Buprenorphine-cannabis interaction in patients undergoing opioid maintenance therapy

Buprenorphine Use for Analgesia in Palliative Care

Buprenorphine is a semi-synthetic long-acting partial µ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonist that can be used for chronic pain as a sublingual tablet, transdermal patch (Butrans®), or a buccal film (Belbuca®). Buprenorphine's unique high receptor binding affinity and slow dissociation at the MOR allow for effective analgesia while offering less adverse effects compared to a full agonist opioid, in particular, less concern for respiratory depression and constipation. It is underused in chronic pain and palliative care due to misconceptions and stigma from its use in opioid use disorder (OUD). This case report discusses the unique pharmacology of buprenorphine, including its advantages, disadvantages, available formulations, drug-drug interactions, initiation and conversion strategies, and identifies ideal populations for use, especially within the palliative care patient population.

Review of the Use of Medicinal Cannabis Products in Palliative Care

In this review, we discuss the potential role of cannabis and cannabinoids in the management of cancer-related symptoms. There is limited evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of cannabis-based products in treating cancer-related pain and gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite. Regarding the role of cannabis-based products in the treatment of insomnia and mood disorders, most studies looked at these symptoms as secondary outcomes with mixed results. Cannabis-based products have adverse effects, ranging from neuropsychiatric to systemic effects to potential drug interactions.

CBD and THC in Special Populations: Pharmacokinetics and Drug-Drug Interactions

Cannabinoid use has surged in the past decade, with a growing interest in expanding cannabidiol (CBD) and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) applications into special populations. Consequently, the increased use of CBD and THC raises the risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Nevertheless, DDIs for cannabinoids, especially in special populations, remain inadequately investigated. While some clinical trials have explored DDIs between therapeutic drugs like antiepileptic drugs and CBD/THC, more potential interactions remain to be examined. This review summarizes the published studies on CBD and THC-drug interactions, outlines the mechanisms involved, discusses the physiological considerations in pharmacokinetics (PK) and DDI studies in special populations (including pregnant and lactating women, pediatrics, older adults, patients with hepatic or renal impairments, and others), and presents modeling approaches that can describe the DDIs associated with CBD and THC in special populations. The PK of CBD and THC in special populations remain poorly characterized, with limited studies investigating DDIs involving CBD/THC in these populations. Therefore, it is critical to evaluate potential DDIs between CBD/THC and medications that are commonly used in special populations. Modeling approaches can aid in understanding these interactions.

Quantifying a potential protective effect of buprenorphine on fatality risk during acute fentanyl exposures

INTRODUCTION

Buprenorphine is an important therapy for opioid use disorder and may also reduce the risk of fatal overdoses in fentanyl exposures. However, the role of buprenorphine in reducing this risk has not been quantified. This cross-sectional study examined the association between buprenorphine presence, decedent characteristics, and other factors with the predicted fentanyl concentrations in overdose deaths.

METHODS

The study identified unintentional fentanyl overdose decedents (n = 3036) from the West Virginia Forensic Drug Database, 2011 through mid-2020. The main outcome was fentanyl concentrations in overdose deaths in the presence and absence of buprenorphine. A multiple linear regression model examined the association of fentanyl concentrations with buprenorphine presence based on the concentrations of the parent drug buprenorphine (B) and its metabolite norbuprenorphine (N), adjusting for demographics, toxicological characteristics (presence of multiple opioids, benzodiazepines, stimulants, marijuana, and alcohol), and comorbidities. We used a B/N concentration ratio < 1 as an indirect indicator of longer-term buprenorphine exposure prior to drug overdose death.

RESULTS

The median fentanyl concentration was 65 % higher when buprenorphine was present (N = 168) vs. absent (N = 2868) (0.028 vs. 0.017 μg/mL, p < 0.001). In the multivariable model, statistically significant associations occurred between buprenorphine presence and increased fentanyl concentrations (+28.7 %) with a B/N ratio < 1. Obesity, male sex, alcohol presence, and comorbid cardiovascular diseases were statistically significantly associated with lower (-11.3 % to -20.7 %) fentanyl concentrations, whereas marijuana presence and a history of substance use disorder were associated with statistically significant higher fentanyl concentrations (+8.8 % to +31.3 %).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that sustained or longer-term buprenorphine intake might exert some protective effect on fatalities resulting from fentanyl exposure as documented by the association of higher fentanyl blood concentrations with buprenorphine presence among fatal drug overdoses. As fentanyl availability and overdose rates increase nationally, buprenorphine is a vital tool for effective opioid use disorder treatment that might also reduce the risk of fatality in an acute fentanyl exposure.

