOA scores–postoperative JOA scores)/preoperative JOA scores *100%. The excellent result is IR > 75%; good: 50–75%; ordinary: 25–50%; bad: < 25%. | |
DownLoad:
CSV
All patients' symptoms were released significantly at the first day of follow-up after surgery. The mean VAS was 1.8 postoperatively while it was 8.4 preoperatively. The mean mJOA score was 5.4 postoperatively while it was 24.6 preoperatively. Improvement rate was 78.0%. The mean ODI was 14.6 postoperatively while it was 89.2 preoperatively. All patients were discharged after average 2.5 days of hospital stay. The mean hospitalization cost was ＄3500.0 (according to 1 dollar = 6.5 RMB). The mean blood loss was 15 mL. There was no complication and recurrence occurred at the final follow-up. The details were showed in Table 3.
| Pre-op | Post-op | P value | |
| Average mJOA score | 24.6 ± 8.4 | 5.4 ± 2.3 | < 0.001 |
| IR* | 78% | ||
| Average VAS | 8.4 ± 2.8 | 1.8 ± 0.6 | < 0.001 |
| Average ODI | 89.2 ± 17 | 14.6 ± 12 | < 0.001 |
| Hospital stay (day) | 2.5 ± 1.2 | ||
| Hospitalization Cost (dollar) | 3500.0 ± 234 | ||
| Blood loss (mL) | 15.0 ± 3.6 | ||
| Complications (at the final follow-up) | None | ||
| Recurrence (at the final follow-up) | None | ||
| *The IR = improvement rate = (preoperative JOA scores–postoperative JOA scores)/preoperative JOA scores *100%. The excellent result is IR > 75%. | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
PLF/PLIF with instrumentation has been widely accepted by spine surgeons to treat lumbar spine disease all over the world. PLF and PLIF are now standard procedures in the spinal surgeons' armamentarium for treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases [7,8,9]. Solid internal fixation is regarded as the gold standard for lumbar spinal decompression because it can provide primary stabilization [1,2]. However, there is a growing number of clinical cases indicate that lumbar fusion can accelerate degeneration of adjacent segments. Harrop et al. [10] reported that 34% of patients developed radiographical ASD and the symptoms of degeneration manifested in 14% of patients by a systematic review. It makes a lot of sense to investigate the risk factors for developing ASD after lumbar fusion with instrumentation in addition to evaluate the incidence of ASD. Many risk factors have been reported to accelerate the developing of ASD in previous studies, such as age, gender, osteoporosis and menopause. Aota et al. [11] emphasized that it showed much higher incidence of ASD in older patients (>55 years old). Etebar et al. [12] claimed that the incidence of ASD was higher in females. However, Anandjiwala et al. [13] showed that there is no significant difference in the rate of degeneration at adjacent segments by age and gender in 68 cases after lumbar fusion, and this study arrived at the same conclusion.
Although the mechanism of ASD still remains controversial, the incidence and severity of ASD cannot be ignored. What is the best choice to treat ASD for surgeons while the patients suffered from it? Traditionally, open posterior techniques would usually be used for revision surgery. However, these techniques require extensive tissue and can cause atrophy of muscles. At the clinical follow-up, the muscle atrophy, loss of function, and increased pain always been evidenced [14]. The traditional open-procedure takes severe injury and is unacceptable for patients. Many patients usually reluctantly accepted the open-revision surgery because they don't want to experience the long skin incision and pain caused by surgery. The extension of the fusion often be used in the spine surgery, but transpedicular fixation should be considered, given that Whitecloud et al. reported an 80% pseudarthrosis rate in a small cohort of patients fused without instrumentation. Many patients sill complained about pain after undergoing surgery for ASD. Fourteen patients accepted decompression and extension of fusion reported by Whitecloud et al. However, most showed no improvement or only modest improvement of discomfort with persistent functional limitations and continued need for pain medications [15]. Schlegel et al. further investigate 37 patients who underwent either decompression alone or decompression and extension of fusion [16]. At 2 years follow-up, 26 of 37 patients had good-to-excellent improvement in back and leg pain, and 7 of the 37 patients eventually required another operation. In another study specifically showed surgery for symptomatic stenosis, 11 of 26 patients were either neutral or dissatisfied with their results, even though leg symptoms were generally improved [17]. Decompression was performed on all 26 of these patients, but fusion extension was limited to 22 patients. Chen et al. recently reported modestly improved outcomes compared to previously reported results for treating 39 patients with adjacent segment instability and stenosis [18]. At 5 years follow-up, 77% of the patients achieved good-to-excellent results. For revision-surgery, agammaessive surgeons often use extensive removal of the medial facets and foraminotomies and transpedicular fixation. Most patients may develop disease at the succeeding adjacent segment after having been undergone successful fusion across the adjacent segment. It may take the risk for recurrent ASD on long-term prognosis [19].
