Objective Patients receiving oral chemotherapies face treatment interruptions if they require placement of an enteral tube for nutrition, potentially leading to adverse outcomes in cancer treatment. Enteral tube medication administration can provide a suitable alternative. The purpose of this review is to compile available data that describe enteral tube administration of oral chemotherapy agents. Data sources: A systematic evaluation of all Food and Drug Administration-approved oral chemotherapy agents through 31 July 2019 was conducted. Information on crushing or opening of the tablet or capsule, enteral tube administration, and extemporaneous formulations was compiled from the prescribing information, tertiary resources, and primary literature. Drug manufacturers were contacted for additional information. Data summary: A total of 87 oral chemotherapy agents were evaluated. Of the 87 drugs, 33 agents (37.9%) had information regarding enteral tube administration with only four drugs with nasogastric or gastric tube administration instructions in their prescribing information. The strength of evidence varied from non-peer reviewed data to complete evaluations of efficacy and safety. The majority of chemotherapies (62%) had no available data on enteral tube administration. Conclusions The results of this review suggest that there is limited data surrounding enteral tube administration of most oral chemotherapies, demonstrating the need for more studies to be conducted to provide more guidance to healthcare providers when administration via an enteral tube is needed in their patients.

Background Buprenorphine is a partial mu-opioid receptor agonist approved for the treatment of opioid dependence. The risk of withdrawal symptoms and wait time required to safely initiate buprenorphine provides challenges to both patients and providers. Microdose induction is proposed as a possible solution to ease the transition to buprenorphine; however, little data has been published to date on patients stabilized on methadone doses greater than 100 mg. Case Report A 29-year-old patient stabilized on methadone 105 mg was successfully transitioned to sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone using a 7-day microdose protocol on an inpatient psychiatric service. During the transition, the patient reported only minimal symptoms. Conclusion This report adds to the growing literature supporting the use of a microdose induction to initiate buprenorphine-naloxone. Additionally, this approach may be significant for patients stabilized on high doses of methadone who may not be able to tolerate a traditional buprenorphine induction.

Transdermal buprenorphine is FDA approved for chronic severe pain but has an increasing amount of data supporting its use to transition patients from full opioid agonists to sublingual buprenorphine via a microdose strategy. The literature has primarily focused on patients with a pain diagnosis or who have been prescribed opioids in inpatient units. This case series reviews the use of transdermal buprenorphine to transition patients from methadone and illicit opioids to sublingual buprenorphine. The authors identified seven patients from an outpatient opiate treatment program who received the transdermal buprenorphine protocol. All patients were prescribed methadone and used illicit heroin prior to and during the transition. Five patients (71.4%) successfully completed the transition to sublingual buprenorphine, with all five patients reporting no or mild withdrawal symptoms. These findings suggest that transdermal buprenorphine is a potentially safe and effective microdose induction method for patients who use illicit substances in an outpatient setting.