Human Data on Pharmacokinetic Interactions of Cannabinoids: A Narrative Review

Concomitant use of cannabinoids with other drugs may result in pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions, mainly due to the mechanism involving Phase I and Phase II enzymes and/or efflux transporters. Cannabinoids are not only substrates but also inhibitors or inducers of some of these enzymes and/or transporters. This narrative review aims to provide the available information reported in the literature regarding human data on the pharmacokinetic interactions of cannabinoids with other medications. A search on Pubmed/Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library was performed. Some studies were identified with Google search. Additional articles of interest were obtained through cross-referencing of published literature. All original research papers discussing interactions between cannabinoids, used for medical or recreational/adult-use purposes, and other medications in humans were included. Thirty-two studies with medicinal or recreational/adult-use cannabis were identified (seventeen case reports/series, thirteen clinical trials, and two retrospective analyses). In three of these studies, a bidirectional pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction was reported. In the rest of the studies, cannabinoids were the perpetrators, as in most of them, concentrations of cannabinoids were not measured. In light of the widespread use of prescribed and non-prescribed cannabinoids with other medications, pharmacokinetic interactions are likely to occur. Physicians should be aware of these potential interactions and closely monitor drug levels and/or responses. The existing literature regarding pharmacokinetic interactions is limited, and for some drugs, studies have relatively small cohorts or are only case reports. Therefore, there is a need for high-quality pharmacological studies on cannabinoid-drug interactions.

Drug Interactions of Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol in Cannabinoid Drugs

BACKGROUND

Cannabinoid drugs containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or its structural analogues, as monotherapeutic agents or as extracts or botanical preparations with or without cannabidiol (CBD) are often prescribed to multimorbid patients who are taking multiple drugs. This raises the question of the risk of drug interactions.

METHODS

This review of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of interactions with cannabinoid drugs and their potential effects is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search.

RESULTS

As THC and CBD are largely metabolized in the liver, their bioavailability after oral or oral-mucosal administration is low (6-8% and 11-13%, respectively). The plasma concentrations of THC and its active metabolite 11-OH-THC can be increased by strong CYP3A4 inhibitors (verapamil, clarithromycin) and decreased by strong CYP3A4 inductors (rifampicin, carbamazepine). The clinical significance of these effects is unclear because of the variable plasma level and therapeutic spectrum of THC. The metabolism of CBD is less dependent on cytochrome P450 enzymes than that of THC. THC and CBD inhibit CYP2C and CYP3A4; the corresponding clinically relevant drug interactions probably are likely to arise only with THC doses above 30 mg/day and CBD doses above 300 mg/day.

CONCLUSION

Potential drug interactions with THC and CBD are probably of little importance at low or moderate doses. Strong CYP inhibitors or inductors can intensify or weaken their effect. Slowly ramping up the dose of oral cannabinoid drugs can lessen their pharmacodynamic interactions, which can generally be well controlled. Administration by inhalation can worsen the interactions.

An Examination of the Complex Pharmacological Properties of the Non-Selective Opioid Modulator Buprenorphine

The goal of this review is to provide a recent examination of the pharmacodynamics as well as pharmacokinetics, misuse potential, toxicology, and prenatal consequences of buprenorphine. Buprenorphine is currently a Schedule III opioid in the US used for opioid-use disorder (OUD) and as an analgesic. Buprenorphine has high affinity for the mu-opioid receptor (MOR), delta (DOR), and kappa (KOR) and intermediate affinity for the nociceptin (NOR). Buprenorphine's active metabolite, norbuprenorphine, crosses the blood-brain barrier, is a potent metabolite that attenuates the analgesic effects of buprenorphine due to binding to NOR, and is responsible for the respiratory depressant effects. The area under the concentration curves are very similar for buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine, which indicates that it is important to consider this metabolite. Crowding sourcing has identified a buprenorphine street value (USD 3.95/mg), indicating some non-medical use. There have also been eleven-thousand reports involving buprenorphine and minors (age < 19) at US poison control centers. Prenatal exposure to clinically relevant dosages in rats produces reductions in myelin and increases in depression-like behavior. In conclusion, the pharmacology of this OUD pharmacotherapy including the consequences of prenatal buprenorphine exposure in humans and experimental animals should continue to be carefully evaluated.

