A randomized, double-blind evaluation of buprenorphine taper duration in primary prescription opioid abusers

Buprenorphine Enhanced Taper Tolerability Evaluation Report (BETTER): A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Discontinuing sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BUP) has been identified by some patients as a potential outcome of success for opioid use disorder treatment. The process of tapering SL-BUP can be lengthy as unpleasant opioid withdrawal symptoms limit the pace of dose adjustments. Uncontrolled withdrawal symptoms pose a risk for return to illicit opioid use and more patient-centered options for tapering SL-BUP are needed. Previous case reports have identified using extended-release subcutaneous buprenorphine (ER-BUP) to minimize withdrawal symptoms as the dose self-decreases very gradually. Ideal dosing strategies, appropriate patient characteristics, and duration of buprenorphine release with the ER-BUP injection are not well described.

PATIENT CASES

We present 8 cases where a single 100 mg ER-BUP injection was administered to patients experiencing intolerable withdrawal symptoms during SL-BUP taper. Patients were taking between 2 and 6 mg SL-BUP daily prior to injection. Three patients experienced mild adverse effects the day after receiving injection, all of which were taking lower SL-BUP doses (2-3 mg). In the 12 months following injection, 3 patients experienced mild, but tolerable withdrawal symptoms at variable intervals. Two patients returned to taking SL-BUP and no patients returned to illicit opioid use. Buprenorphine urine toxicology showed elimination of buprenorphine occurred after 24 weeks.

DISCUSSION

Findings from these cases support current evidence-based guidance that ER-BUP tapering is better tolerated than traditional SL-BUP tapering. These patient cases and pharmacokinetic modeling of ER-BUP suggest that a target preinjection dose of 2 to 6 mg SL-BUP will minimize the risk of more severe adverse effects or withdrawal symptoms. Patients and providers should ensure that remission is well-established before initiating SL-BUP taper. A shared decision-making approach can help support patient autonomy and understanding safety risks of discontinuing SL-BUP. Future prospective studies with larger populations could further refine dosing strategies with various SL-BUP preinjection doses and newer ER-BUP formulations.

Wireless electroencephalography (EEG) to monitor sleep among patients being withdrawn from opioids: Evidence of feasibility and utility

Sleep impairment is a common comorbid and debilitating symptom for persons with opioid use disorder (OUD). Research into underlying mechanisms and efficacious treatment interventions for OUD-related sleep problems requires both precise and physiologic measurements of sleep-related outcomes and impairment. This pilot examined the feasibility of a wireless sleep electroencephalography (EEG) monitor (Sleep Profiler™) to measure sleep outcomes and architecture among participants undergoing supervised opioid withdrawal. Sleep outcomes were compared to a self-reported sleep diary and opioid withdrawal ratings. Participants (n = 8, 100% male) wore the wireless EEG 85.6% of scheduled nights. Wireless EEG detected measures of sleep architecture including changes in total, NREM and REM sleep time during study phases, whereas the diary detected changes in wakefulness only. Direct comparisons of five overlapping outcomes revealed lower sleep efficiency and sleep onset latency and higher awakenings and time spent awake from the wireless EEG versus sleep diary. Associations were evident between wireless EEG and increased withdrawal severity, lower sleep efficiency, less time in REM and non-REM stages 1 and 2, and more hydroxyzine treatment; sleep diary was associated with total sleep time and withdrawal only. Data provide initial evidence that a wireless EEG is a feasible and useful tool for objective monitoring of sleep in persons experiencing acute opioid withdrawal. Data are limited by the small and exclusively male sample, but provide a foundation for using wireless EEG sleep monitors for objective evaluation of sleep-related impairment in persons with OUD in support of mechanistic and treatment intervention research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Duration of medication treatment for opioid-use disorder and risk of overdose among Medicaid enrollees in 11 states: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduces harms associated with opioid use disorder (OUD), including risk of overdose. Understanding how variation in MOUD duration influences overdose risk is important as health-care payers increasingly remove barriers to treatment continuation (e.g. prior authorization). This study measured the association between MOUD continuation, relative to discontinuation, and opioid-related overdose among Medicaid beneficiaries.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using landmark survival analysis. We estimated the association between treatment continuation and overdose risk at 5 points after the index, or first, MOUD claim. Censoring events included death and disenrollment.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Medicaid programs in 11 US states: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. A total of 293 180 Medicaid beneficiaries aged 18-64 years with a diagnosis of OUD and had a first MOUD claim between 2016 and 2017.

MEASUREMENTS

MOUD formulations included methadone, buprenorphine and naltrexone. We measured medically treated opioid-related overdose within claims within 12 months of the index MOUD claim.

FINDINGS

Results were consistent across states. In pooled results, 5.1% of beneficiaries had an overdose, and 67% discontinued MOUD before an overdose or censoring event within 12 months. Beneficiaries who continued MOUD beyond 60 days had a lower relative overdose hazard ratio (HR) compared with those who discontinued by day 60 [HR = 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.36-0.42; P < 0.0001]. MOUD continuation was associated with lower overdose risk at 120 days (HR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.31-0.37; P < 0.0001), 180 days (HR = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.29-0.34; P < 0.0001), 240 days (HR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.26-0.31; P < 0.0001) and 300 days (HR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.24-0.32; P < 0.0001). The hazard of overdose was 10% lower with each additional 60 days of MOUD (95% CI = 0.88-0.92; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuation of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in US Medicaid beneficiaries was associated with a substantial reduction in overdose risk up to 12 months after the first claim for MOUD.

Interventions to Reduce Opioid Use in Youth At-Risk and in Treatment for Substance Use Disorders: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Youth and young adults have been significantly impacted by the opioid overdose and health crisis in North America. There is evidence of increasing morbidity and mortality due to opioids among those aged 15-29. Our review of key international reports indicates there are few youth-focused interventions and treatments for opioid use. Our scoping review sought to identify, characterize, and qualitatively evaluate the youth-specific clinical and pre-clinical interventions for opioid use among youth.

METHOD

We searched MedLine and PsycInfo for articles that were published between 2013 and 2021. Previous reports published in 2015 and 2016 did not identify opioid-specific interventions for youth and we thus focused on the time period following the periods covered by these prior reports. We input three groups of relevant keywords in the aforementioned search engines. Specifically, articles were included if they targeted a youth population (ages 15-25), studied an intervention, and measured impacts on opioid use.

RESULTS

We identified 21 studies that examined the impacts of heterogeneous interventions on youth opioid consumption. The studies were classified inductively as psycho-social-educational, pharmacological, or combined pharmacological-psycho-social-educational. Most studies focused on treatment of opioid use disorder among youth, with few studies focused on early or experimental stages of opioid use. A larger proportion of studies focused heavily on male participants (i.e., male gender and/or sex). Very few studies involved and/or included youth in treatment/program development, with one study premised on previous research about sexual minority youth.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on treatments and interventions for youth using or at-risk of opioids appears to be sparse. More youth involvement in research and program development is vital. The intersectional and multi-factorial nature of youth opioid use and the youth opioid crisis necessitates the development and evaluation of novel treatments that address youth-specific contexts and needs (i.e., those that address socio-economic, neurobiological, psychological, and environmental factors that promote opioid use among youth).

A Qualitative Systematic Review of Access to Substance Use Disorder Care in the United States Criminal Justice System

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients with a substance use disorder (SUD) in the United States do not receive evidence-based treatment. Research has also demonstrated challenges to accessing SUD care in the US criminal justice system. We conducted a systematic review of access to SUD care in the US criminal justice system.

METHODS

We searched for comprehensive qualitative studies in multiple databases through April 2021, and two researchers reviewed 6858 studies using pre-selected inclusion criteria. Once eligibility was determined, themes were extracted from the data. This review provides a thematic overview of the US qualitative studies to inform future research-based interventions. This review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

RESULTS

There were 6858 unique abstract results identified for review, and seven qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Two themes were identified from these results: (1) managing withdrawal from medication-assisted treatment, and (2) facilitators and barriers to treatment programs in the criminal justice system.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative research evaluating access to SUD care in the US criminal justice system varied, with some interventions reported not rooted in evidence-based medicine. An opportunity may exist to develop best practices to ensure evidence-based treatment for SUDs is delivered to patients who need it in the US criminal justice system.