The FE-TF technique is a new procedure and develops rapidly in recent years. When taking the appropriate criteria into account, the FE-TF surgery is a sufficient and safe supplementation and alternative to treat the ASD. In the current literature, there were many papers reported the FE-TF can achieve the similarly satisfactory clinical outcomes and is less invasive. Lee et al [20]. Reported that the mean operating time and hospital stay of the FE-TF group was 45.8 minutes and 0.9 day, respectively. And they were significantly shorter than that in the open-surgery group. Another study reported that FE-TF and open-surgery achieved similar clinical outcomes, but the FE-TF is less invasive than open surgery in selected cases [21].
In our study, all patients using local anesthesia and the patients' symptoms were released markedly at the first day after operation and discharged in mean 2.5 days. There was no recurrence at the final follow-up. The mJOA scores have significantly improved postoperatively and at the final follow-up. The VAS scores also showed a significant decrease from 8.4 preoperatively to 1.8 postoperatively. The mean ODI was 14.6 at the final follow-up. The mean hospitalization cost and blood loss was ＄3500 and 15 mL, respectively. No complication was found in selected patients. Full-endoscopic transforaminal approach is a safe and effective technique. It is economical, mini-invasive and acceptable for patients. Of course, it also can shorten the length of hospital stay and decrease bleeding. However, this technique needs very experienced surgeon.
Although the FE-TF procedure is a new technique and needs a long learning curve, it is a safe and effective approach to treat the ASD on the basis of selecting the appropriate patients. Meanwhile, it also needs more deep research, large sample scale and long-term follow-up.
Supported by Pudong health bureau of shanghai (No. PW2017F-1) and Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai, China (No. 19ZR1441700).
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
| [1] | Congressional Research ServiceThe opioid crisis in the United States: A brief history (2022). Available from: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12260 |
| [2] | Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000, H.R. 2634, 106th Cong (2000). |
| [3] |
Saloner B, Adraka-Christou B, Stein BD, et al. (2023) Will the end of the X-waiver expand access to buprenorphine treatment achieving the full potential of the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Subst Abus 44: 108-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/08897077231186212 
|
| [4] |
McBain RK, Dick A, Sorbero M, et al. (2020) Growth and Distribution of Buprenorphine-Waivered Providers in the United States, 2007–2017. Ann Intern Med 172: 504-506. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-2403
|
| [5] |
Larochelle MR, Jones CM, Zhang K (2023) Change in opioid and buprenorphine prescribers and prescriptions by specialty, 2016–2021. Drug Alcohol Depend 248: 109933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.109933
|
| [6] |
Jones CM, Han B, Baldwin GT, et al. (2023) Use of Medication for Opioid Use Disorder Among Adults With Past-Year Opioid Use Disorder in the US, 2021. JAMA Netw Open 6: e2327488. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.27488
|
| [7] |
Cabreros I, Griffin BA, Saloner B, et al. (2021) Buprenorphine prescriber monthly patient caseloads: An examination of 6-year trajectories. Drug Alcohol Depend 228: 109089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109089
|
| [8] | Swartz JA, Franceschini D, Call A, et al. (2022) Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities (SUPPORT) enrolled in Illinois Medicaid managed care - final project report. Chicago, IL: Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. |
| [9] |
Jones CM, Olsen Y, Ali MM, et al. (2023) Characteristics and prescribing patterns of clinicians waivered to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder before and after release of new practice guidelines. JAMA Health Forum 4: e231982. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.1982
|
| [10] |
