A controlled comparison of buprenorphine and clonidine for acute detoxification from opioids

Methadone, Buprenorphine, and Clonidine Attenuate Mitragynine Withdrawal in Rats

Background: Kratom or Mitragyna speciosa Korth has been widely used to relieve the severity of opioid withdrawal in natural settings. However, several studies have reported that kratom may by itself cause dependence following chronic consumption. Yet, there is currently no formal treatment for kratom dependence. Mitragynine, is the major psychoactive alkaloid in kratom. Chronic mitragynine treatment can cause addiction-like symptoms in rodent models including withdrawal behaviour. In this study we assessed whether the prescription drugs, methadone, buprenorphine and clonidine, could mitigate mitragynine withdrawal effects. In order to assess treatment safety, we also evaluated hematological, biochemical and histopathological treatment effects. Methods: We induced mitragynine withdrawal behaviour in a chronic treatment paradigm in rats. Methadone (1.0 mg/kg), buprenorphine (0.8 mg/kg) and clonidine (0.1 mg/kg) were i.p. administered over four days during mitragynine withdrawal. These treatments were stopped and withdrawal sign assessment continued. Thereafter, toxicological profiles of the treatments were evaluated in the blood and in organs. Results: Chronic mitragynine treatment caused significant withdrawal behaviour lasting at least 5 days. Methadone, buprenorphine, as well as clonidine treatments significantly attenuated these withdrawal signs. No major effects on blood or organ toxicity were observed. Conclusion: These data suggest that the already available prescription medications methadone, buprenorphine, and clonidine are capable to alleviate mitragynine withdrawal signs rats. This may suggest them as treatment options also for problematic mitragynine/kratom use in humans.

Ambulatory detoxification in alcohol use disorder and opioid use disorder

Ambulatory detoxification in alcohol use disorder and opioid use disorder is an important component in the management of patients experiencing withdrawal symptoms from alcohol or opioids. The goal of withdrawal management is ultimately to provide each patient with comfort and safety. Having the knowledge of the possible signs and symptoms of intoxication and withdrawal assists providers to institute the most appropriate treatment protocol and setting for the patient. Pharmacists play a vital role in choosing appropriate therapeutic management options for common or complex clinical situations involving ambulatory detoxification from alcohol and opioids. Ambulatory detoxification serves as an appealing option to many patients and helps save the limited inpatient resources that many institutions have for those patients with more severe withdrawal presentations.

Efficacy of buprenorphine and clonidine in opioid detoxification: A hospital- based study

BACKGROUND

The need for effective and accepted method for opioid detoxification is ever increasing. Sublingual buprenorphine and oral clonidine have been effective in opioid detoxification. As often, there is a great variation in the dosage of buprenorphine and clonidine prescribed by the clinicians; hence, there is a felt need to find an effective dosage for a favorable outcome of opioid detoxification.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different doses of sublingual buprenorphine and clonidine in opioid detoxification.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 100 patients with the diagnosis of opioid dependence as per the international classification of diseases-10 criteria were recruited for this study. Participants were assigned randomly into four groups - low-dose clonidine, high-dose clonidine, low-dose sublingual buprenorphine, and high sublingual dose buprenorphine using a computer-generated random number table, resulting in 25, 26, 23, and 26 patients in each group, respectively.

RESULTS

The four groups had comparable scores on all the items of "stages of change readiness and treatment eagerness scale" for the assessment of motivation at baseline. Progressive decrease in withdrawal score was seen in all the groups on "clinical opiate withdrawal scale" and "subjective opiate withdrawal scale."

CONCLUSION

From the current study, we can infer that both low and high doses of buprenorphine and clonidine are comparable regarding controlling withdrawal.

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.

Subjective effects of prisoners using buprenorphine for detoxification

PURPOSE

Buprenorphine (Subutex) was piloted in two Scottish prisons between 2004 and 2006 and consequently used within other penal establishments in Scotland. This 2007 qualitative study aimed to explore the use of Subutex and its associated effects on 14 participants on detoxification programmes.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

All participants were male, aged from 21 to 44 years with prison sentences ranging from a few months to life imprisonment. Buprenorphine was unavailable to female prisoners at the time of this study. Participants were recruited from seven Scottish prisons. All 14 participants were on detoxification programmes, each was prescribed Subutex, and each was selected from a larger investigation that included both those undergoing detoxification and maintenance (n=21). All participants had previously also used methadone on previous detoxification programmes.

FINDINGS

It can be concluded that the majority of detoxification participants within this study indicated that Subutex was a more effective treatment than methadone as it helped reduce craving, eased the process of withdrawal and improved sleeping patterns. In addition, the majority of participants noted higher levels of motivation and the ability to set goals towards obtaining an improved quality of life.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This study provides an alternative perspective to the use of Subutex within prison settings, when compared with results from previous quantitative studies reported. The study also highlights inconsistencies drawn from studies in this area, which may be an artefact of study design. It is recommended that further qualitative studies be conducted to explore further this alternative perspective. Finally, the issue of methodological approach taken should be addressed within the context of a related, but independent, research forum.