Opioid agonist treatment for people who are dependent on pharmaceutical opioids

BACKGROUND

There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of maintenance opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and two trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs with adults and adolescents examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons. 1. Full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment. 2. Full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus non-opioid agonist treatments (detoxification, opioid antagonist, or psychological treatment without opioid agonist treatment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs that met inclusion criteria (709 participants). We found four studies that compared methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment, and four studies that compared buprenorphine maintenance to either buprenorphine taper (in addition to psychological treatment) or a non-opioid maintenance treatment comparison. We found low-certainty evidence from three studies of a difference between methadone and buprenorphine in favour of methadone on self-reported opioid use at end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.86; 165 participants), and low-certainty evidence from four studies finding a difference in favour of methadone for retention in treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; 379 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from three studies showing no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on substance use measured with urine drug screens at end of treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 206 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence from one study of no difference in days of self-reported opioid use (mean difference 1.41 days, 95% CI 3.37 lower to 0.55 days higher; 129 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.93; 206 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from four studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over non-opioid treatments in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests at end of treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84; 270 participants), and very low-certainty evidence from four studies finding no difference on self-reported opioid use in the past 30 days at end of treatment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01; 276 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in the number of days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.09; 205 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from four studies favouring buprenorphine maintenance over non-opioid treatments on retention in treatment (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.27; 333 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in adverse effects between buprenorphine maintenance and non-opioid treatments (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.48; 252 participants). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs, and difference in follow-up rates between treatment arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is  very low- to moderate-certainty evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine did not differ on some outcomes, although on the outcomes of retention and self-reported substance use some results favoured methadone. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appears more effective than non-opioid treatments. Due to the overall very low- to moderate-certainty evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.

Buprenorphine and its formulations: a comprehensive review

Buprenorphine, a novel long-acting analgesic, was developed with the intention of two purposes: analgesia and opioid use disorder. Regarding its pharmacodynamics, it is a partial agonist at mu receptors, an inverse agonist at kappa receptors, and an antagonist at delta receptors. For the purpose of analgesia, three formulations of buprenorphine were developed: IV/IM injectable formulation (Buprenex®), transdermal patch formulation (Butrans®), and buccal film formulation (Belbuca®). Related to opioid dependence, the formulations developed were subcutaneous extended release (Sublocade®), subdermal implant (Probuphine®), and sublingual tablets (Subutex®). Lastly, in order to avoid misuse of buprenorphine for opioid dependence, two combination formulations paired with naloxone were developed: film formulation (Suboxone®) and tablet formulation (Zubsolv®). In this review, we present details of each formulation along with their similarities and differences between each other and clinical considerations.

The Management of Substance Use Disorders: Synopsis of the 2021 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline

DESCRIPTION

In August 2021, leadership within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the management of substance use disorders (SUDs). This synopsis summarizes key recommendations.

METHODS

In March 2020, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group assembled a team to update the 2015 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders that included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the National Academy of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy CPGs. The guideline panel developed key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature, created two 1-page algorithms, and distilled 35 recommendations for care using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. This synopsis presents the recommendations that were believed to be the most clinically impactful.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The scope of the CPG is broad; however, this synopsis focuses on key recommendations for the management of alcohol use disorder, use of buprenorphine in opioid use disorder, contingency management, and use of technology and telehealth to manage patients remotely.

Dose Escalation of Naltrexone to Reduce Stress Responses Associated With Opioid Antagonist Induction: A Double-blind Randomized Trial

CONTEXT

To describe the role of opioid antagonist induction in reducing stress response and withdrawal symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

Complexity of naltrexone induction is limiting broader applicability of opioid antagonist-assisted abstinence. The aim of this clinical trial was to assess the stress response to 2 low-dose naltrexone induction protocols under minimal oral sedation.

DESIGN

Double-blind randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Open setting in-patient unit.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with opioid use disorder, and at least a year-long history of opioid use.

INTERVENTION PROTOCOL

Patients received either a single 12.5 mg naltrexone oral dose (SI group) or escalating dosage regimen starting from 50 μg up to a cumulative dose of 12.5 mg (ED group).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Differences in cortisol and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) concentrations 1 hour after the start of naltrexone induction.

RESULTS

In all, 124 patients were enrolled and 68 remained in the trial at the point of randomization-33 in SI and 35 in ED group. Eight patients were excluded from final analysis. Plasma cortisol and ACTH concentrations were significantly higher in SI group; mean difference between groups 313 nmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI] 182-444, P < 0.001) and 36.9 pg/mL (95% CI 12.3-61.4, P = 0.004), respectively.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

SI patients experienced significant increases in plasma cortisol and ACTH concentrations, and withdrawal scores. In ED group these measures remained at or below baseline throughout the 24-hour period from start of naltrexone induction.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to a single 12.5-mg dose, the escalating naltrexone dosing regimen produced no significant increase in stress response and withdrawal scores during antagonist induction.

Impact of Current Pain Status on Low-Barrier Buprenorphine Treatment Response Among Patients with Opioid Use Disorder

OBJECTIVE

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is prevalent among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, the impact of CNCP on buprenorphine treatment outcomes is largely unknown. In this secondary analysis, we examined treatment outcomes among individuals with and without CNCP who received a low-barrier buprenorphine maintenance regimen during waitlist delays to more comprehensive opioid treatment.

METHODS

Participants were 28 adults with OUD who received 12 weeks of buprenorphine treatment involving bimonthly clinic visits, computerized medication dispensing, and phone-based monitoring. At intake and monthly follow-up assessments, participants completed the Brief Pain Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), Addiction Severity Index, and staff-observed urinalysis.

RESULTS

Participants with CNCP (n = 10) achieved comparable rates of illicit opioid abstinence as those without CNCP (n = 18) at weeks 4 (90% vs 94%), 8 (80% vs 83%), and 12 (70% vs 67%) (P = 0.99). Study retention was also similar, with 90% and 83% of participants with and without CNCP completing the 12-week study, respectively (P = 0.99). Furthermore, individuals with CNCP demonstrated significant improvements on the BDI-II and Global Severity Index subscale of the BSI (P < 0.05). However, those with CNCP reported more severe medical problems and smaller reductions in legal problems relative to those without CNCP (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite research suggesting that chronic pain may influence OUD treatment outcomes, participants with and without CNCP achieved similar rates of treatment retention and significant reductions in illicit opioid use and psychiatric symptomatology during low-barrier buprenorphine treatment.

Using Extended Release Buprenorphine Injection to Discontinue Sublingual Buprenorphine: A Case Series

Buprenorphine is highly effective for the treatment of opioid use disorder and is increasingly being used in the treatment of chronic pain. For various reasons, patients on buprenorphine may request discontinuation of this medication. Tapering off buprenorphine can be challenging due to intolerable withdrawal symptoms, including nausea, malaise, anxiety, and dysphoria. A single dose of extended-release buprenorphine may facilitate discontinuation of buprenorphine by mitigating prolonged, debilitating opioid withdrawal symptoms. We report on three cases of successful transition from low dose sublingual buprenorphine to a single injection of 100 mg extended-release buprenorphine to opioid cessation in patients who had previously been unable to taper fully off buprenorphine. This novel use of extended-release buprenorphine provides a viable alternative to fully transition patients off buprenorphine when they are medically and emotionally ready.

Perioperative Management of Buprenorphine: Solving the Conundrum

OBJECTIVE

There is no consensus on the optimal perioperative management of patients on buprenorphine (BUP) for opioid use disorder (OUD). This article will review the available literature on BUP and the analgesic efficacy of BUP combined with full mu-opioid agonists and discuss the conflicting management strategies in the context of acute pain and our institution's protocol for the periprocedural management of BUP.