Thomas CP, Doyle E, Kreiner PW, et al. (2017) Prescribing patterns of buprenorphine waivered physicians. Drug Alcohol Depend 181: 213-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.10.002
|
| [11] | Pergolizzi J, LeQuang JAK, Breve F (2021) The End of the X-Waiver: Not a Moment Too Soon!. Cureus 13: e15123. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.15123 |
| [12] |
LeFevre N, St Louis J, Worringer E, et al. (2023) The End of the X-waiver: Excitement, Apprehension, and Opportunity. J Am Board Fam Med 36: 867-872. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230048R1
|
| [13] |
Jones CM, Campopiano M, Baldwin G, et al. (2015) National and state treatment need and capacity for opioid agonist medication-assisted treatment. Am J Public Health 105: e55-e63. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302664
|
| [14] |
Silwal A, Talbert J, Bohler RM, et al. (2023) State alignment with federal regulations in 2022 to relax buprenorphine 30-patient waiver requirements. Drug Alcohol Depend Rep 7: 100164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadr.2023.100164
|
| [15] | Consolidated Appropriations Act, H.R. 2617 (2023). |
| [16] |
Varisco TJ, Wanat M, Hill LG, et al. (2023) The impact of the mainstreaming addiction treatment act and associated legislative action on pharmacy practice. J Am Pharm Assoc 63: 1039-1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2023.04.016
|
| [17] |
Cowan E, Perrone J, Bernstein SL, et al. (2023) National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network Meeting Report: Advancing emergency department initiation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. Ann Emerg Med 82: 326-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2023.03.025
|
| [18] |
Lanham HJ, Papac J, Olmos DI, et al. (2022) Survey of barriers and facilitators to prescribing buprenorphine and clinician perceptions on the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 Waiver. JAMA Netw Open 5: e2212419. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12419
|
| [19] |
Haffajee RL, Andraka-Christou B, Attermann J, et al. (2020) A mixed-method comparison of physician-reported beliefs about and barriers to treatment with medications for opioid use disorder. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 15: 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-020-00312-3
|
| [20] |
Stopka TJ, Babineau DC, Gibson EB, et al. (2024) Impact of the Communities That HEAL Intervention on Buprenorphine-Waivered Practitioners and Buprenorphine Prescribing: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the HCS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 7: e240132. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.0132
|
| [21] |
Andraka-Christou B, Capone MJ (2018) A qualitative study comparing physician-reported barriers to treating addiction using buprenorphine and extended-release naltrexone in U.S. office-based practices. Int J Drug Policy 54: 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.11.021
|
| [22] |
Rhee TG, D'Onofrio G, Fiellin DA (2020) Trends in the use of buprenorphine in US emergency departments, 2002–2017. JAMA Netw Open 3: e2021209. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.21209
|
| [23] |
Choi S, Biello KB, Bazzi AR, et al. (2019) Age differences in emergency department utilization and repeat visits among patients with opioid use disorder at an urban safety-net hospital: A focus on young adults. Drug Alcohol Depend 200: 14-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.02.030
|
| [24] |
Kaczorowski J, Bilodeau J, A MO, et al. (2020) Emergency Department-initiated Interventions for Patients With Opioid Use Disorder: A Systematic Review. Acad Emerg Med 27: 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14054
|
| [25] |
Cao SS, Dunham SI, Simpson SA (2020) Prescribing buprenorphine for opioid use disorders in the ED: A review of best practices, barriers, and future directions. Open Access Emerg Med 12: 261-274. https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S267416
|
| [26] |
Pourmand A, Beisenova K, Shukur N, et al. (2021) A practical review of buprenorphine utilization for the emergency physician in the era of decreased prescribing restrictions. Am J Emerg Med 48: 316-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2021.06.065