Alpha₂-adrenergic agonists for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of long-term substitution treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with placebo, reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications, or an alpha2-adrenergic agonist regimen different to the experimental intervention, for the management of the acute phase of opioid withdrawal. Outcomes included the withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration of treatment, occurrence of adverse effects, and completion of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 2, 2015), EMBASE (January 1985 to November week 2, 2015), PsycINFO (1806 to November week 2, 2015), Web of Science, and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine, lofexidine, guanfacine, tizanidine) with reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications or placebo, or comparing different alpha2-adrenergic agonists to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were opioid dependent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 randomised controlled trials involving 1728 participants. Six studies compared an alpha2-adrenergic agonist with placebo, 12 with reducing doses of methadone, four with symptomatic medications, and five compared different alpha2-adrenergic agonists. We assessed 10 studies as having a high risk of bias in at least one of the methodological domains that were considered.We found moderate-quality evidence that alpha2-adrenergic agonists were more effective than placebo in ameliorating withdrawal in terms of the likelihood of severe withdrawal (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.57; 3 studies; 148 participants). We found moderate-quality evidence that completion of treatment was significantly more likely with alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.84; 3 studies; 148 participants).Peak withdrawal severity may be greater with alpha2-adrenergic agonists than with reducing doses of methadone, as measured by the likelihood of severe withdrawal (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.73; 5 studies; 340 participants; low quality), and peak withdrawal score (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.46; 2 studies; 263 participants; moderate quality), but these differences were not significant and there is no significant difference in severity when considered over the entire duration of the withdrawal episode (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.49; 3 studies; 119 participants; moderate quality). The signs and symptoms of withdrawal occurred and resolved earlier with alpha2-adrenergic agonists. The duration of treatment was significantly longer with reducing doses of methadone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.83; 3 studies; 310 participants; low quality). Hypotensive or other adverse effects were significantly more likely with alpha2-adrenergic agonists (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.10; 6 studies; 464 participants; low quality), but there was no significant difference in rates of completion of withdrawal treatment (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; 9 studies; 659 participants; low quality).There were insufficient data for quantitative comparison of different alpha2-adrenergic agonists. Available data suggest that lofexidine does not reduce blood pressure to the same extent as clonidine, but is otherwise similar to clonidine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clonidine and lofexidine are more effective than placebo for the management of withdrawal from heroin or methadone. We detected no significant difference in efficacy between treatment regimens based on clonidine or lofexidine and those based on reducing doses of methadone over a period of around 10 days, but methadone was associated with fewer adverse effects than clonidine, and lofexidine has a better safety profile than clonidine.

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.

Comparative trial to study the effectiveness of clonidine hydrochloride and buprenorphine-naloxone in opioid withdrawal - a hospital based study

OBJECTIVES

Prevalence of opioid addiction has alarmingly increased over the recent years. In South Asian region alone there are more than 10 million opioid abusers amounting to 2% of world population. Detoxification remains to be the first step for the successful treatment of opioid addiction. The present study was carried out to compare the relative efficacy and safety of buprenorphine -naloxone and clonidine hydrochloride in the detoxification of opioid-dependents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Present trial was conducted at De- addiction centre of Institute of Mental and Neurosciences (IMNS), GMC Srinagar. Fifty four (54) treatment seeking subjects, 15-50 years of age, fulfilling DSM-1V TR (American Psychiatric association`s Mental Disorders-1V text revision) criteria for opioid dependence were included and randomized into two groups. The groups received either clonidine hydrochloride (Group A) or buprenorphine- naloxone (Bup-Nax) (Group B) for the duration of 10 days. The efficacy of the two drugs in controlling the opioid withdrawal was evaluated by Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS) and their effect on the desire for the abused substance was measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The safety of the two drugs was measured by taking the side effect profile of the two compared drugs into consideration.

RESULTS

There was significant difference of COWS-score between the two groups which was evident from day 3 (14.85 ± 3.43 vs. 11.67 ± 2.40, p<0.005) and continued till day 6 (2.56 ± 1.40 vs. 0.30 ± 0.61, p<0.005), for Group A and group B respectively. The effect of two drugs in controlling the craving for the abused substance also showed significant difference from day 2 (66.30 ± 10.80 vs. 47.40 ± 12.90, p<0.005) till day 5 (7.78 ± 6.41 vs. 1.85 ± 6.22, p<0.005), for Group A and Group B respectively.

CONCLUSION

Administration of buprenorphine-naloxone was more efficient in reducing the signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal and in controlling the craving for the abused substance during the first few days of detoxification.

Buprenorphine detoxification treatment for heroin dependence: a preliminary experience in an outpatient setting

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate buprenorphine as a detoxification agent for heroin dependence in an outpatient setting. Specifically we sought to establish the rate of completion of detoxification and retention in treatment, the duration of successful detoxification and dose requirements.

METHODS

The study was an open prospective evaluation of routinely collected clinical data on the first 60 consecutive heroin dependent patients who underwent buprenorphine detoxification. A flexible dosing regime was adopted with the dose of buprenorphine being adjusted daily against the previous day's withdrawal symptoms.

RESULTS

The majority of patients (40 (67%)) completed detoxification. The median duration of treatment for completers was 17 days (range 9-30 days) with 90% of detoxification episodes completed within 21 days. Patients were commenced on initial median dose of 4mg buprenorphine (range 2mg-6mg) and the median stabilisation dose for the sample was 10mg daily (range 6mg-14mg). The median final dosage of buprenorphine required by patients retained in treatment was 1.2mg (range 0.4mg-2mg). We found older patient age to be a significant predictor of treatment completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine was an acceptable and a feasible outpatient detoxification treatment option for heroin dependent patients. Based on the study findings we propose a standard 21-day fixed-dose detoxification schedule.