METHODS

We searched published data on BUP periprocedural management from inception through March 2018 without language restrictions. Study selection included publications reporting outcomes on perioperative pain management in OUD patients maintained on BUP.

RESULTS

Our search resulted in four case reports supporting periprocedural discontinuation of BUP and two case series, one secondary observational study, one prospective matched cohort study, and four retrospective cohort studies supporting periprocedural continuation of BUP. No clinical trials were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining BUP perioperatively does not lead to worsened clinical outcomes. Patients can receive adequate pain control from mu-opioid agonists while maintained on BUP. Based upon available evidence, we recommend continuing BUP at a reduced dose when indicated to avoid withdrawal symptoms and to facilitate the analgesic efficacy of mu-opioid agonists administered in combination for acute postoperative pain.

New directions in the treatment of opioid withdrawal

The treatment of opioid withdrawal is an important area of clinical concern when treating patients with chronic, non-cancer pain, patients with active opioid use disorder, and patients receiving medication for opioid use disorder. Current standards of care for medically supervised withdrawal include treatment with μ-opioid receptor agonists, (eg, methadone), partial agonists (eg, buprenorphine), and α2-adrenergic receptor agonists (eg, clonidine and lofexidine). Newer agents likewise exploit these pharmacological mechanisms, including tramadol (μ-opioid receptor agonism) and tizanidine (α2 agonism). Areas for future research include managing withdrawal in the context of stabilising patients with opioid use disorder to extended-release naltrexone, transitioning patients with opioid use disorder from methadone to buprenorphine, and tapering opioids in patients with chronic, non-cancer pain.

Depression history as a predictor of outcomes during buprenorphine-naloxone treatment of prescription opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

In the multi-site Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study (POATS), the best predictor of successful opioid use outcome was lifetime diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The primary aim of this secondary analysis of data from POATS was to empirically assess two explanations for this counterintuitive finding.

METHODS

The POATS study was a national, 10-site randomized controlled trial (N = 360 enrolled in the 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance treatment phase) sponsored by the NIDA Clinical Trials Network. We evaluated how the presence of a history of depression influences opioid use outcome (negative urine drug assays). Using adjusted logistic regression models, we tested the hypotheses that 1) a reduction in depressive symptoms and 2) greater motivation and engagement in treatment account for the association between depression history and good treatment outcome.

RESULTS

Although depressive symptoms decreased significantly throughout treatment (p <.001), this improvement was not associated with opioid outcomes (aOR = 0.98, ns). Reporting a goal of opioid abstinence at treatment entry was also not associated with outcomes (aOR = 1.39, ns); however, mutual-help group participation was associated with good treatment outcomes (aOR = 1.67, p <.05). In each of these models, lifetime major depressive disorder remained associated with good outcomes (aORs = 1.63-1.82, ps = .01-.055).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings are consistent with the premise that greater engagement in treatment is associated with good opioid outcomes. Nevertheless, depression history continues to be associated with good opioid outcomes in adjusted models. More research is needed to understand how these factors could improve treatment outcomes for those with opioid use disorder.

Buprenorphine management: a conundrum for the anesthesiologist and beyond - a one-act play

We have witnessed a worldwide upsurge of streamlined enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways advocating for consistency and compliance within their guidelines. At a recent national conference, two experts defended their institutional policies on perioperative management of buprenorphine, one defending its continuation, while the other suggesting its discontinuation. The moderator diplomatically proclaimed the need to have guidance at the institutional level and following it for favorable patient outcomes. Unfortunately, perioperative management of buprenorphine remains an understudied topic with a lack of national guidelines leading to variations at a local level despite its increased use nationally in the current opioid crisis. Although the moderator made a valid statement, we demonstrate via our one-act play the importance of recognizing a subset of the population within an ERAS pathway that necessitates multidisciplinary discussion, communication, and patient-centric care to formulate a perioperative plan coordinating a patient's care. More robust research is needed to minimize variability in current practices and to further develop comprehensive evidence-based guidelines that encompass risk factors and anticipated postsurgical and peripartum pain for patients on buprenorphine.

Transition of Patients with Opioid Use Disorder from Buprenorphine to Extended-Release Naltrexone: A Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing Two Transition Regimens

Background and Objective

When patients seek to discontinue buprenorphine (BUP) treatment, monthly injectable extended‐release naltrexone (XR‐NTX) may help them avoid relapse. The efficacy of low ascending doses of oral NTX vs placebo for patients transitioning from BUP to XR‐NTX is evaluated in this study.

Methods

In a phase 3, hybrid residential/outpatient study, clinically stable participants with opioid use disorder (N = 101), receiving BUP for more than or equal to 3 months and seeking antagonist treatment, were randomized (1:1) to 7 residential days of descending doses of BUP and low ascending doses of oral NTX (NTX/BUP, n = 50) or placebo (PBO‐N/BUP, n = 51). Both groups received standing ancillary medications and psychoeducational counseling. Following negative naloxone challenge, participants received XR‐NTX (day 8). The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who received and tolerated XR‐NTX.

Results

There was no statistical difference between groups for participants receiving a first dose of XR‐NTX: 68.6% (NTX/BUP) vs 76.0% (PBO‐N/BUP; P = .407). The mean number of days with peak Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score less than or equal to 12 during the treatment period (days 1‐7) was similar for NTX/BUP and PBO‐N/BUP groups (5.8 vs 6.3; P = .511). Opioid withdrawal symptoms during XR‐NTX induction and post‐XR‐NTX observation period (days 8‐11) were mild and similar between groups (mean peak COWS score: NTX/BUP, 5.1 vs PBO‐N/BUP, 5.4; P = .464). Adverse events were mostly mild/moderate.

Conclusions and Scientific Significance

Low ascending doses of oral NTX did not increase induction rates onto XR‐NTX compared with placebo. The overall rate of successful induction across treatment groups supports a brief BUP taper with standing ancillary medications as a well‐tolerated approach for patients seeking transition from BUP to XR‐NTX. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00–00)

Parallel modeling of pain and depression in prediction of relapse during buprenorphine and naloxone treatment: A finite mixture model

BACKGROUND

Relapse is common in treatment for opioid use disorders (OUDs). Pain and depression often co-occur during OUD treatment, yet little is known about how they influence relapse among patients with a primary diagnosis of prescription opioid use disorder (POUD). Advanced statistical analyses that can simultaneously model these two conditions may lead to targeted clinical interventions.

METHOD

The objective of this study was to utilize a discrete survival analysis with a growth mixture model to test time to prescription opioid relapse, predicted by parallel growth trajectories of depression and pain, in a clinical sample of patients in buprenorphine/naloxone treatment. The latent class analysis characterized heterogeneity with data collected from the National Institute of Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network project (CTN-0030).

RESULTS

Results suggested that a 4-class solution was the most parsimonious based on global fit indices and clinical relevance. The 4 classes identified were: 1) low relapse, 2) high depression and moderate pain, 3) high pain, and 4) high relapse. Odds ratios for time-to-first use indicated no statistically significant difference in time to relapse between the high pain and the high depression classes, but all other classes differed significantly.

CONCLUSION

This is the first longitudinal study to characterize the influence of pain, depression, and relapse in patients receiving buprenorphine and naloxone treatment. These results emphasize the need to monitor the influence of pain and depression during stabilization on buprenorphine and naloxone. Future work may identify appropriate interventions that can be introduced to extend time-to-first prescription opioid use among patients.