Association Between Buprenorphine Dose and the Urine "Norbuprenorphine" to "Creatinine" Ratio: Revised

Background

Utilizing a 1-year chart review as the data, Furo et al. conducted a research study on an association between buprenorphine dose and the urine "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio and found significant differences in the ratio among 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day groups with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. This study expands the data for a 2-year chart review and is intended to delineate an association between buprenorphine dose and the urine "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio with a higher statistical power.

Methods

This study performed a 2-year chart review of data for the patients living in a halfway house setting, where their drug administration was closely monitored. The patients were on buprenorphine prescribed at an outpatient clinic for opioid use disorder (OUD), and their buprenorphine prescription and dispensing information were confirmed by the New York Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). Urine test results in the electronic health record (EHR) were reviewed, focusing on the "buprenorphine," "norbuprenorphine," and "creatinine" levels. The Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to examine an association between buprenorphine dose and the "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio.

Results

This study included 371 urine samples from 61 consecutive patients and analyzed the data in a manner similar to that described in the study by Furo et al. This study had similar findings with the following exceptions: (1) a mean buprenorphine dose of 11.0 ± 3.8 mg/day with a range of 2 to 20 mg/day; (2) exclusion of 6 urine samples with "creatinine" level <20 mg/dL; (3) minimum "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratios in the 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day groups of 0.44 × 10-4 (n = 68), 0.1 × 10-4 (n = 133), and 1.37 × 10-4 (n = 82), respectively; however, after removing the 2 lowest outliers, the minimum "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio in the 12-mg/day group was 1.6 × 10-4, similar to the findings in the previous study; and (4) a significant association between buprenorphine dose and the urine "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratios from the Kruskal-Wallis test (P < .01). In addition, the median "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio had a strong association with buprenorphine dose, and this association could be formulated as: [y = 2.266 ln(x) + 0.8211]. In other words, the median ratios in 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day groups were 5.53 × 10-4, 6.45 × 10-4, and 7.10 × 10-4, respectively. Therefore, any of the following features should alert providers to further investigate patient treatment compliance: (1) inappropriate substance(s) in urine sample; (2) "creatinine" level <20 mg/dL; (3) "buprenorphine" to "norbuprenorphine" ratio >50:1; (4) buprenorphine dose >24 mg/day; or (5) "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratios <0.5 × 10-4 in patients who are on 8 mg/day or <1.5 × 10-4 in patients who are on 12 mg/day or more.

Conclusion

The results of the present study confirmed those of the previous study regarding an association between buprenorphine dose and the "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio, using an expanded data set. Additionally, this study delineated a clearer relationship, focusing on the median "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratios in different buprenorphine dose groups. These results could help providers interpret urine test results more accurately and apply them to outpatient opioid treatment programs for optimal treatment outcomes.

MASCC guideline: cannabis for cancer-related pain and risk of harms and adverse events

BACKGROUND

Approximately 18% of patients with cancer use cannabis at one time as palliation or treatment for their cancer. We performed a systematic review of randomized cannabis cancer trials to establish a guideline for its use in pain and to summarize the risk of harm and adverse events when used for any indication in cancer patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized trials with or without meta-analysis was carried out from MEDLINE, CCTR, Embase, and PsychINFO. The search involved randomized trials of cannabis in cancer patients. The search ended on November 12, 2021. The Jadad grading system was used for grading quality. Inclusion criteria for articles were randomized trials or systematic reviews of randomized trials of cannabinoids versus either placebo or active comparator explicitly in adult patients with cancer.