|
| [27] |
Hawk KF, D'Onofrio G, Chawarski MC, et al. (2020) Barriers and facilitators to clinician readiness to provide emergency department-initiated buprenorphine. JAMA Netw Open 3: e204561. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4561
|
| [28] |
Herring AA, Rosen AD, Samuels EA, et al. (2024) Emergency department access to buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. JAMA Netw Open 7: e2353771. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.53771
|
| [29] |
Kaucher KA, Caruso EH, Sungar G, et al. (2020) Evaluation of an emergency department buprenorphine induction and medication-assisted treatment referral program. Am J Emerg Med 38: 300-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.158373
|
| [30] | SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, H.R. 6, 115th Cong (2018). |
| [31] | (2021) StataCorpStata 17.1 for Mac [Computer Software]. College Station, TX: StataCorp. |
| [32] |
Andrade C (2019) Multiple testing and protection against a type 1 (false positive) error using the Bonferroni and Hochberg corrections. Indian J Psychol Med 41: 99-100. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_499_18
|
| [33] | Madras B, Ahmad NJ, Wen J, et al. (2020) Improving acces to evidence-based medical treatment for opioid use disorder: Strategies to address key barriers within the treatment system. NAM Perspect 2020: 10.31478/202004b. https://doi.org/10.31478/202004b |
 publichealth-12-01-005-s001.pdf |
 |
| 1. | Nan Wang, Yimin Xie, Xiyu Liu, Yawei Zheng, Zhipeng Xi, Wenqiang Xu, Rongrong Deng, Tian Tang, Xin Liu, Robert Jeenchen Chen, Safety and clinical efficacy of endoscopic procedures for the treatment of adjacent segmental disease after lumbar fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis, 2023, 18, 1932-6203, e0280135, 10.1371/journal.pone.0280135 | |
| 2. | PEDRO FELLIPE DEBORTO RUDINE REMOLLI EVANGELISTA, ABGAIL GOMES SILVA, FELIPE DONATANGELO, LINA MARCIA DE ARAUJO HERVAL, ENDOSCOPY IN LUMBAR ADJACENT LEVEL DISEASE - SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS, 2025, 24, 2177-014X, 10.1590/s1808-185120252401289025 | |
| 3. | Turgut Kuytu, Ahmet Karaoğlu, “Short-segment lumbar fusion” vs.“microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach” after removal of the spinal fixators in patients with adjacent segment disease: Clinical retrospective study, 2025, 25298496, 500654, 10.1016/j.neucie.2025.500654 |
James A. Swartz, Dana Franceschini, Nora M. Marino, Adrienne H. Call, Lisa Rosenberger, Sarah Whitehouse. Barriers and facilitators to prescribing buprenorphine for treating opioid use disorder among emergency department and other practice setting physicians[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2025, 12(1): 56-76. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2025005
| Number of Patients | |
| Age | 71.0 years (range, 65–84years) |
| Sex | |
| Male(N) | 15 |
| Female(N) | 18 |
| Involved level | |
| L3/4 | 6 |
| L4/5 | 9 |
| L5/S1 | 18 |
| Patients symptoms* | |
| Radical pain (Right/Left legs) | 19 |
| Sphincter dysfunction | 1 |
| Lower limbs numbness/ weakness | 21 |
| * There were many patients have several clinical symptoms. | |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Parameter | mJOA score |
| Subjective symptoms | 6 |
| Low back pain or leg pain | |
| none | 0 |
| occasional mild pain | 1 |
| frequent mild or occasional severe pain | 2 |
| frequent or continuous severe pain | 3 |
| Numbness | |
| none | 0 |
| occasional numbness | 1 |
| frequent numbness, alleviate spontaneously | 2 |
| continuous numbness | 3 |
| Objective signs | 12 |
| Paravertebral tenderness | |
| none | 0 |
| mild | 1 |
| moderate | 2 |
| severe | 3 |
| Myodynamia | |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4–5 | 1 |
| 3–4 | 2 |
| < 3 | 3 |
| Straight leg raise (Lasegue sign) | |
| > 70° Bragard sign (–) | 0 |
| > 45° Bragard sign (+) | 1 |
| > 30° Bragard sign (+) | 2 |
| < 30° Bragard sign (+) | 3 |
| Radicular pain | |
| none | 0 |
| hip or thigh | 1 |
| calf | 2 |
| foot | 3 |