Opioid use disorder

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic relapsing disorder that, whilst initially driven by activation of brain reward neurocircuits, increasingly engages anti-reward neurocircuits that drive adverse emotional states and relapse. However, successful recovery is possible with appropriate treatment, although with a persisting propensity to relapse. The individual and public health burdens of OUD are immense; 26.8 million people were estimated to be living with OUD globally in 2016, with >100,000 opioid overdose deaths annually, including >47,000 in the USA in 2017. Well-conducted trials have demonstrated that long-term opioid agonist therapy with methadone and buprenorphine have great efficacy for OUD treatment and can save lives. New forms of the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone are also being studied. Some frequently used approaches have less scientifically robust evidence but are nevertheless considered important, including community preventive strategies, harm reduction interventions to reduce adverse sequelae from ongoing use and mutual aid groups. Other commonly used approaches, such as detoxification alone, lack scientific evidence. Delivery of effective prevention and treatment responses is often complicated by coexisting comorbidities and inadequate support, as well as by conflicting public and political opinions. Science has a crucial role to play in informing public attitudes and developing fuller evidence to understand OUD and its associated harms, as well as in obtaining the evidence today that will improve the prevention and treatment interventions of tomorrow.

Prescription opioid use patterns, use disorder diagnoses and addiction treatment receipt after the 2014 Medicaid expansion in Oregon

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Evidence suggests that Medicaid beneficiaries in the United States are prescribed opioids more frequently than are people who are privately insured, but little is known about opioid prescribing patterns among Medicaid enrollees who gained coverage via the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansions. This study compared the prevalence of receipt of opioid prescriptions and opioid use disorder (OUD), along with time from OUD diagnosis to medication-assisted treatment (MAT) receipt between Oregon residents who had been continuously insured by Medicaid, were newly insured after Medicaid expansion in 2014 or returned to Medicaid coverage after expansion.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using inverse-propensity weights to adjust for differences among insurance groups.

SETTING

Oregon.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 225 295 Oregon Medicaid adult beneficiaries insured during 2014-15 and either: (1) newly enrolled, (2) returning in 2014 after a > 12-month gap or (3) continuously insured between 2013 and 2015. We excluded patients in hospice care or with cancer diagnoses.

MEASUREMENTS

Any opioid-dispensed, chronic (> 90-days) and high-dose (> 90 daily morphine milligram equivalence) opioid use, documented OUD diagnosis and MAT receipt.

FINDINGS

Compared with the continuously insured, newly and returning insured enrollees were less likely to be dispensed opioids [newly: 42.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 42.0-42.7%; returning: 49.3%, 95% CI = 48.8-49.7%; continuously: 52.5%, 95% CI = 52.0-53.0%], use opioids chronically (newly: 12.8%, 95% CI = 12.4-13.1%; returning: 11.9%, 95% CI = 11.5-12.3%, continuously: 15.8%, 95% CI = 15.4-16.2%), have OUD diagnoses (newly: 3.6%, 95% CI = 3.4-3.7%; returning: 3.9%, 95% CI = 3.8-4.1%, continuously: 4.7%, 95% CI = 4.5-4.9%) and receive MAT after OUD diagnosis [hazard ratio newly: 0.57, 95% CI = 0.53-0.61; hazard ratio returning: 0.60, 95% CI = 0.56-0.65 (ref: continuously)].

CONCLUSIONS

Residents of Oregon, United States who enrolled or re-enrolled in Medicaid health insurance after expansion of coverage in 2014 as a result of the Affordable Care Act were less likely than those already covered to receive opioids, use them chronically or receive medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.

Tapering off and returning to buprenorphine maintenance in a primary care Office Based Addiction Treatment (OBAT) program

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend long-term treatment for opioid use disorder including the use of buprenorphine; however, many patients desire to eventually taper off. This study examines the prevalence and patient characteristics of patients that voluntarily taper off buprenorphine.

METHODS

This is a 12-year retrospective cohort study of adults on buprenorphine in a large urban safety-net primary care practice. The primary outcome was completion of a voluntary buprenorphine taper, which was further characterized as a medically supervised or unsupervised taper. The secondary outcome was re-engagement in care after taper. Descriptive statistics and estimated proportions of both taper completion and re-engagement in treatment were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

The study sample included 1308 patients with a median follow-up time of 316 days; 48 patients were observed to taper off buprenorphine during the study period, with an estimated proportion of 15% (95%CI: 10%-21%) based on Kaplan Meier analyses. Less than half of the tapers, 45.8% (22/48), were medically supervised. Thirteen of the 48 patients subsequently, re-engaged in buprenorphine treatment (estimated proportion 61%, 95%CI: 27%-96%), based on Kaplan-Meier analyses with median follow-up time of 490 days.

DISCUSSION

Despite the fact that many patients desire to discontinue buprenorphine, a minority had a documented taper. Among those who tapered, more than half did so unsupervised by the clinic and a majority of those who tapered off returned to buprenorphine treatment within two years. As many patients are unable to successfully taper off buprenorphine, the medical community must work to address any barriers to long-term maintenance.

Buprenorphine MAT as an Imperfect Fix

Expanding buprenorphine access in the United States requires evidence-based decision-making that considers both the drug's potential dangers and its potential benefits. Risks associated with buprenorphine misuse and diversion highlight the need for careful, ongoing evaluation during each stage of increased access.

Long-Acting Injectable Naltrexone Induction: A Randomized Trial of Outpatient Opioid Detoxification With Naltrexone Versus Buprenorphine

OBJECTIVE

At present there is no established optimal approach for transitioning opioid-dependent adults to extended-release injection naltrexone (XR-naltrexone) while preventing relapse. The authors conducted a trial examining the efficacy of two methods of outpatient opioid detoxification for induction to XR-naltrexone.

METHOD

Participants were 150 opioid-dependent adults randomly assigned 2:1 to one of two outpatient detoxification regimens, naltrexone-assisted detoxification or buprenorphine-assisted detoxification, followed by an injection of XR-naltrexone. Naltrexone-assisted detoxification lasted 7 days and included a single day of buprenorphine followed by ascending doses of oral naltrexone along with clonidine and other adjunctive medications. Buprenorphine-assisted detoxification included a 7-day buprenorphine taper followed by a week-long delay before administration of XR-naltrexone, consistent with official prescribing information for XR-naltrexone. Participants from both groups received behavioral therapy focused on medication adherence and a second dose of XR-naltrexone.

RESULTS

Compared with participants in the buprenorphine-assisted detoxification condition, participants assigned to naltrexone-assisted detoxification were significantly more likely to be successfully inducted to XR-naltrexone (56.1% compared with 32.7%) and to receive the second injection at week 5 (50.0% compared with 26.9%). Both models adjusted for primary type of opioid use, route of opioid administration, and morphine equivalents at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of low-dose naltrexone, in conjunction with single-day buprenorphine dosing and adjunctive nonopioid medications, for initiating adults with opioid dependence to XR-naltrexone. This strategy offers a promising alternative to the high rates of attrition and relapse currently observed with agonist tapers in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

The Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study: What have we learned

BACKGROUND

The multi-site Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study (POATS), conducted by the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network, was the largest clinical trial yet conducted with patients dependent upon prescription opioids (N=653). In addition to main trial results, the study yielded numerous secondary analyses, and included a 3.5-year follow-up study, the first of its kind with this population. This paper reviews key findings from POATS and its follow-up study.

METHODS

The paper summarizes the POATS design, main outcomes, predictors of outcome, subgroup analyses, the predictive power of early treatment response, and the long-term follow-up study.

RESULTS

POATS examined combinations of buprenorphine-naloxone of varying duration and counseling of varying intensity. The primary outcome analysis showed no overall benefit to adding drug counseling to buprenorphine-naloxone and weekly medical management. Only 7% of patients achieved a successful outcome (abstinence or near-abstinence from opioids) during a 4-week taper and 8-week follow-up; by comparison, 49% of patients achieved success while subsequently stabilized on buprenorphine-naloxone. Long-term follow-up results were more encouraging, with higher abstinence rates than in the main trial. Patients receiving opioid agonist treatment at the time of follow-up were more likely to have better outcomes, though a sizeable number of patients succeeded without agonist treatment. Some patients initiated risky use patterns, including heroin use and drug injection. A limitation of the long-term follow-up study was the low follow-up rate.