RESULTS

Thirty-four systematic reviews and randomized trials met the eligibility criteria for cancer pain. Seven were randomized trials involving patients with cancer pain. Two trials had positive primary endpoints, which could not be reproduced in similarly designed trials. High-quality systematic reviews with meta-analyses found little evidence that cannabinoids are an effective adjuvant or analgesic to cancer pain. Seven systematic reviews and randomized trials related to harms and adverse events were included. There was inconsistent evidence about the types and levels of harm patients may experience when using cannabinoids.

CONCLUSION

The MASCC panel recommends against the use of cannabinoids as an adjuvant analgesic for cancer pain and suggests that the potential risk of harm and adverse events be carefully considered for all cancer patients, particularly with treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

ASRA Pain Medicine consensus guidelines on the management of the perioperative patient on cannabis and cannabinoids

BACKGROUND

The past two decades have seen an increase in cannabis use due to both regulatory changes and an interest in potential therapeutic effects of the substance, yet many aspects of the substance and their health implications remain controversial or unclear.

METHODS

In November 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine charged the Cannabis Working Group to develop guidelines for the perioperative use of cannabis. The Perioperative Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids Guidelines Committee was charged with drafting responses to the nine key questions using a modified Delphi method with the overall goal of producing a document focused on the safe management of surgical patients using cannabinoids. A consensus recommendation required ≥75% agreement.

RESULTS

Nine questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved on third-round voting. Topics addressed included perioperative screening, postponement of elective surgery, concomitant use of opioid and cannabis perioperatively, implications for parturients, adjustment in anesthetic and analgesics intraoperatively, postoperative monitoring, cannabis use disorder, and postoperative concerns. Surgical patients using cannabinoids are at potential increased risk for negative perioperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific clinical recommendations for perioperative management of cannabis and cannabinoids were successfully created.

Clinical Relevance of Drug Interactions with Cannabis: A Systematic Review

Concomitant use of cannabis with other drugs may lead to cannabis–drug interactions, mainly due to the pharmacokinetic mechanism involving the family of CYP450 isoenzymes. This narrative systematic review aimed to systematize the available information regarding clinical relevance of cannabis–drug interactions. We utilized the PubMed/Medline database for this systematic review, using the terms drug interactions and cannabis, between June 2011 and June 2021. Articles with cannabis–drug interactions in humans, in English or Spanish, with full-text access were selected. Two researchers evaluated the article’s inclusion. The level of clinical relevance was determined according to the severity and probability of the interaction. Ninety-five articles were identified and twenty-six were included. Overall, 19 pairs of drug interactions with medicinal or recreational cannabis were identified in humans. According to severity and probability, 1, 2, 12, and 4 pairs of cannabis–drug interactions were classified at levels 1 (very high risk), 2 (high risk), 3 (medium risk), and 5 (without risk), respectively. Cannabis–warfarin was classified at level 1, and cannabis–buprenorphine and tacrolimus at level 2. This review provides evidence for both the low probability of the occurrence of clinically relevant drug interactions and the lack of evidence regarding cannabis–drug interactions.

Buprenorphine Dosage and Urine Quantitative Buprenorphine, Norbuprenorphine, and Creatinine Levels in an Office-Based Opioid Treatment Program

