Early T-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ETP ALL) is an aggressive malignancy of unknown genetic basis. We performed whole-genome sequencing of 12 ETP ALL cases and assessed the frequency of the identified somatic mutations in 94 T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia cases. ETP ALL was characterized by activating mutations in genes regulating cytokine receptor and RAS signalling (67% of cases; NRAS, KRAS, FLT3, IL7R, JAK3, JAK1, SH2B3 and BRAF), inactivating lesions disrupting haematopoietic development (58%; GATA3, ETV6, RUNX1, IKZF1 and EP300) and histone-modifying genes (48%; EZH2, EED, SUZ12, SETD2 and EP300). We also identified new targets of recurrent mutation including DNM2, ECT2L and RELN. The mutational spectrum is similar to myeloid tumours, and moreover, the global transcriptional profile of ETP ALL was similar to that of normal and myeloid leukaemia haematopoietic stem cells. These findings suggest that addition of myeloid-directed therapies might improve the poor outcome of ETP ALL.

More patients with opioid addiction are receiving opioid agonist therapy (OAT) with methadone and buprenorphine. As a result, physicians will more frequently encounter patients receiving OAT who develop acutely painful conditions, requiring effective treatment strategies. Undertreatment of acute pain is suboptimal medical treatment, and patients receiving long-term OAT are at particular risk. This paper acknowledges the complex interplay among addictive disease, OAT, and acute pain management and describes 4 common misconceptions resulting in suboptimal treatment of acute pain. Clinical recommendations for providing analgesia for patients with acute pain who are receiving OAT are presented. Although challenging, acute pain in patients receiving this type of therapy can effectively be managed.

Background-Opioid addiction is a chronic disease treatable in primary care settings with buprenorphine, but this treatment remains underutilized. We describe a collaborative care model for managing opioid addiction with buprenorphine.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Capacity for increased buprenorphine prescribing exists among physicians who have already obtained a waiver to prescribe. Increased efforts to link waivered physicians with opioid-dependent patients and initiatives to improve institutional support may mitigate barriers to buprenorphine treatment. Several guideline-driven practices have been widely adopted, such as adjunctive counseling and monitoring patients with drug screening.

IMPORTANCE The United States has invested substantially in screening and brief intervention for illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse, based in part on evidence of efficacy for unhealthy alcohol use. However, it is not a recommended universal preventive service in primary care because of lack of evidence of efficacy. OBJECTIVE To test the efficacy of 2 brief counseling interventions for unhealthy drug use (any illicit drug use or prescription drug misuse)—a brief negotiated interview (BNI) and an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MOTIV)—compared with no brief intervention. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This 3-group randomized trial took place at an urban hospital-based primary care internal medicine practice; 528 adult primary care patients with drug use (Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] substance-specific scores of $4) were identified by screening between June 2009 and January 2012 in Boston, Massachusetts. INTERVENTIONS Two interventions were tested: the BNI is a 10- to 15-minute structured interview conducted by health educators; the MOTIV is a 30- to 45-minute intervention based on motivational interviewing with a 20- to 30-minute booster conducted by master’s-level counselors. All study participants received a written list of substance use disorder treatment and mutual help resources. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome was number of days of use in the past 30 days of the self-identified main drug as determined by a validated calendar method at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included other self-reported measures of drug use, drug use according to hair testing, ASSIST scores (severity), drug use consequences, unsafe sex, mutual help meeting attendance, and health care utilization. RESULTS At baseline, 63% of participants reported their main drug was marijuana, 19% cocaine, and 17% opioids. At 6 months, 98% completed follow-up. Mean adjusted number of days using the main drug at 6 months was 12 for no brief intervention vs 11 for the BNI group (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77-1.22) and 12 for the MOTIV group (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.32; P = .81 for both comparisons vs no brief intervention). There were also no significant effects of BNI or MOTIV on any other outcome or in analyses stratified by main drug or drug use severity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Brief intervention did not have efficacy for decreasing unhealthy drug use in primary care patients identified by screening. These results do not support widespread implementation of illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse screening and brief intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00876941

No abstract

No abstract