Effects of thienorphine on synaptic structure and synaptophysin expression in the rat nucleus accumbens

The partial opioid agonist thienorphine is currently in Phase II clinical trials in China as a candidate drug for the treatment of opioid dependence. However, its effect on synaptic plasticity in the NAc (nucleus accumbens) remains unclear. In the present study, we measured structural parameters of the synaptic interface to investigate the effect of thienorphine, morphine or a combination of both on synaptic morphology in the NAc of rats. Expression of synaptophysin was also examined. Ultrastructural observation showed that synaptic alterations were less pronounced after chronic thienorphine administration than after chronic morphine administration. Animals that received thienorphine had thinner postsynaptic densities and shorter active zones in the NAc compared with those in the saline group, but the active zone was larger, and the cleft narrower, than those in the morphine group. Furthermore, synaptophysin expression in the NAc was significantly greater after chronic administration of thienorphine, morphine, or both, than after saline. These results identified interesting differences between thienorphine and morphine in their effects on synaptic structure and synaptophysin expression in the rat NAc. Further study is deserved to investigate thienorphine as a new treatment for opioid dependence.

Alpha2-adrenergic agonists for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of long-term substitution treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with placebo, reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications or with comparison of different alpha2-adrenergic agonists, for the management of the acute phase of opioid withdrawal. Outcomes included the intensity of signs and symptoms and overall withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration of treatment, occurrence of adverse effects and completion of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 7, 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to July week 4, 2013), EMBASE (January 1985 to August week 1, 2013), PsycINFO (1806 to July week 5, 2013) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine, lofexidine, guanfacine, tizanidine) with reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications or placebo, or comparing different alpha2-adrenergic agonists to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were opioid dependent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author assessed studies for inclusion and undertook data extraction. All review authors decided on inclusion and confirmed the overall process.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 randomised controlled trials, involving 1668 participants. Five studies compared a treatment regimen based on an alpha2-adrenergic agonist with placebo, 12 with a regimen based on reducing doses of methadone, four with symptomatic medications and five compared different alpha2-adrenergic agonists.Alpha2-adrenergic agonists were more effective than placebo in ameliorating withdrawal in terms of the likelihood of severe withdrawal (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.57, 3 studies, 148 participants). Completion of treatment was significantly more likely with alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.84, 3 studies, 148 participants).Alpha2-adrenergic agonists were somewhat less effective than reducing doses of methadone in ameliorating withdrawal symptoms, as measured by the likelihood of severe withdrawal (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.73, 5 studies, 340 participants), peak withdrawal score (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.46, 2 studies, 263 participants) and overall withdrawal severity (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.49, 3 studies, 119 participants). These differences were not statistically significant. The signs and symptoms of withdrawal occurred and resolved earlier with alpha2-adrenergic agonists. The duration of treatment was significantly longer with reducing doses of methadone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.83, 3 studies, 310 participants). Hypotensive or other adverse effects were significantly more likely with alpha2-adrenergic agonists (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.10, 6 studies, 464 participants) but there was no significant difference in rates of completion of withdrawal treatment (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05, 9 studies, 659 participants).There were insufficient data for quantitative comparison of different alpha2-adrenergic agonists. Available data suggest that lofexidine does not reduce blood pressure to the same extent as clonidine, but is otherwise similar to clonidine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clonidine and lofexidine are more effective than placebo for the management of withdrawal from heroin or methadone. No significant difference in efficacy was detected for treatment regimens based on clonidine or lofexidine, and those based on reducing doses of methadone over a period of around 10 days but methadone is associated with fewer adverse effects than clonidine, and lofexidine has a better safety profile than clonidine.

A comparison of methadone, buprenorphine and alpha(2) adrenergic agonists for opioid detoxification: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy of methadone, buprenorphine, clonidine and lofexidine for opioid detoxification. Mixed treatment comparison meta-analyses were used to synthesise the data as it is designed for data-sets where limitations in standard pairwise meta-analyses make comparisons difficult to interpret.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was conducted using the following databases: CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, HMIC, Medline and PsycINFO.

REVIEW METHODS

RCTs that included opioid dependent participants over a mean age of 16 receiving opioid detoxification using buprenorphine, methadone, clonidine or lofexidine were included in the systematic review. Included studies were quality assessed and the completion of treatment data was extracted by the author and a research assistant independently. Mixed treatment comparison methods were used to synthesise the data.

RESULTS

There were 23 RCTs included in the systematic review (and 20 included in the meta-analysis) comprising a total of 2112 participants. Buprenorphine and methadone were ranked as the most effective methods of opioid detoxification followed by lofexidine and clonidine respectively.

CONCLUSION

Buprenorpine and methadone appear to be the most effective detoxification treatments. While the analysis suggests buprenorphine is the most effective method of detoxification there is some uncertainty on whether it is more effective than methadone and requires further research to confirm this result.

[Withdrawal in a patient with an implantable drug delivery system in spite of continuation of opiate therapy]

A male patient with severe chronic pain has been treated with a combined drug therapy scheme of morphine and clonidine. After cessation of clonidine the patient reported opiate-withdrawal symptoms with agitation, polyuria, diarrhea, and hyperalgesia. It is known that the combination of these two substances causes synergistic analgetic effects. The abrupt cessation of clonidine after a combined administration with morphine seems to lead to a relative decrease in opiate effects and furthermore excite opiate-withdrawal symptoms.

