Continuous naloxone administration suppresses opiate withdrawal symptoms in human opiate addicts during detoxification treatment

Ultra-rapid opiate detoxification in hospital

Aims and method

To evaluate ultra-rapid opiate detoxification under sedation. Symptom control was analysed in the first 12 hours of detoxification in 20 patients and case notes were examined 12 weeks later for outcome.

Results

Good symptom control was achieved, except for restlessness. At 12 weeks 25% patients were abstinent.

Clinical implications

While long-term outcome is similar to conventional methadone detoxification, the ultra-rapid technique is safe, more acceptable to patients and more cost-effective.

Use of microdoses for induction of buprenorphine treatment with overlapping full opioid agonist use: the Bernese method

Background

Buprenorphine is a partial µ-opioid receptor agonist used for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence. Because of the partial agonism and high receptor affinity, it may precipitate withdrawal symptoms during induction in persons on full µ-opioid receptor agonists. Therefore, current guidelines and drug labels recommend leaving a sufficient time period since the last full agonist use, waiting for clear and objective withdrawal symptoms, and reducing pre-existing full agonist therapies before administering buprenorphine. However, even with these precautions, for many patients the induction of buprenorphine is a difficult experience, due to withdrawal symptoms. Furthermore, tapering of the full agonist bears the risk of relapse to illicit opioid use.

Cases

We present two cases of successful initiation of buprenorphine treatment with the Bernese method, ie, gradual induction overlapping with full agonist use. The first patient began buprenorphine with overlapping street heroin use after repeatedly experiencing relapse, withdrawal, and trauma reactivation symptoms during conventional induction. The second patient was maintained on high doses of diacetylmorphine (ie, pharmaceutical heroin) and methadone during induction. Both patients tolerated the induction procedure well and reported only mild withdrawal symptoms.

Discussion

Overlapping induction of buprenorphine maintenance treatment with full µ-opioid receptor agonist use is feasible and may be associated with better tolerability and acceptability in some patients compared to the conventional method of induction.

Rapid opiate detoxification and antagonist induction under general anaesthesia or intravenous sedation is humane, sometimes essential and should always be an option. Three illustrative case reports involving diabetes and epilepsy and a review of the literature

When abstinence is an appropriate goal, controlled studies and systematic reviews confirm that rapid, antagonist-precipitated opiate withdrawal procedures are the most effective and cost effective methods of initiating abstinence, and naltrexone (NTX) maintenance. While 'rapid' withdrawal, better conceptualised as Rapid Antagonist Induction (RAI), can often be humanely achieved with modest sedation levels, we present three case histories to support our argument that for some patients, general anaesthesia (GA), or techniques of intravenous sedation (IVS) that approach GA, are essential for safety and success. This includes patients with intercurrent disease (e.g. epilepsy or insulin-dependent diabetes) but also those with severe withdrawal phobia after previous distressing experiences. We discuss the history of the procedure. The dangers of RAI under GA or IVS in experienced hands have been exaggerated and the appropriate expertise should be more easily available. Patients and clinicians readily accept risks of major surgery for the excessive intake of food that causes most obesity. Similar risk-acceptance exists in cosmetic surgery and obstetrics. The increasing use and effectiveness of long-acting implants or depot-injections of NTX for relapse-prevention have largely solved compliance problems that undermined the potential of oral NTX. Their ability to prevent opiate overdose in abstinent, non-tolerant patients also strengthens arguments both for offering RAI as a therapeutic option and for reducing psychological, professional and practical barriers to using it.

Opioid antagonists under heavy sedation or anaesthesia for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal (detoxification) is necessary prior to drug-free treatment or as the end point of long-term substitution treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of opioid antagonists to induce opioid withdrawal with concomitant heavy sedation or anaesthesia, in terms of withdrawal signs and symptoms, completion of treatment and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2009), Medline (January 1966 to 11 August 2009), Embase (January 1985 to 2009 Week 32), PsycINFO (1967 to July 2009), and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled studies of antagonist-induced withdrawal under heavy sedation or anaesthesia in opioid-dependent participants compared with other approaches, or a different regime of anaesthesia-based antagonist-induced withdrawal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer assessed studies for inclusion, undertook data extraction and assessed quality. Inclusion decisions and the overall process were confirmed by consultation between all authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (eight randomised controlled trials) involving 1109 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review.Antagonist-induced withdrawal is more intense but less prolonged than withdrawal managed with reducing doses of methadone, and doses of naltrexone sufficient for blockade of opioid effects can be established significantly more quickly with antagonist-induced withdrawal than withdrawal managed with clonidine and symptomatic medications. The level of sedation does not affect the intensity and duration of withdrawal, although the duration of anaesthesia may influence withdrawal severity. There is a significantly greater risk of adverse events with heavy, compared to light, sedation (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 9.12, P = 0.03) and probably with this approach compared to other forms of detoxification.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heavy sedation compared to light sedation does not confer additional benefits in terms of less severe withdrawal or increased rates of commencement on naltrexone maintenance treatment. Given that the adverse events are potentially life-threatening, the value of antagonist-induced withdrawal under heavy sedation or anaesthesia is not supported. The high cost of anaesthesia-based approaches, both in monetary terms and use of scarce intensive care resources, suggest that this form of treatment should not be pursued.