CONCLUSIONS

POATS was the first large-scale study of the treatment of prescription opioid dependence; its findings can influence both treatment guidelines and future studies.

Primary care management of opioid use disorders: Abstinence, methadone, or buprenorphine-naloxone?

OBJECTIVE

To advise physicians on which treatment options to recommend for specific patient populations: abstinence-based treatment, buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance, or methadone maintenance.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

PubMed was searched and literature was reviewed on the effectiveness, safety, and side effect profiles of abstinence-based treatment, buprenorphine-naloxone treatment, and methadone treatment. Both observational and interventional studies were included.

MAIN MESSAGE

Both methadone and buprenorphine-naloxone are substantially more effective than abstinence-based treatment. Methadone has higher treatment retention rates than buprenorphine-naloxone does, while buprenorphine-naloxone has a lower risk of overdose. For all patient groups, physicians should recommend methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone treatment over abstinence-based treatment (level I evidence). Methadone is preferred over buprenorphine-naloxone for patients at higher risk of treatment dropout, such as injection opioid users (level I evidence). Youth and pregnant women who inject opioids should also receive methadone first (level III evidence). If buprenorphine-naloxone is prescribed first, the patient should be promptly switched to methadone if withdrawal symptoms, cravings, or opioid use persist despite an optimal buprenorphine-naloxone dose (level II evidence). Buprenorphine-naloxone is recommended for socially stable prescription oral opioid users, particularly if their work or family commitments make it difficult for them to attend the pharmacy daily, if they have a medical or psychiatric condition requiring regular primary care (level IV evidence), or if their jobs require higher levels of cognitive functioning or psychomotor performance (level III evidence). Buprenorphine-naloxone is also recommended for patients at high risk of methadone toxicity, such as the elderly, those taking high doses of benzodiazepines or other sedating drugs, heavy drinkers, those with a lower level of opioid tolerance, and those at high risk of prolonged QT interval (level III evidence).

CONCLUSION

Individual patient characteristics and preferences should be taken into consideration when choosing a first-line opioid agonist treatment. For patients at high risk of dropout (such as adolescents and socially unstable patients), treatment retention should take precedence over other clinical considerations. For patients with high risk of toxicity (such as patients with heavy alcohol or benzodiazepine use), safety would likely be the first consideration. However, the most important factor to consider is that opioid agonist treatment is far more effective than abstinence-based treatment.

[Not Available]

Objectif

Conseiller les médecins quant aux options thérapeutiques à recommander à des populations précises de patients : approche axée sur l’abstinence, traitement d’entretien par la buprénorphine-naloxone ou traitement d’entretien par la méthadone.

Sources d’information

Une recherche sur PubMed a été effectuée, et on a relevé dans les publications les données sur l’efficacité, l’innocuité et le profil d’effets indésirables de l’approche axée sur l’abstinence, du traitement par la buprénorphine-naloxone et du traitement par la méthadone. Les études d’observation et interventionnelles ont été incluses.

Message principal

La méthadone et la buprénorphine-naloxone sont substantiellement plus efficaces que l’approche axée sur l’abstinence. La méthadone présente un taux de rétention plus élevé que la buprénorphine-naloxone, alors que la buprénorphine-naloxone présente un risque plus faible de surdose. Les médecins devraient recommander le traitement par la méthadone ou la buprénorphine-naloxone plutôt que l’approche axée sur l’abstinence, et ce, à tous les groupes de patients (données de niveau I). La méthadone est préférable à la buprénorphine-naloxone chez les patients qui présentent un risque élevé d’abandon, comme les usagers d’opioïdes par injection (données de niveau I). Les jeunes et les femmes enceintes qui font usage d’opioïdes par injection devraient aussi recevoir la méthadone d’abord (données de niveau III). Si la buprénorphine-naloxone est prescrite en premier, il faut faire passer rapidement le patient à la méthadone si les symptômes de sevrage, les fortes envies ou la consommation d’opioïdes persistent malgré une dose optimale de buprénorphine-naloxone (données de niveau II). La buprénorphine-naloxone est recommandée chez les usagers d’opioïdes sur ordonnance par voie orale socialement stables, surtout s’ils ont un emploi ou si leurs obligations familiales les empêchent de se rendre à la pharmacie tous les jours, s’ils ont une affection médicale ou psychiatrique exigeant des soins réguliers de première ligne (données de niveau IV), ou encore si leur emploi exige une fonction cognitive ou un rendement psychomoteur élevés (données de niveau III). La buprénorphine-naloxone est aussi recommandée chez les patients qui présentent un risque élevé de toxicité à la méthadone, tels que les personnes âgées, les personnes qui prennent de fortes doses de benzodiazépines ou d’autres sédatifs, les gros buveurs, les personnes dont la tolérance aux opioïdes est faible et les personnes à risque de prolongement de l’intervalle QT (données de niveau III).

Conclusion

Il faut tenir compte des caractéristiques et des préférences individuelles des patients lors de la sélection d’un traitement de première intention par un agoniste des opioïdes. Chez les patients qui présentent un risque élevé d’abandon (adolescents et patients socialement instables), la rétention en traitement doit avoir préséance sur les autres considérations cliniques. Chez les patients qui présentent un risque élevé de toxicité (comme les usagers abusifs d’alcool ou de benzodiazépines), la sécurité a sans doute préséance. Ce qu’il importe le plus de considérer toutefois, c’est que le traitement par un agoniste des opioïdes est beaucoup plus efficace que l’approche axée sur l’abstinence.

Buprenorphine for managing opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of substitution treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of buprenorphine versus tapered doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine regimens for managing opioid withdrawal, in terms of the intensity of the withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration and completion of treatment, and adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 11, 2016), MEDLINE (1946 to December week 1, 2016), Embase (to 22 December 2016), PsycINFO (1806 to December week 3, 2016), and the Web of Science (to 22 December 2016) and handsearched the reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions using buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine or lofexidine), symptomatic medications or placebo, and different buprenorphine-based regimens.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies involving 3048 participants. The main comparators were clonidine or lofexidine (14 studies). Six studies compared buprenorphine versus methadone, and seven compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction. We assessed 12 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one of seven domains of methodological quality. Six of these studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine or lofexidine and two with methadone; the other four studies compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction.For the comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in tapered doses, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of intensity of withdrawal or adverse effects. However, information reported by the individual studies was suggestive of buprenorphine and methadone having similar capacity to ameliorate opioid withdrawal, without clinically significant adverse effects. The meta-analyses that were possible support a conclusion of no difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of average treatment duration (mean difference (MD) 1.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.11 to 10.72; N = 82; studies = 2; low quality) or treatment completion rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; N = 457; studies = 5; moderate quality).Relative to clonidine or lofexidine, buprenorphine was associated with a lower average withdrawal score (indicating less severe withdrawal) during the treatment episode, with an effect size that is considered to be small to moderate (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.28; N = 902; studies = 7; moderate quality). Patients receiving buprenorphine stayed in treatment for longer, with an effect size that is considered to be large (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; N = 558; studies = 5; moderate quality) and were more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.06; N = 1264; studies = 12; moderate quality). At the same time there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but dropout due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.15; N = 134; studies = 3; low quality). The difference in treatment completion rates translates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), indicating that for every four people treated with buprenorphine, we can expect that one additional person will complete treatment than with clonidine or lofexidine.For studies comparing different rates of reduction of the buprenorphine dose, meta-analysis was possible only for treatment completion, with separate analyses for inpatient and outpatient settings. The results were diverse, and we assessed the quality of evidence as being very low. It remains very uncertain what effect the rate of dose taper has on treatment outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine or lofexidine for managing opioid withdrawal in terms of severity of withdrawal, duration of withdrawal treatment, and the likelihood of treatment completion.Buprenorphine and methadone appear to be equally effective, but data are limited. It remains possible that the pattern of withdrawal experienced may differ and that withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine.It is not possible to draw any conclusions from the available evidence on the relative effectiveness of different rates of tapering the buprenorphine dose. The divergent findings of studies included in this review suggest that there may be multiple factors affecting the response to the rate of dose taper. One such factor could be whether or not the initial treatment plan includes a transition to subsequent relapse prevention treatment with naltrexone. Indeed, the use of buprenorphine to support transition to naltrexone treatment is an aspect worthy of further research.Most participants in the studies included in this review were male. None of the studies reported outcomes on the basis of sex, preventing any exploration of differences related to this variable. Consideration of sex as a factor influencing response to withdrawal treatment would be relevant research for selecting the most appropriate type of intervention for each individual.