Improved quality of life, clinical, and psychosocial outcomes among heroin-dependent patients on ambulatory buprenorphine maintenance

AIM

A prospective longitudinal design was employed to examine the effects of buprenorphine maintenance on quality of life (QOL), clinical, and psychosocial characteristics of heroin-dependent patients.

METHOD

Between 2003 and 2005 data were collected on 259 patients attending the outpatient centers for treatment of drug addictions across Israel, of which 157 were reevaluated 16 weeks later and 105 reevaluated 32 weeks later using the Clinical Global Impression, Distress Scale for Adverse Symptoms, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire, General Health Questionnaire, General Self-Efficacy Scale, and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to examine the association between the parameters and the cross-sectional and longitudinal predictions of the QOL outcomes.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ in baseline values and their post-treatment ratings revealed significant improvement on virtually all the scales. Perceived self-efficacy and social support from friends and significant others at baseline as well as their changes over time were the best predictors of the QOL in the short and long terms. The study's limitations are noted.

CONCLUSIONS

The beneficial effects on the QOL were associated with improvement in the psychosocial parameters and a reduction in buprenorphine-related side effects and psychological distress. This study could stimulate research to compare the QOL related to buprenorphine and methadone treatment and serve as a basis on which a controlled study should be performed.

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) Prisons Project Study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification

Background

In the United Kingdom (UK), there is an extensive market for the class 'A' drug heroin and many heroin users spend time in prison. People addicted to heroin often require prescribed medication when attempting to cease their drug use. The most commonly used detoxification agents in UK prisons are currently buprenorphine and methadone, both are recommended by national clinical guidelines. However, these agents have never been compared for opiate detoxification in the prison estate and there is a general paucity of research evaluating the most effective treatment for opiate detoxification in prisons. This study seeks to address this paucity by evaluating the most routinely used interventions amongst drug users within UK prisons.

Methods/Design

This study uses randomised controlled trial methodology to compare the open use of buprenorphine and methadone for opiate detoxification, given in the context of routine care, within three UK prisons. Prisoners who are eligible and give informed consent will be entered into the trial. The primary outcome will be abstinence status eight days after detoxification, as determined by a urine test. Secondary outcomes will be recorded during the detoxification and then at one, three and six months post-detoxification.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58823759

Buprenorphine for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of buprenorphine to manage opioid withdrawal, for withdrawal signs and symptoms, completion of withdrawal and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2008), EMBASE (January 1985 to 2008 Week 31), PsycINFO (1967 to 7 August 2008) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions involving the use of buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha(2)-adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine-based regimes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies involving 1736 participants were included. The major comparisons were with methadone (5 studies) and clonidine or lofexidine (12 studies). Five studies compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction.Severity of withdrawal is similar for withdrawal managed with buprenorphine and withdrawal managed with methadone, but withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine. It appears that completion of withdrawal treatment may be more likely with buprenorphine relative to methadone (RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.49, P = 0.18) but more studies are required to confirm this.Relative to clonidine or lofexidine, buprenorphine is more effective in ameliorating the symptoms of withdrawal, patients treated with buprenorphine stay in treatment for longer (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27, P < 0.001), and are more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.64; 95% CI 1.31 to 2.06, P < 0.001). At the same time there is no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but drop-out due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine or lofexidine for the management of opioid withdrawal. Buprenorphine may offer some advantages over methadone, at least in inpatient settings, in terms of quicker resolution of withdrawal symptoms and possibly slightly higher rates of completion of withdrawal.

Alpha2-adrenergic agonists for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the end point of long-term substitution treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of alpha2-adrenergic agonists to manage opioid withdrawal.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966-July 2008), EMBASE (January 1985-2008 Week 31), PsycINFO (1967 to 7 August 2008) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled trials comparing alpha2-adrenergic agonists with reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications or placebo, or comparing different alpha2-adrenergic agonists to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were opioid dependent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four studies, involving 1631 participants, were included. Twenty-one were randomised controlled trials.Thirteen studies compared a treatment regime based on an alpha2-adrenergic agonist with one based on reducing doses of methadone. Diversity in study design, assessment and reporting of outcomes limited the extent of quantitative analysis.Alpha2-adrenergic agonists are more effective than placebo in ameliorating withdrawal, and despite higher rates of adverse effects, are associated with significantly higher rates of completion of treatment.For the comparison of alpha2-adrenergic agonist regimes with reducing doses of methadone, there were insufficient data for statistical analysis, but withdrawal intensity appears similar to or marginally greater with alpha2-adrenergic agonists, while signs and symptoms of withdrawal occur and resolve earlier. Participants stay in treatment longer with methadone. No significant difference was detected in rates of completion of withdrawal with adrenergic agonists compared to reducing doses of methadone, or clonidine compared to lofexidine. Clonidine is associated with more adverse effects than reducing doses of methadone. Lofexidine does not reduce blood pressure to the same extent as clonidine, but is otherwise similar to clonidine

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clonidine and lofexidine are more effective than placebo for the management of withdrawal from heroin or methadone. No significant difference in efficacy was detected for treatment regimes based on clonidine or lofexidine, and those based on reducing doses of methadone over a period of around 10 days but methadone is associated with fewer adverse effects than clonidine, and lofexidine has a better safety profile than clonidine.

Opioid detoxification via single 7-day application of a buprenorphine transdermal patch: an open-label evaluation

RATIONALE

Managed withdrawal (i.e., detoxification) from opioid dependence is a widespread clinical procedure that is a necessary step for those pursuing abstinence. Buprenorphine is one effective detoxification treatment, however, consensus regarding effective detoxification procedures is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the efficacy of a buprenorphine transdermal formulation (i.e., patch) in suppressing opioid withdrawal, its safety and tolerability, and its biodelivery when applied for 7 days.