Pharmacologic treatments for opioid dependence: detoxification and maintenance options

While opioid dependence has more treatment agents available than other abused drugs, none are curative. They can, however, markedly diminish withdrawal symptoms and craving, and block opioid effects due to lapses.

The most effective withdrawal method is substituting and tapering methadone or buprenorphine, α-2 Adrenergic agents can ameliorate untreated symptoms or substitute for agonists if not available. Shortening withdrawal by precipitating it with narcotic antagonists has been studied, but the methods are plagued by safety issues or persisting symptoms. Neither the withdrawal agents nor the methods are associated with better long-term outcome, which appears mostly related to post-detoxification treatment.

Excluding those with short-term habits, the best outcome occurs with long-term maintenance on methadone or buprenorphine accompanied by appropriate psychosocial interventions. Those with strong external motivation may do well on the antagonist naltrexone. Currently, optimum duration of maintenance on either is unclear. Better agents are needed to impact the brain changes related to addiction.

S(+)-ketamine attenuates increase in electroencephalograph activity and amplitude height of sensory-evoked potentials during rapid opioid detoxification

Anesthesia-assisted opioid detoxification offers an opportunity for patients who have undergone unsuccessful conventional detoxifications. Little is known of excitatory effects taking place in the central nervous system during this procedure. Because acute withdrawal is accompanied by N-methyl-d-aspartic acid (NMDA)-receptor activation we tested whether the administration of the nonspecific N-methyl-d-aspartic acid antagonist S(+)-ketamine results in a reduction of hyperactivity in the central nervous system. Thirty-one patients with a long history of opioid abuse were acutely withdrawn with naltrexone during propofol/clonidine anesthesia and mechanical ventilation. Electroencephalogram (EEG) power spectra as well as median nerve-evoked somatosensory potentials (SSEP) were determined at the following times: evening before detoxification (control), steady-state propofol/clonidine-anesthesia, 30 min after naltrexone administration, and 5 min and 60 min after additional S(+)-ketamine (1.5 mg/kg). Compared to steady-state anesthesia, naltrexone induced a decrease by 270% in the low delta (0.5-3 Hz) and an increase by 110% in the fast beta (13-30 Hz) domain of the EEG with only minor changes in the theta-(3-7 Hz) and alpha-(7-13 Hz) band. Simultaneously, mean amplitude of the late N(100) peak of the SSEP increased from 3.3 muV to 10.5 muV. The changes could be attenuated by the additional administration of S(+)-ketamine, 5 min and 60 min after injection. Cardiovascular changes were not a reliable index for monitoring acute withdrawal symptoms and determining termination of rapid opioid detoxification. In this regard, EEG power spectra and SSEP were more consistent and clinically useful variables. S(+)-ketamine is a valuable adjunct in the anesthetic regimen, since it attenuates hyperactivity of the central nervous system during rapid opioid detoxification.

Opioid antagonists under heavy sedation or anaesthesia for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal (detoxification) is necessary prior to drug-free treatment. It may also represent the end point of long-term opioid replacement treatment such as methadone maintenance. The availability of managed withdrawal is essential to an effective treatment system.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the administration of opioid antagonists to induce opioid withdrawal with concomitant heavy sedation or anaesthesia, in terms of withdrawal signs and symptoms, completion of treatment and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Drugs and Alcohol Group register (October 2003), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004), Medline (January 1966 to January 2005), Embase (January 1985 to January 2005), PsycINFO (1967 to January 2005), and Cinahl (1982 to December 2004) and reference lists of studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled trials comparing antagonist-induced withdrawal under heavy sedation or anaesthesia with another form of treatment, or a different regime of anaesthesia-based antagonist-induced withdrawal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer assessed studies for inclusion and undertook data extraction and assessed quality. Inclusion decisions and the overall process were confirmed by consultation between all three reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies (five randomised controlled trials) involving 834 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review.Antagonist-induced withdrawal is more intense but less prolonged than withdrawal managed with reducing doses of methadone, and doses of naltrexone sufficient for blockade of opioid effects can be established significantly more quickly with antagonist-induced withdrawal than withdrawal managed with clonidine and symptomatic medications. The level of sedation does not affect the intensity and duration of withdrawal, although the duration of anaesthesia may influence withdrawal severity. There is a significantly greater risk of adverse events with heavy, compared to light, sedation (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 9.12, P = 0.03) and probably also other forms of detoxification.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heavy sedation compared to light sedation does not confer additional benefits in terms of less severe withdrawal or increased rates of commencement on naltrexone maintenance treatment. Given that the adverse events are potentially life-threatening, the value of antagonist-induced withdrawal under heavy sedation or anaesthesia is not supported. The high cost of anaesthesia-based approaches, both in monetary terms and use of scarce intensive care resources, suggest that this form of treatment should not be pursued.

General anaesthesia does not improve outcome in opioid antagonist detoxification treatment: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Opioid detoxification by administering opioid-antagonists under general anaesthesia has caused considerable controversy. This study is conducted to determine whether rapid detoxification under general anaesthesia results in higher levels of opioid abstinence than rapid detoxification without anaesthesia.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled open clinical trial from September 1999 to August 2001.