| Restriction of activities of daily living | 12 |
| Bending down and lifting heavy objects | |
| bending down normal, lifting > 3 kg | 0 |
| bending down ok, lifting < 3 kg | 1 |
| unable to bend down, lifting < 3 kg | 2 |
| unable to bend down or lifting heavy objects | 3 |
| Gait | |
| able to walk > 1000 m or > 60 min | 0 |
| able to walk > 500 m or > 30 min | 1 |
| able to walk > 100 m or > 10 min | 2 |
| able to walk < 100 m | 3 |
| Bed rest time | |
| 10 h | 0 |
| 10–12 h | 1 |
| 12–16 h | 2 |
| > 16 h | 3 |
| Work ability | |
| full-time work | 0 |
| able to work, need occasional rest | 1 |
| able to work, need frequent rest | 2 |
| unable to work | 3 |
| Total score is 30. Improvement rate (IR) = (preoperative JOA scores–postoperative JOA scores)/preoperative JOA scores *100%. The excellent result is IR > 75%; good: 50–75%; ordinary: 25–50%; bad: < 25%. | |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Pre-op | Post-op | P value | |
| Average mJOA score | 24.6 ± 8.4 | 5.4 ± 2.3 | < 0.001 |
| IR* | 78% | ||
| Average VAS | 8.4 ± 2.8 | 1.8 ± 0.6 | < 0.001 |
| Average ODI | 89.2 ± 17 | 14.6 ± 12 | < 0.001 |
| Hospital stay (day) | 2.5 ± 1.2 | ||
| Hospitalization Cost (dollar) | 3500.0 ± 234 | ||
| Blood loss (mL) | 15.0 ± 3.6 | ||
| Complications (at the final follow-up) | None | ||
| Recurrence (at the final follow-up) | None | ||
| *The IR = improvement rate = (preoperative JOA scores–postoperative JOA scores)/preoperative JOA scores *100%. The excellent result is IR > 75%. | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Number of Patients | |
| Age | 71.0 years (range, 65–84years) |
| Sex | |
| Male(N) | 15 |
| Female(N) | 18 |
| Involved level | |
| L3/4 | 6 |
| L4/5 | 9 |
| L5/S1 | 18 |
| Patients symptoms* | |
| Radical pain (Right/Left legs) | 19 |
| Sphincter dysfunction | 1 |
| Lower limbs numbness/ weakness | 21 |
| * There were many patients have several clinical symptoms. | |
| Parameter | mJOA score |
| Subjective symptoms | 6 |
| Low back pain or leg pain | |
| none | 0 |
| occasional mild pain | 1 |
| frequent mild or occasional severe pain | 2 |
| frequent or continuous severe pain | 3 |
| Numbness | |
| none | 0 |
| occasional numbness | 1 |
| frequent numbness, alleviate spontaneously | 2 |
| continuous numbness | 3 |
| Objective signs | 12 |
| Paravertebral tenderness | |
| none | 0 |
| mild | 1 |
| moderate | 2 |
| severe | 3 |
| Myodynamia | |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4–5 | 1 |
| 3–4 | 2 |
| < 3 | 3 |
| Straight leg raise (Lasegue sign) | |
| > 70° Bragard sign (–) | 0 |
| > 45° Bragard sign (+) | 1 |
| > 30° Bragard sign (+) | 2 |
| < 30° Bragard sign (+) | 3 |
| Radicular pain | |
| none | 0 |
| hip or thigh | 1 |
| calf | 2 |
| foot | 3 |
| Restriction of activities of daily living | 12 |
| Bending down and lifting heavy objects | |
| bending down normal, lifting > 3 kg | 0 |
| bending down ok, lifting < 3 kg | 1 |
| unable to bend down, lifting < 3 kg | 2 |
| unable to bend down or lifting heavy objects | 3 |
| Gait | |
| able to walk > 1000 m or > 60 min | 0 |
| able to walk > 500 m or > 30 min | 1 |
| able to walk > 100 m or > 10 min | 2 |
| able to walk < 100 m | 3 |
| Bed rest time | |
| 10 h | 0 |
| 10–12 h | 1 |
| 12–16 h | 2 |
| > 16 h | 3 |
| Work ability | |
| full-time work | 0 |
| able to work, need occasional rest | 1 |
| able to work, need frequent rest | 2 |
| unable to work | 3 |
| Total score is 30. Improvement rate (IR) = (preoperative JOA scores–postoperative JOA scores)/preoperative JOA scores *100%. The excellent result is IR > 75%; good: 50–75%; ordinary: 25–50%; bad: < 25%. | |
| Pre-op | Post-op | P value | |
| Average mJOA score | 24.6 ± 8.4 | 5.4 ± 2.3 | < 0.001 |
| IR* | 78% | ||
| Average VAS | 8.4 ± 2.8 | 1.8 ± 0.6 | < 0.001 |
| Average ODI | 89.2 ± 17 | 14.6 ± 12 | < 0.001 |
| Hospital stay (day) | 2.5 ± 1.2 | ||
| Hospitalization Cost (dollar) | 3500.0 ± 234 | ||
| Blood loss (mL) | 15.0 ± 3.6 | ||
| Complications (at the final follow-up) | None | ||
| Recurrence (at the final follow-up) | None | ||
| *The IR = improvement rate = (preoperative JOA scores–postoperative JOA scores)/preoperative JOA scores *100%. The excellent result is IR > 75%. | |||