METHODS

Physically dependent opioid (heroin) users (n = 12) completed a 10-day opioid detoxification in a residential research unit. Each received a single patch application that remained in place for 7 days. Blood samples were drawn prior to patch application and once daily thereafter. Assessments, four times daily, included: the amount of rescue medications ordered to treat withdrawal discomfort; self-report and observer ratings of opioid withdrawal and agonist effects; and vital sign measures.

RESULTS

Overall, the patch appeared safe and well-tolerated. Buprenorphine plasma levels peaked 48 h after patch application at 0.59 ng/ml. Indices of withdrawal (self-reports, observer ratings, rescue medication) were significantly reduced within 24 h of patch application, continued to decline thereafter, and did not reappear following patch removal.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that transdermal buprenorphine is safe and clinically effective, and suggests that a 7-day application may provide an effective and comfortable means of detoxification. This patch formulation would appear to be a useful opioid detoxification treatment by reducing compliance concerns, and administering buprenorphine in a formulation less likely to be diverted to illicit use.

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) prisons project pilot study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing dihydrocodeine and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification

Background

In the United Kingdom (UK), there is an extensive market for the class 'A' drug heroin. Many heroin users spend time in prison. People addicted to heroin often require prescribed medication when attempting to cease their drug use. The most commonly used detoxification agents in UK prisons are buprenorphine, dihydrocodeine and methadone. However, national guidelines do not state a detoxification drug of choice. Indeed, there is a paucity of research evaluating the most effective treatment for opiate detoxification in prisons. This study seeks to address the paucity by evaluating routinely used interventions amongst drug using prisoners within UK prisons.

Methods/Design

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) Prisons Pilot Study will use randomised controlled trial methodology to compare the open use of buprenorphine and dihydrocodeine for opiate detoxification, given in the context of routine care, within HMP Leeds. Prisoners who are eligible and give informed consent will be entered into the trial. The primary outcome measure will be abstinence status at five days post detoxification, as determined by a urine test. Secondary outcomes during the detoxification and then at one, three and six months post detoxification will be recorded.

Buprenorphine versus dihydrocodeine for opiate detoxification in primary care: a randomised controlled trial

Background

Many drug users present to primary care requesting detoxification from illicit opiates. There are a number of detoxification agents but no recommended drug of choice. The purpose of this study is to compare buprenorphine with dihydrocodeine for detoxification from illicit opiates in primary care.

Methods

Open label randomised controlled trial in NHS Primary Care (General Practices), Leeds, UK. Sixty consenting adults using illicit opiates received either daily sublingual buprenorphine or daily oral dihydrocodeine. Reducing regimens for both interventions were at the discretion of prescribing doctor within a standard regimen of not more than 15 days. Primary outcome was abstinence from illicit opiates at final prescription as indicated by a urine sample. Secondary outcomes during detoxification period and at three and six months post detoxification were recorded.

Results

Only 23% completed the prescribed course of detoxification medication and gave a urine sample on collection of their final prescription. Risk of non-completion of detoxification was reduced if allocated buprenorphine (68% vs 88%, RR 0.58 CI 0.35–0.96, p = 0.065). A higher proportion of people allocated to buprenorphine provided a clean urine sample compared with those who received dihydrocodeine (21% vs 3%, RR 2.06 CI 1.33–3.21, p = 0.028). People allocated to buprenorphine had fewer visits to professional carers during detoxification and more were abstinent at three months (10 vs 4, RR 1.55 CI 0.96–2.52) and six months post detoxification (7 vs 3, RR 1.45 CI 0.84–2.49).

Conclusion

Informative randomised trials evaluating routine care within the primary care setting are possible amongst drug using populations. This small study generates unique data on commonly used treatment regimens.

Buprenorphine-containing treatments: place in the management of opioid addiction

Although the synthetic opioid buprenorphine has been available clinically for almost 30 years, its use has only recently become much more widespread for the treatment of opioid addiction. The pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles of buprenorphine make it unique in the armamentarium of drugs for the treatment of opioid addiction. Buprenorphine has partial mu-opioid receptor agonist activity and is a kappa-opioid receptor antagonist; hence, it can substitute for other micro-opioid receptor agonists, yet is less apt to produce overdose reactions or dysphoria. On the other hand, buprenorphine can block the effects of opioids such as heroin (diamorphine) and morphine, and can even precipitate withdrawal in individuals physically dependent upon these drugs. Buprenorphine has significant sublingual bioavailability and a long half-life, making administration on a less than daily basis possible. Furthermore, its discontinuation is associated with only a mild withdrawal syndrome. Clinical trials have demonstrated that sublingual buprenorphine is effective in both maintenance therapy and detoxification of individuals addicted to opioids. The introduction of a sublingual formulation combining naloxone with buprenorphine further reduces the risk of diversion to illicit intravenous use. Because of its relative safety and lower risk of illegal diversion, buprenorphine has been made available in several countries for treating opioid addiction in the private office setting, greatly enhancing treatment options for this condition.