BACKGROUND

Treatment progress is routinely monitored by urine testing in patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) undergoing buprenorphine medication-assisted treatment (MAT). However, interpretation of urine test results could be challenging. This retrospective study aims to examine the results of quantitative buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, and creatinine levels in urine testing in relation to sublingual buprenorphine dosage to facilitate an accurate interpretation of urine testing results.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical charts of 41 consecutive patients, who were residing in halfway houses where their medication intake was closely monitored and who had enrolled in an office-based MAT program at an urban clinic between July 2018 and June 2019. The patients' urine testing results were reviewed, and demographic variables were recorded. We focused on the patients treated with 8-, 12-, or 16-mg/day of buprenorphine, examining their urine buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, and creatinine levels. Analysis of variance tested the statistical association between the dosage and urine testing results on the norbuprenorphine-to-creatinine ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 240 urine samples from 41 patients were included for this study. The 41 patients received a mean buprenorphine dose of 10.5 ± 3.7 mg/day (range, 4-20 mg/day). Then, this study examined the distribution of the 240 urine samples and then focused on 184 urine samples that came from the 33 patients who were treated with 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day of buprenorphine, the 3 most common dosages. All of the 184 urine samples had a creatinine level of >20 mg/dL and buprenorphine-to-norbuprenorphine ratio <50:1. The average norbuprenorphine-to-creatinine ratio in the 8 mg/day dosage group was 3.85 ± 2.24 × 10^-4 (n = 66; range, 0.44-11.12). The respective ratios in the 12- and 16-mg dosage groups were 5.64 ± 3.40 × 10^-4 (n = 83; range, 1.55-22.72) and 6.23 ± 4.92 × 10^-4 (n = 35; range, 1.37-27.12). The 3 dosage groups differed significantly in the mean ratios (P < .01), except when the 12- and 16-mg dosage groups were compared (P = .58). The results of this study thus suggest that prescribers should pay attention to the following features: (1) unexpected substance(s) in urine testing, (2) creatinine level under 20 mg/dL, (3) buprenorphine-to-creatinine ratio over 50:1, (4) buprenorphine dosage over 24 mg/day, and (5) norbuprenorphine-to-creatinine ratio consistently under 0.5 × 10^-4 in patients treated with 8 mg/day or 1.5 × 10^-4 in patients treated with 12 mg/day or more.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested parameters for interpreting quantitative urine test results in relation to buprenorphine intake dose in office-based opioid treatment programs.

Cannabis and the Cancer Patient

Session 2 of the National Cancer Institute's Cannabis, Cannabinoids, and Cancer Research Workshop opened with testimony from a lymphoma survivor who detailed medicinal cannabis-related improvements in nausea, low appetite, insomnia, and mental health and the limited clinical counsel she received regarding cannabis use. Discussion next turned to the evolution of the legal landscape of cannabis in the United States, one in which state and federal laws frequently conflict and the Controlled Substance Act renders cannabis Schedule I. This legal climate creates conundrums for US medicinal cannabis researchers who contend with limited funding opportunities, avenues to source trial drug, and procedural red tape and for oncology clinicians who recommend medicinal cannabis to patients with some frequency while perceiving themselves as ill equipped to make such clinical recommendations. Ultimately, it creates challenges for cancer patients who find themselves turning to nonmedical and anecdotal information sources. The risks of cannabis use by the cancer patient were discussed next. These include infection, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic drug-botanical interactions, cyclic nausea and vomiting, e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated illness, legal issues, and high cost. The session concluded with a broad survey of the research supporting oncologic cannabinoid use, conclusive evidence for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and suggestive evidence for cancer-related pain.

Buprenorphine-Related Deaths in North Carolina from 2010-2018

Buprenorphine is a commonly prescribed medication for the treatment of opioid-use disorder. As prescriptions increase in North Carolina, buprenorphine is more frequently encountered statewide in routine postmortem casework. Between 2010 and 2018, there were 131 select cases investigated by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner where buprenorphine was detected in peripheral blood and considered a primary cause of death, with no other opioids present and no other non-opioid substances found in the lethal range. The decedents ranged in age from 14 to 64 years, with 67% male. The mean/median peripheral blood concentrations were 4.1/2.1 ng/mL for buprenorphine and 7.8/3.4 ng/mL for the metabolite, norbuprenorphine. These postmortem blood concentrations overlap antemortem therapeutic concentrations in plasma reported in the literature for opioid-dependent subjects receiving sublingual maintenance therapy. The pathologist considered scene findings, prescription history, autopsy findings, toxicological analysis, and decedent behavior prior to death to conclude a drug-related cause of death. Many of the deaths were complicated by the presence of other central nervous system depressants along with contributory underlying cardiovascular and respiratory disease. The three most prevalent additive substances were alprazolam, ethanol, and gabapentin, found in 67, 36, and 32 cases out of 131, respectively. Interpreting buprenorphine involvement in a death is complex, and instances may be under-estimated in epidemiological data because of the lack of a defined toxic or lethal range in postmortem blood along with its good safety profile. As expansion to access of opioid-use disorder treatment becomes a priority, awareness of the challenges of postmortem interpretation is needed as increased use and diversion of buprenorphine are inevitable.