[Misuse and dependence on prescription opioids: Prevention, identification and treatment]

Since the 1990s, the use of prescription opioids has largely spread, which has brought a real progress in the treatment of pain. The long-term use of prescription opioid is sometimes required, and may lead to pharmacological tolerance and withdrawal symptoms, i.e. pharmacological dependence on prescription opioids. Occasionally, this may also lead to misuse of prescription opioids (MPO). MPO preferentially occurs in vulnerable individuals, i.e., those with a young age, history of other addictive or psychiatric disorders, especially anxious and depressive disorders. MPO is associated with numerous complications, including an increased risk of fatal overdose. Prevention of MPO begins before the opioid prescription, with the identification of potential vulnerability factors. A planned and personalized monitoring should be systematically implemented. In vulnerable patients, contractualizing the prescription is warranted. During follow-up, the relevance of the prescription should be regularly reconsidered, according to the benefit observed on pain and the potential underlying signs of MPO. Patients with suspected MPO should be referred early to pain or addiction centers. The treatment of MPO should be based on multidisciplinary strategies, involving both the addiction and pain aspects: progressive opioid withdrawal, non-pharmacological measures against pain, or switching to medication-assisted treatment of addiction (i.e., buprenorphine or methadone).

Opioid agonist treatment for pharmaceutical opioid dependent people

BACKGROUND

There are increasing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid harms including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

The search included the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Specialised Register of Trials; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 5); PubMed (January 1966 to May 2015); EMBASE (Ovid) (January 1974 to May 2015); CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1982 to May 2015); ISI Web of Science (to May 2014); and PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to May 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons:1. full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment and2. full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus placebo, detoxification only, or psychological treatment (without opioid agonist treatment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six randomised controlled trials that met inclusion criteria (607 participants).We found moderate quality evidence from two studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine in self reported opioid use (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 1.63) or opioid positive urine drug tests (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.18). There was low quality evidence from three studies of no difference in retention between buprenorphine and methadone maintenance treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22). There was moderate quality evidence from two studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.91).We found low quality evidence from three studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over detoxification or psychological treatment in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91) and self reported opioid use in the past 30 days (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93). There was no difference on days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.04). There was moderate quality evidence favouring buprenorphine maintenance over detoxification or psychological treatment on retention in treatment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.47). There was moderate quality evidence favouring buprenorphine maintenance over detoxification or psychological treatment on adverse events (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.57).The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was low to moderate quality evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine appeared equally effective. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appeared more effective than detoxification or psychological treatments.Due to the overall low to moderate quality of the evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.

Baseline characteristics of patients predicting suitability for rapid naltrexone induction

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Extended-release (XR) injection naltrexone has proved promising in the treatment of opioid dependence. Induction onto naltrexone is often accomplished with a procedure known as rapid naltrexone induction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate pre-treatment patient characteristics as predictors of successful completion of a rapid naltrexone induction procedure prior to XR naltrexone treatment.

METHODS

A chart review of 150 consecutive research participants (N = 84 completers and N = 66 non-completers) undergoing a rapid naltrexone induction with the buprenorphone-clonidine procedure were compared on a number of baseline demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors. Logistic regression was used to identify client characteristics that may predict successful initiation of naltrexone after a rapid induction-detoxification.

RESULTS

Patients who failed to successfully initiate naltrexone were younger (AOR: 1.040, CI: 1.006, 1.075), and using 10 or more bags of heroin (or equivalent) per day (AOR: 0.881, CI: 0.820, 0.946). Drug use other than opioids was also predictive of failure to initiate naltrexone in simple bivariate analyses, but was no longer significant when controlling for age and opioid use level.

CONCLUSIONS

Younger age, and indicators of greater substance dependence severity (more current opioid use, other substance use) predict difficulty completing a rapid naltrexone induction procedure. Such patients might require a longer period of stabilization and/or more gradual detoxification prior to initiating naltrexone.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Our study findings identify specific characteristics of patients who responded positively to rapid naltrexone induction.

Treatment of prescription opioid disorders in Canada: looking at the 'other epidemic'?

The magnitude and consequences of prescription opioid (PO) misuse and harms (including rising demand for PO disorder treatment) in Canada have been well-documented. Despite a limited evidence-base for PO dependence treatment, opioid maintenance therapy (OMT) - mostly by means of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) - has become the de facto first-line treatment for PO-disorders. For example in the most populous province of Ontario, some 50,000 patients - large proportions of them young adults - are enrolled in MMT, resulting in a MMT-rate that is 3-4 times higher than that of the United States. MMT in Ontario has widely proliferated towards a quasi-treatment industry within a system context of the public fee-payer offering generous incentives for community-based MMT providers. Contrary to the proliferation of MMT, there has been no commensurate increase in availability of alternative (e.g., detox, tapering, behavioral), and less intrusive and/or costly, treatments which may provide therapeutic benefits at least for sub-sets of PO-dependent patients. Given the extensive PO-dependence burden combined with its distinct socio-demographic and clinical profile (e.g., involving many young people, less intensive or risky opioid use), an evidence-based 'stepped-care' model for PO dependence treatment ought to be developed in Canada where MMT constitutes one, but likely a last resort or option, for treatment. Other, less intrusive treatment options as well as the best mix of treatment options should be systematically investigated and implemented. This case study has relevance and implications for evidence-based treatment also for the increasing number of other jurisdictions where PO misuse and disorders have been rising.

Prescription Opioid Misuse, Abuse, and Treatment in the United States: An Update

OBJECTIVE

Prescription opioid abuse and dependence have escalated rapidly in the United States over the past 20 years, leading to high rates of overdose deaths and a dramatic increase in the number of people seeking treatment for opioid dependence. The authors review the scope of the abuse and overdose epidemic, prescription practices, and the assessment, treatment, and prevention of prescription opioid misuse and dependence.

METHOD

The authors provide an overview of the literature from 2006 to the present, with the twin goals of highlighting advances in prevention and treatment and identifying remaining gaps in the science.

RESULTS

A number of policy and educational initiatives at the state and federal government level have been undertaken in the past 5 years to help providers and consumers, respectively, prescribe and use opioids more responsibly. Initial reports suggest that diversion and abuse levels have begun to plateau, likely as a result of these initiatives. While there is a large body of research suggesting that opioid substitution coupled with psychosocial interventions is the best treatment option for heroin dependence, there is limited research focusing specifically on the treatment of prescription opioid dependence. In particular, the treatment of chronic pain in individuals with prescription opioid use disorders is underexplored.

CONCLUSIONS

While policy and educational initiatives appear to be effective in decreasing prescription opioid abuse and misuse, research focusing on the development and evaluation of treatments specific to prescription opioid dependence and its common comorbidities (e.g., chronic pain, depression) is critically needed.