Buprenorphine for acute heroin detoxification: diffusion of research into practice

Buprenorphine has been approved for heroin detoxification, but little is known about its impact on everyday practice. Concerns about buprenorphine include expense, limited knowledge about its use, patient limits, and social and clinical attitudes regarding opioid treatment for heroin dependence. On the other hand, randomized clinical trials suggest that buprenorphine is superior to clonidine with regard to withdrawal symptom relief. In June 2004, a community-based residential medical detoxification center switched from clonidine to buprenorphine treatment for all new and returning heroin clients. This study is a retrospective chart review of subject outcomes with clonidine (n = 100) versus buprenorphine (n = 100). Bivariate analysis suggested few cohort differences in pretreatment demographics and client characteristics. In contrast, buprenorphine was significantly associated with increased length of stay and treatment completion. The positive associations between buprenorphine and both treatment completion and length of stay persisted and were slightly enhanced after regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders. Additionally, clinical staff reported better subject engagement in treatment and psychosocial group sessions. This single-site study is an example of successful integration of an evidence-based treatment into community-based practice.

Treatment of polydrug-using opiate dependents during withdrawal: towards a standardisation of treatment

BACKGROUND

The growing tendency among opioid addicts to misuse multiple other drugs should lead clinicians and researchers to search for new pharmacological strategies in order to prevent life-threatening complications and minimize withdrawal symptoms during polydrug detoxification.

METHODS

A non-randomised, open-label in-patient detoxification study was used to compare the short-time efficacy of a standardised regimen comprising 6 days Buprenorphine and 10 days Valproate (BPN/VPA) (n = 12) to a control group (n = 50) who took a 10-day traditional Clonidine/Carbamazepine (CLN/CBZ) regimen. Sixty-two dependent subjects admitted to a detoxification unit were included, all dependent on at least opioids and benzodiazepines. Other dependencies were not excluded.

RESULTS

In the BPN/VPA group, 8 out of 12 patients (67%) completed treatment compared with 25 of 50 patients (50%) in the CLN/CBZ group; this difference between the groups was non-significant (p = 0.15). Withdrawal symptoms were reduced in both groups, but only the BPN/VPA group achieved a reduction in withdrawal symptoms from day one. The difference between the two groups was significantly in favour of the BPN/VPA group for days 2 (p < 0.001), 3 (p < 0.05), 4 (p < 0.001), 5 (p < 0.01), 7 (p < 0.01) and 8 (p < 0.05). The BPN/VPA combination did not affect blood pressure, pulse or liver function, and the total burden of side-effects was experienced as modest. There appeared to be no pharmacological interactions of clinical concern, based on measurement of Buprenorphine and Valproate serum levels. Both the patients and the staff were satisfied with the standardised treatment combination.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the combination of Buprenorphine and Valproate seems to be a safe and promising method for treating multiple drug withdrawal symptoms. The results of this study suggest that the BPN/VPA combination is potentially a better detoxification treatment for polydrug withdrawal than the traditional treatment with Clonidine and Carbamazepine. However, a randomised, double-blind study with a larger sample size to confirm our results is recommended.

Well-being, psychosocial factors, and side-effects among heroin-dependent inpatients after detoxification using buprenorphine versus clonidine

Previous studies comparing buprenorphine and clonidine provided little information about subjective factors associated with the effective management of opioid withdrawal. This study sought to compare detoxification programs using these medications with regard to side-effects and related distress, general well-being, perceived self-efficacy and social support. A total of 200 treatment-seeking heroin-dependent patients, aged 18-50, were randomly assigned to buprenorphine or clonidine inpatient withdrawal treatments over 10days followed by 11days of relapse prevention measures. A semi-structured interview and a battery of self-rating scales assessing parameters of the interest were administered to the patients who completed the 10-day detoxification protocol with buprenorphine (n=90) and clonidine (n=50). Chi-square statistics and analysis of covariance were performed to examine between-group differences. Compared with patients treated with clonidine, patients who received buprenorphine developed significantly less side-effects and related distress, and had higher senses of well-being, self-efficacy and social support. The findings suggest that buprenorphine is preferable for inpatient detoxification due to its side-effects profile and positive effects on well-being and psychosocial variables. These early benefits of buprenorphine could enable consequent maintenance treatment.

Novel depots of buprenorphine have a long-acting effect for the management of physical dependence to morphine

Buprenorphine is a promising new pharmacotherapy for the management of physical dependence to opioids. The aim of the study was to evaluate the duration of action of several novel depots of buprenorphine in the treatment of physical dependence to morphine in mice. Following intramuscular injection, the duration of action of several novel oil-based depots of buprenorphine base in morphine-dependent mice were evaluated. The traditional dosage form of buprenorphine hydrochloride in saline was used as control. We found that the depot of buprenorphine base in sesame oil produced a dose-related long-lasting effect. On an equimolar basis of 6 micromol kg(-1), its effect was 5.7-fold longer than that of buprenorphine hydrochloride in saline. When prepared in several other oleaginous vehicles (castor oil, cottonseed oil, peanut oil and soybean oil), buprenorphine base also produced a long-lasting effect, which was similar to buprenorphine base in sesame oil. In conclusion, buprenorphine base, when prepared in oleaginous vehicles and injected intramuscularly in mice, produced a long-lasting effect on physical dependence to morphine.