SETTING

Four addiction centres in collaboration with three general hospitals in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 272 opioid-dependent patients whose previous attempts to abstain were unsuccessful.

INTERVENTION

Patients received rapid detoxification with general anaesthesia (RD-GA) or without general anaesthesia (RD).

MEASUREMENTS

Urine screens and an interview (EuropASI) to assess opioid abstinence; two questionnaires (SOOS, OOWS) to measure withdrawal symptoms and one to measure craving (VAS).

FINDINGS

One month after the intervention 62.8% of the patients in the RD-GA group and 60.0% in the RD group were abstinent for opioids (P = 0.71). No adverse events or complications occurred during RD; however, in the RD-GA group, five adverse events necessitated admission to a general hospital. The average 1-month cost for RD was Euros 2517 versus Euros 4439 for RD-GA.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid detoxification under general anaesthesia did not result in higher levels of opioid abstinence than rapid detoxification without anaesthesia. The cost of the former intervention was much higher.

Use of gabapentin for attenuation of symptoms following rapid opiate detoxification (ROD)--correlation with neurophysiological parameters--

Rapid opiate detoxification (ROD) is a technique whereby the opiate-dependent patient is withdrawn acutely, under anesthesia, from the opioid. Following detoxification, patients experience severe back pain and restlessness often accompanied by a restless-leg-syndrome. We evaluated gabapentin given immediately following detoxification to attenuate these symptoms. In addition, we evaluated the use of the somatosensory-evoked potential (SEP) as a parameter to quantitate pain responses. Patients (n=21; mean age 32.5 +/- 7 SD; 12 males, 9 females) underwent ROD with naltrexone (2 x 50 mg) during propofol anesthesia and artificial ventilation (IPPV). Sympathetic overshoot was attenuated by clonidine, and increased bowl movement was managed by continuous i.v. somatostatin. Back pain, restlessness, and restless-leg-syndrome were treated with gabapentin (1200 mg) in the ICU. Efficacy was assessed by the patient's subjective ratings of restlessness (0-4). In addition, measurements of amplitude (microV), latency (ms) of late N100-peak of the somatosensory evoked potential (SEP), and tolerance to an increased electrical nociceptive stimulus (mA) to the forearm were performed. Data were compared to pre-treatment control and to the period shortly after detoxification. From a mean of 8.4 +/- 2.5 microV, N100-peak increased to a mean of 12.3 microV +/- 3.3 (p < 0.005) following opioid detoxification. Gabapentin reduced amplitude height to a mean of 3.5 +/- 1.5 microV. Also, tolerance to nociceptive stimulus, which had dropped to 4.4 mA, increased to 12.5 mA (p < 0.01), while intensity for restlessness and thrashing of limbs dropped from 3.2 to 1.2 (p < 0.05). The sudden displacement of the opiate from its receptor site induced by naltrexone, resulted in a post inhibitory SEP overshoot with an increase in nociceptive afferent volleys, and a lowering in pain threshold. This was associated with back pain, limb thrashing and a restless-leg-syndrome, all of which could be attenuated by gabapentin. The amplitude of late N100-peak parameter appears to be a potential candidate to quantify the increase of nociception in such patients.

Unexpected Delirium During Rapid Opioid Detoxification (ROD)

Rapid Opioid Detoxification (ROD), using a combination of the long acting opioid antagonist, Naltrexone and the alpha 2 agonist Clonidine, is a method to detoxify patients who are opioid dependent. The daily administration of Naltrexone in increasing dosages decreases the duration of the withdrawal syndrome associated with opioids, especially longer acting drugs such as Methadone. This study is intended to report the frequency of delirium, as defined in DSM IV, during the ROD of Methadone maintained patients. A chart review was conducted of twenty consecutive patients who received in-patient ROD from Methadone maintenance from January 1999 to December 1999. Methadone was tapered and discontinued prior to ROD and Naltrexone was administered in increasing daily doses. Five individuals developed delirium and discontinued the procedure on the first day, fourteen patients completed the protocol, and one dropped out prior to completion. A significant incidence of delirium resulted from the ROD procedure.

Rapid detoxification from opioid dependence under general anaesthesia versus standard methadone tapering: abstinence rates and withdrawal distress experiences

The aim of this work was to study abstinence rates and withdrawal effects of rapid detoxification of opioid-dependents under general anaesthesia (RD-GA) compared to standard methadone tapering (SMT) using a prospective clinical trial with a follow-up of 3 months, as a preliminary study at the Novadic addiction centre in St Oedenrode and St Joseph Hospital in Veghel, the Netherlands. Thirty opioid-dependent patients took part. Outcome measures included urine toxicology screening for opiates to determine abstinence and presence of objective and subjective opioid withdrawal distress symptoms. Statistically significant differences in abstinence rate between RD-GA and SMT were present after one (RD-GA 100% vs. SMT 40%, p < 0.01) and 2 months (RD-GA 93% vs. SMT 33%, p < 0.01). After 3 months the difference in abstinence was still substantial, but no longer statistically significant (RD-GA 67% vs. SMT 33%, p = 0.14). Objective and subjective withdrawal symptoms showed largely identical outcomes and were equally low in the two groups for those who remained in the study. There was a considerably higher percentage of abstinence in the RD-GA group after 1, 2 and 3 months of follow-up accompanied by relatively mild withdrawal symptoms of shorter duration. However, if one completes SMT the data suggest a greater chance of staying clean in the long term than those completing RD-GA.