Meyer A, Hruska B, Ochalek T, Rose G, Badger GJ, Brooklyn JR, Heil SH, Higgins ST, Moore BA, Schwartz RP. Bridging waitlist delays with interim buprenorphine treatment: initial feasibility

Despite the effectiveness of agonist maintenance for opioid dependence, individuals can remain on waitlists for months, during which they are at significant risk for morbidity and mortality. Interim dosing, consisting of daily medication without counseling, can reduce these risks. In this pilot study, we examined the initial feasibility of a novel technology-assisted interim buprenorphine treatment for waitlisted opioid-dependent adults. Following buprenorphine induction during Week 1, participants (n=10) visited the clinic at Weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 to ingest their medication under staff observation, provide a urine specimen and receive their remaining doses via a computerized Med-O-Wheel Secure device. They also received daily monitoring via an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) platform, as well as random call-backs for urinalysis and medication adherence checks. The primary outcome was percent of participants negative for illicit opioids at each 2-week visit, with secondary outcomes of past-month drug use, adherence and acceptability. Participants achieved high levels of illicit opioid abstinence, with 90% abstinent at the Week 2 and 4 visits and 60% at Week 12. Significant reductions were observed in self-reported past-month illicit opioid use (p<.001), opioid withdrawal (p<.001), opioid craving (p<.001) and ASI Drug composite score (p=.008). Finally, adherence with buprenorphine administration (99%), daily IVR calls (97%) and random call-backs (82%) was high. Interim buprenorphine treatment shows promise for reducing patient and societal risks during delays to conventional treatment. A larger-scale, randomized clinical trial is underway to more rigorously examine the efficacy of this treatment approach.

Memantine improves buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependent young adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorders are considered a serious public health problem among young adults. Current treatment is limited to long-term opioid substitution therapy, with high relapse rates after discontinuation. This study evaluated the co-administration of memantine to brief buprenorphine pharmacotherapy as a treatment alternative.

METHODS

13-week double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating 80 young adult opioid dependent participants treated with buprenorphine/naloxone 16-4mg/day and randomized to memantine (15mg or 30mg) or placebo. Primary outcomes were a change in the weekly mean proportion of opioid use, and cumulative abstinence rates after rapid buprenorphine discontinuation on week 9.

RESULTS

Treatment retention was not significantly different between groups. The memantine 30mg group was significantly less likely to relapse and to use opioids after buprenorphine discontinuation. Among participants abstinent on week 8, those in the memantine 30mg group (81.9%) were significantly less likely to relapse after buprenorphine was discontinued compared to the placebo group (30%) (p<0.025). Also, the memantine 30mg group had significantly reduced opioid use (mean=0, SEM±0.00) compared to the placebo group (mean=0.33, SEM±0.35; p<0.004) during the last 2 weeks of study participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Memantine 30mg significantly improved short-term treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for opioid dependent young adults by reducing relapse and opioid use after buprenorphine discontinuation. Combined short-term treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone may be an effective alternative treatment to long-term methadone or buprenorphine maintenance in young adults.

Retention in medication-assisted treatment for opiate dependence: A systematic review

Retention in medication-assisted treatment among opiate-dependent patients is associated with better outcomes. This systematic review (55 articles, 2010-2014) found wide variability in retention rates (i.e., 19%-94% at 3-month, 46%-92% at 4-month, 3%-88% at 6-month, and 37%-91% at 12-month follow-ups in randomized controlled trials), and identified medication and behavioral therapy factors associated with retention. As expected, patients who received naltrexone or buprenorphine had better retention rates than patients who received a placebo or no medication. Consistent with prior research, methadone was associated with better retention than buprenorphine/naloxone. And, heroin-assisted treatment was associated with better retention than methadone among treatment-refractory patients. Only a single study examined retention in medication-assisted treatment for longer than 1 year, and studies of behavioral therapies may have lacked statistical power; thus, studies with longer-term follow-ups and larger samples are needed. Contingency management showed promise to increase retention, but other behavioral therapies to increase retention, such as supervision of medication consumption, or additional counseling, education, or support, failed to find differences between intervention and control conditions. Promising behavioral therapies to increase retention have yet to be identified.

Therapies in early development for the treatment of opiate addiction

INTRODUCTION

Opiate drugs are psychoactive substances used to manage severe pain. However, their chronic use is associated with the development of addiction. Opiate addiction represents a significant public health concern.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the most recent advances in the pharmacological treatment of opiate addiction, from those being tested in clinical trials (Phase I and II), to preclinical studies that point to new targets. Readers will gain knowledge of the wide variety of treatments used to treat opiate addiction, including their strengths and weaknesses, and the promising pharmacological targets identified by preclinical research.

EXPERT OPINION

Among the currently available agonist therapies, new dosage forms of buprenorphine can increase patient acceptability and compliance. New extended-release forms of naltrexone are building hope of retaining opiate-dependent subjects in a drug-free state. Unfortunately, the review of the literature shows that successful preclinical studies are often followed by discouraging results in human clinical trials. Nevertheless, all targets of potential interest should be tested exhaustively. Indeed, a number of new targets and research lines (genetics and neuroinflammation approaches) may lead to breakthroughs in the future.

Characterizing opioid withdrawal during double-blind buprenorphine detoxification

BACKGROUND

Prescription opioid (PO) abuse has become an urgent public health issue in the United States. Detoxification is one important treatment option, yet relatively little is known about the time course and severity of opioid withdrawal during buprenorphine detoxification.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind evaluation of 1, 2, and 4-week outpatient buprenorphine tapers among primary prescription opioid (PO) abusers. The aim is to characterize the time course and severity of buprenorphine withdrawal under rigorous, double-blind conditions, across multiple taper durations, and using multiple withdrawal-related measures (i.e., self-report and observer ratings, pupil diameter, ancillary medication utilization). Participants were PO-dependent adults undergoing buprenorphine detoxification and biochemically-verified to be continuously abstinent from opioids during their taper (N = 28).

RESULTS

Participants randomly assigned to the 4-week taper regimen experienced a relatively mild and stable course of withdrawal, with few peaks in severity. In contrast, the 1- and 2-week taper groups experienced stark increases in withdrawal severity during the week following the last buprenorphine dose, followed by declines in withdrawal severity thereafter. The 4-week taper group also reported significantly fewer disruptions in sleep compared to the other experimental groups. When predictors of withdrawal were examined, baseline ratings of "Expected Withdrawal Severity" was the most robust predictor of withdrawal experienced during the taper.

CONCLUSION

Data from this trial may inform clinicians about the expected time course, magnitude, and pattern of buprenorphine withdrawal and aid efforts to identify patients who may need additional clinical support during outpatient buprenorphine detoxification.

Discontinuation of buprenorphine maintenance therapy: perspectives and outcomes

Buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) is increasingly the preferred opioid maintenance agent due to its reduced toxicity and availability in an office-based setting in the United States. Although BMT has been shown to be highly efficacious, it is often discontinued soon after initiation. No current systematic review has yet investigated providers' or patients' reasons for BMT discontinuation or the outcomes that follow. Hence, provider and patient perspectives associated with BMT discontinuation after a period of stable buprenorphine maintenance and the resultant outcomes were systematically reviewed with specific emphasis on pre-buprenorphine-taper parameters predictive of relapse following BMT discontinuation. Few identified studies address provider or patient perspectives associated with buprenorphine discontinuation. Within the studies reviewed providers with residency training in BMT were more likely to favor long term BMT instead of detoxification, and providers were likely to consider BMT discontinuation in the face of medication misuse. Patients often desired to remain on BMT because of fear of relapse to illicit opioid use if they were to discontinue BMT. The majority of patients who discontinued BMT did so involuntarily, often due to failure to follow strict program requirements, and 1 month following discontinuation, rates of relapse to illicit opioid use exceeded 50% in every study reviewed. Only lower buprenorphine maintenance dose, which may be a marker for attenuated addiction severity, predicted better outcomes across studies. Relaxed BMT program requirements and frequent counsel on the high probability of relapse if BMT is discontinued may improve retention in treatment and prevent the relapse to illicit opioid use that is likely to follow BMT discontinuation.

Lifetime history of heroin use is associated with greater drug severity among prescription opioid abusers

BACKGROUND

While research suggests primary prescription opioid (PO) abusers may exhibit less severe demographic and drug use characteristics than primary heroin abusers, less is known about whether a lifetime history of heroin use confers greater severity among PO abusers.