Buprenorphine for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment. It may also represent the end point of maintenance treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of buprenorphine to manage opioid withdrawal, for withdrawal signs and symptoms, completion of withdrawal and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register, Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2005), EMBASE (January 1985 to August 2005), PsycINFO (1967 to August 2005), CINAHL(1982 to July 2005) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Experimental interventions involved the use of 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, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine-based regimes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen studies (14 randomised controlled trials), involving 1356 participants, were included. Ten studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine; four compared buprenorphine with methadone; one compared buprenorphine with oxazepam; three compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction; two compared different starting doses of buprenorphine. (Two studies included more than one comparison.)Relative to clonidine, buprenorphine is more effective in ameliorating the symptoms of withdrawal, patients treated with buprenorphine stay in treatment for longer, particularly in an outpatient setting (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.06, P < 0.001), and are more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.47, P = 0.003). At the same time there is no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but drop-out due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine. Severity of withdrawal is similar for withdrawal managed with buprenorphine and withdrawal managed with methadone, but withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine. There is a trend towards completion of withdrawal treatment being more likely with buprenorphine relative to methadone (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.73, P = 0.08).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine for the management of opioid withdrawal. There appears to be no significant difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of completion of treatment, but withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine.

Differences Among Those who Complete and Fail to Complete Inpatient Detoxification

Some individuals hospitalized for alcohol or drug detoxification leave against medical advice (AMA). We hypothesized that certain characteristics would be associated with AMA discharges. A case-control study of 1,426 hospital admissions for detoxification (representing 1,080 individuals) was conducted to compare patients leaving the hospital AMA (n=231) with a random sample of those completing detoxification (n=286). Latino ethnicity, detoxification from drugs, Friday or Saturday discharge, Medicaid or no health insurance, and not being treated by one specific attending physician were characteristics associated with an AMA discharge in a backward logistic regression model. Although 85% of the patients with all these characteristics left AMA, only one patient, without any of these five characteristics, did so. We conclude that clinicians can use certain clinical features to predict AMA discharge. Additional research could evaluate if treatment strategies that consider these ethnic and socioeconomic disparities may reduce rates of AMA discharge.

Buprenorphine diffusion: the attitudes of substance abuse treatment counselors

In October 2002, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine for use in the treatment of opioid dependence. Successful diffusion, adoption, and implementation of this medication within the treatment field depend in part on substance abuse counselors. Using questionnaire data obtained from 2,298 counselors in community-based treatment programs in the private and public sectors between June 2002 and July 2004, we explored the diffusion of this new treatment technique. Analyses indicate that a substantial proportion of the clinical workforce is unaware of the effectiveness of buprenorphine in the treatment of opiate addiction. Several variables predicted counselors' attitudes toward buprenorphine. Predictors included receipt of buprenorphine-specific training, educational attainment, years of experience, and 12-step orientation. Implications for the diffusion of this and other emerging treatment techniques are discussed.

A multi-center randomized trial of buprenorphine-naloxone versus clonidine for opioid detoxification: findings from the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network

AIMS

The clinical effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone (bup-nx) and clonidine for opioid detoxification in in-patient and out-patient community treatment programs was investigated in the first studies of the National Institute of Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network.

DESIGN

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version IV (DSM IV)-diagnosed opioid-dependent individuals seeking short-term treatment were randomly assigned, in a 2 : 1 ratio favoring bup-nx, to a 13-day detoxification using bup-nx or clonidine.

METHODS

A total of 113 in-patients (77 bup-nx, 36 clonidine) and 231 out-patients (157 bup-nx, 74 clonidine) participated. Supportive interventions included appropriate ancillary medications and standard counseling procedures guided by a self-help handbook. The criterion for treatment success was defined as the proportion of participants in each condition who were both retained in the study for the entire duration and provided an opioid-free urine sample on the last day of clinic attendance. Secondary outcome measures included use of ancillary medications, number of side effects reported and withdrawal and craving ratings.

FINDINGS

A total of 59 of the 77 (77%) in-patients assigned to the bup-nx condition achieved the treatment success criterion compared to eight of the 36 (22%) assigned to clonidine, whereas 46 of the 157 (29%) out-patients assigned to the bup-nx condition achieved the treatment success criterion, compared to four of the 74 (5%) assigned to clonidine.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of bup-nx for opioid detoxification are supported and illustrate important ways in which clinical research can be conducted in community treatment programs.

Induction of patients with moderately severe methadone dependence onto buprenorphine

Current clinical practice allows patients with low levels of physiological dependence on opioids (equivalent to methadone doses of 30 mg/d or less) to be transferred to buprenorphine. This study investigated the response of opioid-dependent patients receiving doses of methadone between 30-70 mg/d when transferred to buprenorphine at doses between 12-16 mg/d. Twenty-three patients receiving inpatient opioid detoxification agreed to take part in a trial of facilitated transfer to buprenorphine. Following the last morning dose of methadone, buprenorphine was substituted in doses increasing from 4 mg to a maximum of 16 mg, with adjunctive lofexidine (maximum of 2.4 mg/d). All except two patients successfully completed transfer to buprenorphine. To investigate the effect of initial methadone dose, the group was split into intermediate dose (ID; 30 - 49 mg/d; n = 10) and high dose (HD; 50-70 mg/d; n = 11) groups. Average stabilisation dose of buprenorphine for the sample who completed transfer was 14.0 mg/d (SD 2.3) and average daily lofexidine dose during transfer was 0.57 mg (SD 0.39). The HD group used significantly more lofexidine to complete transfer compared to the ID group. Increased opioid withdrawal symptoms, of mild severity as measured by the Short Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS), were found in the HD group compared with the ID group during the first and last day of buprenorphine stabilisation. However, average SOWS scores for the whole of the period of transfer were not significantly different from those during the period of stabilisation on buprenorphine in either the ID or HD groups. This study suggests that transfer to buprenorphine is relatively uncomplicated from daily methadone doses of 30-70 mg in an inpatient setting and may be facilitated by use of lofexidine. This procedure may allow a larger proportion of opioid-dependent patients access to buprenorphine treatment.