Ultra-rapid opiate detoxification: from clinical applications to basic science

Rapid or ultra-rapid opiate detoxification has become increasingly popular in both private and public addiction centres. These techniques seem to facilitate the transfer of opiate-dependent patients from opiate agonist to opiate antagonist. Despite the probable complex neuropharmacological aspects involved in these procedures, their development over nearly three decades is notable for the almost complete absence of clinically relevant animal studies. This paper discusses the historical background of this occurrence, and reviews the small number of animal studies that have been conducted. Many discussions and arguments about the techniques seem to underscore their true purpose, which is not "simply to detoxify" opiate-addicted patients but to initiate long-term management with naltrexone. For this reason, it may be better to conceptualize these techniques not as "rapid detoxification" but as "rapid antagonist induction".

Ultra-rapid opiate detoxification using deep sedation and prior oral buprenorphine preparation: long-term results

BACKGROUND

New methods of ultra-rapid opiate detoxification (URD) under intravenous sedation have been criticized because of limited data on safety and long-term follow-up. Premedication with buprenorphine has been advocated to improve safety by decreasing vomiting. Prior research has not explored URD in socially impaired patients.

METHOD

Sixteen patients were detoxified with URD and prospectively evaluated over at least 30 months. Data of this procedure were compared with those of our previous study without buprenorphine preparation (Drug Alcohol Depend. 52(3) (1998) 243). The 16 patients were followed up by a general practitioner (GP) before and after URD. The GPs also supervised the 7-day course of buprenorphine treatment prescribed for the 16 patients prior to URD.

RESULTS

During the procedure, only one episode of vomiting occurred instead of 13 out of 20 in our previous study. Post-procedure, only two patients experienced moderate withdrawal symptoms, such as persistent nausea, abdominal cramps and vomiting lasting from 24 to 48 h, in comparison with most patients in the previous study without buprenorphine. After a period of at least 30 months (36.0+/-6.38), the 16 patients were still alive and were regularly monitored by their GP. Only two of the 16 never relapsed after URD and reported total opiate abstinence. Fourteen patients relapsed; 12 of these were prescribed a licensed methadone substitution program and two were still using heroin.

CONCLUSION

In this small sample, the data indicated that URD with buprenorphine preparation was safe and that it markedly decreased post-procedure morbidity. No patient died over a minimum 30-month follow-up period. Furthermore, the procedure was employed with socially impaired patients. In the long term, a few patients were still free of opiates, while the majority opted for a methadone maintenance program, showing that URD can serve as one possible step in a long-term treatment program.

24-Hour opiate detoxification and antagonist induction at home--the 'Asturian method': a report on 1368 procedures

The technique of domiciliary rapid opiate detoxification (ROD) developed in Asturias since 1994 enables patients dependent on heroin and/or methadone (or other opiates) to start antagonist maintenance with a full dose of naltrexone (50 mg) and largely recover from the acute opiate withdrawal syndrome in a few hours at home without direct medical or nursing involvement. Detailed information on 1368 procedures is presented but in Asturias, over 3000 procedures have been completed to date without any deaths or serious medical or psychiatric complications. We also describe some recent modifications to the procedure involving the use of octreotide as an antidiarrhoeal and the insertion of subcutaneous naltrexone implants to prevent early relapse. Rather than domiciliary ROD, we think the procedure is more usefully conceptualized as domiciliary rapid antagonist induction (RAI), because treatment with well-supervised naltrexone is known to be effective in reducing relapse rates. Now that controlled studies uniformly describe greatly increased rates of transfer to naltrexone maintenance treatment following RAI, compared with conventional slower withdrawal and naltrexone induction procedures, it is important that the safety, acceptability and simplicity of this 'Asturian' RAI/ROD technique become more widely known.

Withdrawal from methadone maintenance treatment. Reasons for not trying to quit methadone

Although factors associated with successful termination of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) have been well studied, the question of why certain methadone patients try to taper off methadone while others do not is still unanswered. Those patients who wish to continue MMT should of course be allowed to stay in treatment. However, even if only a small portion of the MMT patients wish to quit maintenance treatment, they should be offered all possible support by the treatment staff to maximize the possibility of a successful outcome. In the present study, we compared two groups of well-functioning MMT patients with respect to background factors, methadone-related factors, drug-related factors and psychological characteristics: one group consisted of patients who were trying to terminate their MMT (group 1) and the other group consisted of patients who were not trying (group 2). Each of the groups contained 25 well-rehabilitated subjects matched by age, gender and the number of years in MMT. The results show that the patients who were not trying to terminate MMT (in comparison to group 1) were not influenced by others to try to quit methadone, had a long history of opiate use as well as mixed drug use prior to MMT, had a higher methadone dose and reported a lower degree of anticipated abstinence symptoms. According to the statements of the subjects in group 2, the most important reason for not quitting treatment was the belief that they needed the methadone. The fact that they knew others who had failed to quit MMT and low confidence in succeeding were other common answers. Further, our results suggest that patients who were satisfied with their overall drug situation were less inclined to make a withdrawal attempt.