OBJECTIVE

In this secondary analysis, we examined demographic and drug use characteristics as a function of lifetime heroin use among 89 PO-dependent adults screened for a trial evaluating the relative efficacy of buprenorphine taper durations. Exploratory analyses also examined contribution of lifetime heroin use to treatment response among a subset of participants who received a uniform set of study procedures.

METHODS

Baseline characteristics were compared between participants reporting lifetime heroin use ≥5 (H(+); n=41) vs. <5 (H(-); n=48) times. Treatment response (i.e., illicit opioid abstinence and treatment retention at end of study) was examined in the subset of H(+) and H(-) participants randomized to receive the 4-week taper condition (N=22).

RESULTS

H(+) participants were significantly older and more likely to be male. They reported longer durations of illicit opioid use, greater alcohol-related problems, more past-month cocaine use, greater lifetime IV drug use, and greater lifetime use of cigarettes, amphetamines and hallucinogens. H(+) participants also had lower scores on the Positive Symptom Distress and Depression subscales of the Brief Symptom Inventory. Finally, there was a trend toward poorer treatment outcomes among H(+) participants.

CONCLUSION

A lifetime history of heroin use may be associated with elevated drug severity and unique treatment needs among treatment-seeking PO abusers.

Predictors of buprenorphine initial outpatient maintenance and dose taper response among non-treatment-seeking heroin dependent volunteers

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine (BUP) is effective for treating opioid use disorder. Individuals' heroin-use characteristics may predict their responses to BUP, which could differ during maintenance and dose-taper phases. If so, treatment providers could use pre-treatment characteristics to personalize level of individual care and possibly improve treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Non-treatment-seeking heroin-dependent volunteers (N=34) initiated outpatient BUP maintenance (8-mg/day) and submitted urine samples thrice weekly tested for opioids (non-contingent result). After completing three programmatically-related inpatient behavioral pharmacology experiments (while maintained on 8-mg/day BUP), participants were discharged and underwent a double-blind BUP dose taper (4-mg/day, 2-mg/day and 0-mg/day during weeks 1-3, respectively) with an opioid-abstinence incentive ($30 per consecutive opioid-negative urine specimen, obtained thrice weekly).

RESULTS

Participants who reported less pre-study (past-month) heroin use and shorter lifetime duration of heroin use were more likely to submit an opioid-negative urine sample during initial outpatient BUP maintenance. Participants who reported more lifetime heroin-quit attempts and provided any opioid-free urine sample during initial outpatient maintenance sustained longer continuous opioid-abstinence during the BUP dose taper. Participants who reported >3 lifetime quit attempts abstained from opioid use nearly one week longer (14 days vs. 8 days to opioid-lapse) and nearly half (46.7%) refrained from opioid use during dose taper.

CONCLUSIONS

Number of prior heroin quit attempts may predict BUP dose taper response and provide a metric for stratifying heroin-dependent individuals by relative risk for opioid lapse. This metric may inform personalized relapse prevention care and improve treatment outcomes.

Prescription drug abuse: from epidemiology to public policy

Prescription drug abuse has reached an epidemic level in the United States. The prevalence of prescription drug abuse escalated rapidly beginning in the late 1990s, requiring a significant increase in research to better understand the nature and treatment of this problem. Since this time, a research literature has begun to develop and has provided important information about how prescription drug abuse is similar to, and different from the abuse of other substances. This introduction to a special issue of the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment on prescription drug abuse provides an overview of the current status of the research literature in this area. The papers in this special issue include a sampling of the latest research on the epidemiology, clinical correlates, treatment, and public policy considerations of prescription drug abuse. Although much has been learned about prescription drug abuse in recent years, this research remains in early stages, particularly with respect to understanding effective treatments for this population. Future research priorities include studies on the interaction of prescription drugs with other licit and illicit substances, the impact of prescription drug abuse across the lifespan, the optimal treatment for prescription drug abuse and co-occurring conditions, and effective public policy initiatives for reducing prescription drug abuse.

Primary care-based buprenorphine taper vs maintenance therapy for prescription opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

Prescription opioid dependence is increasing and creates a significant public health burden, but primary care physicians lack evidence-based guidelines to decide between tapering doses followed by discontinuation of buprenorphine hydrochloride and naloxone hydrochloride therapy (hereinafter referred to as buprenorphine therapy) or ongoing maintenance therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of buprenorphine taper vs ongoing maintenance therapy in primary care-based treatment for prescription opioid dependence.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a 14-week randomized clinical trial that enrolled 113 patients with prescription opioid dependence from February 17, 2009, through February 1, 2013, in a single primary care site.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to buprenorphine taper (taper condition) or ongoing buprenorphine maintenance therapy (maintenance condition). The buprenorphine taper was initiated after 6 weeks of stabilization, lasted for 3 weeks, and included medications for opioid withdrawal, after which patients were offered naltrexone treatment. The maintenance group received ongoing buprenorphine therapy. All patients received physician and nurse support and drug counseling.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Illicit opioid use via results of urinanalysis and patient report, treatment retention, and reinitiation of buprenorphine therapy (taper group only).

RESULTS

During the trial, the mean percentage of urine samples negative for opioids was lower for patients in the taper group (35.2% [95% CI, 26.2%-44.2%]) compared with those in the maintenance group (53.2% [95% CI, 44.3%-62.0%]). Patients in the taper group reported more days per week of illicit opioid use than those in the maintenance group once they were no longer receiving buprenorphine (mean use, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.60-1.94] vs 0.47 [95% CI, 0.19-0.74] days). Patients in the taper group had fewer maximum consecutive weeks of opioid abstinence compared with those in the maintenance group (mean abstinence, 2.70 [95% CI, 1.72-3.75] vs 5.20 [95% CI, 4.16-6.20] weeks). Patients in the taper group were less likely to complete the trial (6 of 57 [11%] vs 37 of 56 [66%]; P < .001). Sixteen patients in the taper group reinitiated buprenorphine treatment after the taper owing to relapse.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Tapering is less efficacious than ongoing maintenance treatment in patients with prescription opioid dependence who receive buprenorphine therapy in primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00555425.

Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Case 35-2014: a 31-year-old woman with fevers, chest pain, and a history of HCV infection and substance-use disorder

A 31-year-old woman with substance-use disorder was admitted to this hospital because of fevers and chest pain. CT of the chest revealed multiple thick-walled nodular opacities throughout both lungs. Diagnostic tests were performed, and management decisions were made.

Buprenorphine maintenance and mu-opioid receptor availability in the treatment of opioid use disorder: implications for clinical use and policy

BACKGROUND

Sublingual formulations of buprenorphine (BUP) and BUP/naloxone have well-established pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and are safe and effective for treating opioid use disorder. Since approvals of these formulations, their clinical use has increased. Yet, questions have arisen as to how BUP binding to mu-opioid receptors (μORs), the neurobiological target for this medication, relate to its clinical application. BUP produces dose- and time-related alterations of μOR availability but some clinicians express concern about whether doses higher than those needed to prevent opioid withdrawal symptoms are warranted, and policymakers consider limiting reimbursement for certain BUP dosing regimens.

METHODS

We review scientific data concerning BUP-induced changes in μOR availability and their relationship to clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

Withdrawal suppression appears to require ≤50% μOR availability, associated with BUP trough plasma concentrations ≥1 ng/mL; for most patients, this may require single daily BUP doses of 4 mg to defend against trough levels, or lower divided doses. Blockade of the reinforcing and subjective effects of typical doses of abused opioids require <20% μOR availability, associated with BUP trough plasma concentrations ≥3 ng/mL; for most individuals, this may require single daily BUP doses >16 mg, or lower divided doses. For individuals attempting to surmount this blockade with higher-than-usual doses of abused opioids, even larger BUP doses and <10% μOR availability would be required.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, and given the complexities of studies on this issue and comorbid problems, we conclude that fixed, arbitrary limits on BUP doses in clinical care or limits on reimbursement for this care are unwarranted.