Opioid antagonists under heavy sedation or anaesthesia for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal (detoxification) is necessary prior to drug-free treatment. It may also represent the end point of long-term opioid replacement treatment such as methadone maintenance. The availability of managed withdrawal is essential to an effective treatment system.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the administration of opioid antagonists to induce opioid withdrawal with concomitant heavy sedation or anaesthesia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Multiple electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycLIT, Australian Medical Index, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and CINAHL) were systematically searched. Reference lists of retrieved studies, reviews and conference abstracts were handsearched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the administration of opioid antagonists under heavy sedation or anaesthesia with another form of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer assessed studies for inclusion and undertook data extraction. Inclusion decisions and the overall process were confirmed by consultation between all three reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

As yet, no studies have been published comparing treatment regimes involving the administration of opioid antagonists under heavy sedation or anaesthesia with other approaches to detoxification. Treatment regimes for the studies considered for this review varied in the opioid antagonist used, the dose and mode of administration, the anaesthetic agent, duration of anaesthesia and adjunct medications employed. More detailed monitoring of withdrawal is required before any conclusions can be drawn as to what comprises a typical pattern of withdrawal and what factors might influence the pattern. There is only very limited information on referral to ongoing treatment, and relapse to opioid use. Together with the lack of adequate comparisons, this makes it impossible to draw any conclusions about the long-term effectiveness, or the cost-effectiveness, of withdrawal induced by opioid antagonists under heavy sedation or anaesthesia.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Considerably more research evidence will be needed before any conclusions can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of managing withdrawal by administration of opioid antagonists under heavy sedation or anaesthesia. The risk of vomiting during sedation, respiratory depression and cardiac irregularities point to the approach being limited to facilities equipped for intubation, assisted ventilation and a high level of monitoring, and with the capacity to respond to adverse events that might occur. The approach must be regarded as experimental with both risks and benefits remaining uncertain.

The impact of naloxone/lofexidine combination treatment on the opiate withdrawal syndrome

Clinical studies in opiate-dependent patients suggest that detoxification treatment with opiate antagonists may accelerate the resolution of the opiate withdrawal syndrome, permitting early induction onto naltrexone maintenance treatment. The present open study compared the clinical efficacy of daily naloxone injections in conjunction with lofexidine, with conventional lofexidine monotherapy, in 49 polysubstance-misusing opiate-dependent patients. Overall, the addition of naloxone did not confer substantial benefit over lofexidine monotherapy, although area-under-the-curve analysis showed that withdrawal severity in the naloxone/lofexidine combination group was significantly less than in the lofexidine monotherapy group, who experienced more severe withdrawal symptoms on days 4, 7, 9 and 13 of treatment. There were no significant differences in rates of completion of detoxification. Blood pressure remained within normal limits in both groups. Naltrexone maintenance treatment acceptability was low; only four patients continued with treatment for 5 or more days. The modest benefit of adding naloxone to lofexidine compared to the findings of previous opiate antagonist detoxification treatment studies is discussed in the context of the hypothesis that a critical level of opiate receptor occupancy is required to accelerate resolution of opiate withdrawal; the neurochemical mechanisms which may promote this are discussed.

Outcome and six month follow up of patients after Ultra Rapid Opiate Detoxification (UROD)

OBJECTIVES

(1) Evaluate the safety and efficacy of Ultra Rapid Opiate Detoxification (UROD); and (2) evaluate six month outcome data of patients choosing this method.

DESIGN

Two center parallel group clinical trial. No grant funding.

SETTING

Two academic medical centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-three men and 27 women, aged 18 to 55 years, with opiate dependency self selected to undergo detoxification.

INTERVENTIONS

UROD followed by naltrexone maintenance and an aftercare program. UROD and aftercare costs were the responsibility of the patients and/or their significant others.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE

(1) Completion of UROD as determined by a non reactive response to a naloxone challenge test under anesthesia and non reactive response to naltrexone administration before discharge. (2) Patient outcome as determined at six month follow up of UROD patients' self reported relapse free status confirmed by urine drug screen, significant other reports, and/or therapist reports.

RESULTS

One hundred percent successful detoxification with UROD with low morbidity and no mortality. Relapse data were available for 111/123 procedures performed (90%), with 61/111 patients (55%) with reported relapse free status at the six month follow up interval.

CONCLUSIONS

For individuals who are addicted to opioids, the Ultra Rapid Opiate Detoxification method appears to be a viable treatment option.

Neurobiological adaptations to psychostimulants and opiates as a basis of treatment development

Abuse of illicit substances, in particular psychostimulants and opiates, is a worldwide public health issue. Chronic use of cocaine and amphetamine causes common neurobiological adaptations that may guide new treatment development. These include perturbations in dopamine and serotonin neurotransmission, leading to trials of antidepressants, and serotonin and dopamine augmentation strategies. The detection of cerebral perfusion abnormalities caused by psychostimulants has led to examination of antiplatelet and excitatory amino acid (EAA) antagonist therapies. Further, development of cocaine vaccines allows for testing of peripheral blockade approaches to cocaine addiction. New approaches to behavioral treatments for cocaine dependence are also reviewed. For opiate dependence, understanding of heroin's effects on mu and kappa opiate receptors has led to investigations of the partial mu agonist buprenorphine in opiate maintenance. Evidence for hyper-excitability of locus coeruleus (LC) noradrenergic neurons and EEA inputs to the LC guides trials of new alpha 2-adrenergic agonists and EEA antagonists to alleviate opiate withdrawal. Finally, clinical experience with withdrawal from methadone and LAAM has led to trials of antagonist-accelerated opiate withdrawal. Improved treatment of psychostimulant and opiate addiction is critically needed, and likely to have wide-reaching impact in health care and society.

Acute detoxification of opioid-addicted patients with naloxone during propofol or methohexital anesthesia: a comparison of withdrawal symptoms, neuroendocrine, metabolic, and cardiovascular patterns

OBJECTIVE

Mu-Opioid receptor blockade during general anesthesia is a new treatment for detoxification of opioid addicted patients. We assessed catecholamine plasma concentrations, oxygen consumption, cardiovascular variables, and withdrawal symptoms after naloxone and tested the hypothesis that variables are influenced by the anesthetic administered during detoxification.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized clinical study.

SETTING

Intensive care unit of a university hospital and psychiatric ward.

PATIENTS

Twenty-five mono-opioid addicted patients with mild to moderate systemic disease (ASA II classification) in a methadone substitution program.

INTERVENTION

General anesthesia with either propofol (129+/-7 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1), mean +/- SEM) or methohexital (74+/-14 microg x kg(-1). min(-1)), mu-opioid receptor blockade by naloxone in a stepwise fashion (increasing doses of 0.4 mg, 0.8 mg, 1.6 mg, 3.2 mg, and 6.4 mg at 15 min intervals followed by 0.8 mg x hr(-1) for 24 hrs) and naltrexone 50 mg x day(-1) orally for > or =4 wks. Clonidine was started 180 mins after the first naloxone dose and its infusion rate was individually adjusted to mitigate withdrawal symptoms during weaning and after extubation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

During propofol and methohexital anesthesia, naloxone induced a 30-fold increase in epinephrine and a significant three-fold increase in norepinephrine plasma concentrations without a significant difference between groups. This increase in catecholamine plasma concentrations was associated with increased oxygen consumption and marked cardiovascular stimulation with both anesthetics, as shown by increased cardiac index, heart rate, and systolic atrial pressure whereas diastolic pressure remained unchanged. Patients receiving propofol could be extubated significantly earlier after discontinuation of the anesthetics. Although the maximum degree of withdrawal symptoms (Short Opioid Withdrawal Scale) on the day after detoxification was similar with both anesthetics, subsequent withdrawal symptoms decreased significantly more rapidly after propofol anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Naloxone treatment, in opioid-addicted patients, induced a marked increase in catecholamine plasma concentrations, metabolism, and cardiovascular stimulation during anesthesia with both propofol and methohexital. Although both anesthetics appear suitable for detoxification treatment, the use of propofol is associated with earlier extubation and, surprisingly, a shortened period of long-term withdrawal symptoms during detoxification.

A method of reducing the opioid withdrawal intensity using progressively increasing doses of naloxone

We assessed the withdrawal intensity in acutely morphine-dependent mice using a pretreatment with escalating doses of naloxone. All animals received a single dose of morphine (100 mg/kg) for the induction of acute opioid dependency. Group 1 (control) received three injections of normal saline and then naloxone 0.8 mg/kg. Group 2 received increasing pretreatment doses of naloxone (0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 mg/kg) and a challenge dose of 0.8 mg/kg. Group 3 received three injections of naloxone 0.1 mg/kg and a challenge dose of 0.8 mg/kg. Groups 4 and 5 were used to verify whether ED(50) found in previous studies was comparable with values obtained in the current experiments. The withdrawal intensity was determined by the number of jumps. The mice of group 1 exhibited significantly more jumps after 0.8 mg/kg of naloxone as compared with group 2. The number of jumps in response to naloxone between groups 1 and 2 and groups 2 and 3 was not significantly different. The results show that pretreatment with increasing naloxone doses significantly reduced the withdrawal intensity as compared with the control group; whereas pretreatment with repeated low antagonist did not reduce it significantly.

Opiate detoxification under anesthesia: no apparent benefit but suppression of thyroid hormones and risk of pulmonary and renal failure

INTRODUCTION

The new technique for opiate detoxification using anesthesia and high, repetitive doses of opiate-antagonists claims to detoxify addicts without withdrawal symptoms within 24-48 hours. We studied the method with 12 opiate addicts (5 L-polamidone, 4 dihydrocodeine, 3 heroin), using general anesthesia and the antagonists naloxone 0.5 mg/kg and naltrexone > 150 mg. Objective and subjective withdrawal symptoms were measured until urine was free of drugs and patients had no withdrawal symptoms. Thyroid hormones were measured before, during, and after the anesthesia period.

RESULTS

All patients had moderate to severe opiate withdrawal symptoms. No detoxification was finished within 48 hours. The dihydrocodeine subjects were compared with conventionally detoxified controls; no difference was seen. The method suppressed thyroid hormones TT3, TT4, and TSH. The study was terminated because of side effects: 1 pulmonary failure and 2 renal failures. All patients survived without sequelae.

CONCLUSION

There is no obvious benefit from this method, whereas the risks are high.

Ultra-rapid opiate detoxification using deep sedation with oral midazolam: short and long-term results

The present study describes an ultra-rapid opiate detoxification method using direct transition from heroin or methadone to oral naltrexone after deep sedation with oral midazolam in conjunction with ondansetron and clonidine treatment. Twenty patients were detoxified with the method. No serious events occurred, but two out of three patients vomited during the acute phase of deep sedation, which involves some risks. Withdrawal symptoms were still present 24 h after detoxification and 80% of the patients relapsed during a 6-month follow-up.

Forced opiate withdrawal under anaesthesia augments and prolongs the occurrence of withdrawal signs in rats

A newly developed treatment for rapid detoxification of opiate addicts is the use of continuous naloxone/naltrexone administration under general anaesthesia. This method is now introduced in several European countries despite the fact that there is only spare evidence for its effectiveness. Here we report on the assessment of withdrawal symptoms in morphine-dependent rats which received continuous naloxone administration combined with barbiturate anaesthesia. Morphine-dependent rats were implanted with osmotic minipumps filled with either saline or naloxone (delivering 0.5 mg/kg per hour) under barbiturate anaesthesia (lasting for 8 h). Animals were tested daily for the occurrence of withdrawal signs for the subsequent 7 days. All signs of withdrawal which are frequently observed in rats undergoing morphine withdrawal such as body weight loss, diarrhea, writhing, teeth chattering and wet dog shakes were significantly augmented and observed over longer time periods in morphine-dependent animals treated continuously with naloxone versus rats receiving saline. The present study demonstrates that continuous naloxone treatment under anaesthesia worsen and prolongs the detoxification phase in rats. This conflicts with reported clinical observations, and strongly suggests a need for controlled clinical studies before this method enters the everyday clinical routine.

Efficacy and safety of two new methods of rapid intravenous detoxification in heroin addicts previously treated without success

BACKGROUND

New methods of rapid opiate detoxification, under intravenous sedation, can detoxify heroin-addicted patients in 24 hours. Their clinical application has been limited by the lack of studies establishing both efficacy and safety.

METHOD

In a randomised, controlled study, 300 treatment-refractory, heroin-addicted patients received rapid intravenous detoxification treatment (naloxone infusion, 0.06-0.08 mg/kg, then oral naltrexone 50 mg/day) under either monitored light intravenous sedation or unmonitored deep intravenous sedation.

RESULTS

All patients were successfully detoxified and 93% remained abstinent one month later. Severity of withdrawal, according to the Wang Scale modified by Loimer, was 4.9 (s.d. 3.0) points in the light sedation group and 4.8 (s.d. 2.9) in the deep sedation group (P = 0.26). Two patients (1.3%) in the light sedation group and four (2.6%) in the deep sedation group required tracheal intubation (P = 0.31). There was only one severe complication, a case of nosocomial aspirative pneumonia which improved with antibiotic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful rapid intravenous detoxification can be achieved using relatively light levels of sedation.

Patient perceptions of psychological and physiological withdrawal symptoms and positive factors associated with gradual withdrawal from methadone maintenance treatment: a prospective study

Psychological and physiological withdrawal symptoms and some positive factors were studied in 10 methadone maintenance treatment patients during methadone dose reduction. The subjective ratings were made during a period of 10 days around each reduction occasion, 3 days before dose reduction and 7 days after (i.e., within the periods). To permit comparisons of the subjects' ratings between earlier and later stages of the dose reduction process, a division has been made between the first half and the second half of the total reduction occasions (i.e., between the periods). Three of the patients completed the dose reduction, while the others interrupted their withdrawal attempts. The results show that the aggregate psychological symptoms were rated low, but that, as expected, they increased significantly from the first to the second half of the dose reduction. A significant increase of the psychological symptoms also occurred from the days before each reduction to the days after. The aggregate physiological symptoms were rated very low. A significant increase in rated withdrawal intensity is found within the reduction occasions. There were no significant changes with regard to the aggregate positive factors, either within or between the reduction occasions.

Ultra-rapid, antagonist-precipitated opiate detoxification under general anaesthesia or sedation

Ultra-rapid opiate withdrawal precipitated by naloxone or naltrexone during general anaesthesia or varying degrees of sedation, usually with the addition of α-2 adrenergic agonists, is an increasingly popular technique. As with anaesthesia or effective analgesia for dentistry or obstetrics, it can be justified on general humane principles. It also simplifies and speeds the transition to treatment programmes involving naltrexone. This paper reviews its development and the current range of techniques, including the use of octreotide to prevent diarrhoea. The prospect of avoiding or shortening the worst discomforts of withdrawal may encourage more opiate addicts to attempt detoxification and opiate-free management, including patients who have been successfully rehabilitated on long-term methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). Despite good motivation and preparation, a significant minority of MMT patients consistently fail to complete conventional withdrawal programmes because of increasing physical discomfort. It is emphasized that there is usually more to the treatment of opiate dependence than withdrawal.

Abstinence fear in methadone maintenance withdrawal: a possible obstacle for getting off methadone

The present study attempts to shed light on methadone maintenance patients expectations regarding withdrawal symptoms during voluntary methadone detoxification. The study includes two groups of subjects; one group who have tried on their own initiative to terminate their methadone maintenance treatment (Group 1) and one group that contains rehabilitated patients who have not tried to quit using methadone (Group 2). Two main results have emerged. Group 1 has negative expectations beforehand about the intensity of withdrawal which significantly exceed the later, actual experience. Group 2 has negative expectations about the intensity of withdrawal that significantly exceed the negative expectations of Group 1. The clinical implications of these results are discussed.

Rapid opioid detoxification using opioid antagonists: history, theory and the state of the art

Rapid opioid detoxification is a technique for detoxifying patients addicted to narcotics which is increasing in popularity. This technique is potentially useful in getting some patients through the withdrawal phase of substance abuse therapy so that they may engage in further treatment earlier in the course of their disease. However, this procedure, which can and should be done safely, has in the past been pushed to limits which approach boundaries outside of the provider's area of expertise. This paper attempts to present a critical review of previous publications relating to rapid opioid detoxification to address these and other issues. There appears to be a pharmacologic basis for the efficacy of this treatment on a longer-term basis which centers around upregulation of opioid receptors induced by opioid antagonists. This paper also attempts to offer evidence in support of this theory.

Rapid opiate detoxification

We report on clinical and practical aspects of treatment of opiate addiction with a relatively new approach, rapid opiate detoxification (ROD). The goal is to induce rapid narcotic withdrawal in a controlled environment using narcotic antagonists while suppressing withdrawal symptoms with sedative drugs, thus effecting a dramatic abbreviation of the traditional withdrawal schedule. Twenty-five consecutive heroin-addicted patients presenting for detoxification were treated at a university hospital. There were 14 women and 11 men, with a mean age 32.6 years (range, 24-48). They underwent 29 separate detoxifications over a 4-month period. All but 3 of the detoxifications were effected with ROD. Several different techniques were used over the 4-month period, ranging from intramuscular and oral sedation to intravenous sedation, paralysis, and intubation. Efficacy of detoxification was demonstrated for all patients undergoing ROD; all were given 50 mg of naltrexone PO prior to discharge, and none had withdrawal symptoms. (The three patients treated with abstinence were not so tested.) We derive three conclusions from this early clinical experience: First, ROD appears to be a valuable tool in the treatment of heroin addiction. ROD is an efficient, effective technique that can play an important role in an integrated rehabilitation program. Second, the optimal method of ROD is yet to be determined; a continuum of approaches is available. Third, ROD is probably most suited to designated outpatient centers.

Compressed opiate withdrawal syndrome and naltrexone

The oral opiate antagonist naltrexone is in regular use in clinical practice with abstinent opiate-dependent individuals. Acute opioid withdrawal is a well-recognised consequence of consuming naltrexone while opiate dependent. Two cases of naltrexone-induced opiate withdrawal are reported. The compressed nature of the withdrawal syndrome in both of these cases and the implications for the management of protracted withdrawal symptoms are discussed. The theoretical implications of this experimental and clinical phenomenon are reviewed.

Comparison between observer assessment and self rating of withdrawal distress during opiate detoxification

The Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Questionnaire (SOWQ) and the Objective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (OOWS) were administered to detect withdrawal distress during a rapid opiate detoxification. No correlations could be observed between the clinical assessments and self ratings of the 20 patients participating in this study. The observers' ratings of withdrawal reached pre-treatment levels within 3 days. In subjective rating, withdrawal distress returned to normal levels 120 h after detoxification. We conclude, that self reports are as important as observer ratings in assessing treatment efficacy. The use of both scales might prevent early relapse after detoxification.

Similar efficacy of abrupt and gradual opiate detoxification

A study comparing abrupt and gradual opiate detoxification which identified the efficacy by means of computer-assisted pupilometry and rating of withdrawal distress is presented. This paper concentrates on the efficacies of these two detoxification modes with regard to the identical results after successful opiate detoxification treatment. The findings of the present investigation support the hypothesis that withdrawal distress returns to a normal level after rapid naloxone withdrawal treatment within 6 days. Similar results can be seen for inpatient methadone withdrawal after 3 weeks of treatment. These results indicate that by rapid detoxification therapy, the time of withdrawal can be effectively shortened. Considering the low dropout rate and the high degree of acceptance during rapid detoxification, the rapid detoxification regimen is an effective and economic alternative to gradual withdrawal treatments.

Endogenous opiates: 1989

This paper is the twelfth installment of our annual review of the research published during 1989 involving the behavioral, nonanalgesic, effects of the endogenous opiate peptides. The specific topics this year include stress; tolerance and dependence; eating; drinking; gastrointestinal and renal functions; mental illness; learning, memory, and reward; cardiovascular responses; respiration and thermoregulation; seizures and other neurological disorders; electrical-related activity; locomotor activity; sex, development, pregnancy, and aging; immunological responses; and other behavior.