Combating opiate dependence: a comparison among the available pharmacological options

Pharmacotherapies for heroin addiction may target opiate withdrawal symptoms, facilitate initiation of abstinence and/or reduce relapse to heroin use either by maintenance on an agonist or antagonist agent. Available agents include opioid agonists, partial opioid agonists, opioid antagonists and alpha 2 -agonists for use during managed withdrawal and long-term maintenance. Experimental approaches combine alpha 2 -agonists with naltrexone to reduce the time of opiate withdrawal and to accelerate the transition to abstinence. Recently, buprenorphine has been introduced in the US for office-based maintenance, with the hope of replicating the success of this treatment in Europe and Australia. Naloxone has been added to buprenorphine in order to reduce its potential diversion to intravenous use, whilst facilitating the expansion of treatment. Although comprehensive substance abuse treatment is not limited to pharmacotherapy, this review will focus on the rationale, indications and limitations of the range of existing medications for detoxification and relapse prevention treatments. The two major goals of pharmacotherapy are to relieve the severity of opiate withdrawal symptoms during the managed withdrawal of the opioid and to prevent relapse to heroin use either after abstinence initiation or after being stabilised on a long-acting opiate agonist, such as methadone.

Short-term outcomes of five heroin detoxification methods in the Australian NEPOD Project

This study included 380 participants in five heroin detoxification trials whose data were pooled to enable direct comparison of five detoxification methods in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD). Rapid detoxification achieved similar initial abstinence rates with either anaesthesia or sedation (average 59%), which were higher than was achieved by inpatient detoxification using clonidine plus other symptomatic medications (24%), which in turn was higher than outpatient detoxification using either buprenorphine (12%) or clonidine plus other symptomatic medications (4%). Older participants and those using more illicit drugs were more likely to achieve abstinence. Entry rates into ongoing postdetoxification treatment were as follows: buprenorphine outpatient (65%), sedation (63%), anaesthesia (42%), symptomatic outpatient (27%), and symptomatic inpatient (12%). Postdetoxification treatment with buprenorphine or methadone was preferred over naltrexone. Participants with more previous detoxification attempts were more likely to enter postdetoxification treatment. Given that outpatient detoxification was more effective with buprenorphine than with symptomatic medications and that rapid detoxification was more effective than the symptomatic inpatient method, the roles of the symptomatic methods should be reconsidered.

A double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, prospective pilot study of the partial mu opiate agonist, buprenorphine, for acute detoxification from heroin

The optimum dose of buprenorphine for acute inpatient heroin detoxification has not been determined. This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, pilot study compares two buprenorphine sublingual tablet dosing schedules to oral clonidine. Heroin users (N = 30) who met DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence and achieved a Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score of 13 (moderate withdrawal), were randomized to receive higher dose buprenorphine (HD, 8-8-8-4-2 mg/day on days 1-5), lower dose buprenorphine (LD, 2-4-8-4-2 mg/day on days 1-5), or clonidine (C, 0.2-0.3-0.3-0.2-0.1 mg QID on days 1-5). COWS scores were obtained QID. Twenty-four hours after randomization, the percentages of subjects who achieved suppression of withdrawal, as defined by four consecutive COWS scores <12, were: C = 11%, LD = 40%, and HD = 60%. Generalized estimating equation regression models, controlling for baseline COWS and time, indicated that COWS scores over the course of 5 days were lower in both LD and HD compared to C (chi(2)(2) = 13.28, P = 0.001). Similar analyses examining scores over time on the Adjective Rating Scale for Withdrawal (ARSW) and on a Visual Analog Scale of Opiate Craving (VAS) indicated an overall treatment effect on the VAS accounted for by a significant difference between HD and C, but no overall treatment effect on the ARSW. There were no discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events. Both HD and LD regimens are safe and efficacious treatment for opioid detoxification, but HD demonstrated superiority to C on a greater number of measures.

Diretrizes para o tratamento de pacientes com síndrome de dependência de opióides no Brasil

Existe uma prevalência relativamente baixa do uso de ópioides no Brasil, em particular envolvendo o uso não médico da codeína e de xaropes que contêm opióides. No entanto, a síndrome de dependência apresenta um significativo impacto total na mortalidade e morbidade. Nos últimos 20 anos, o avanço científico tem modificado nosso entendimento sobre a natureza da adição aos opióides e os variados tratamentos possíveis. A adição é uma doença crônica tratável se o tratamento for realizado e adaptado tendo em vista as necessidades do paciente específico. Há, de um fato, um conjunto de tratamentos que podem efetivamente reduzir o uso da droga, ajudar a gerenciar a fissura pela droga, prevenir recaídas e recuperar as pessoas para o funcionamento social produtivo. O tratamento da dependência de drogas será parte de perspectivas de longo prazo do ponto de vista médico, psicológico e social. Esta diretriz almeja fornecer um guia para os psiquiatras e outros profissionais de saúde que tratam de pacientes com Síndrome de Dependência de Opióides. Ela tece comentários sobre o tratamento somático e psicossocial que é utilizado nesses pacientes e revisa as evidências científicas e seu poder. Da mesma forma, os aspectos históricos, epidemiológicos e neurobiológicos da dependência de opióides são revisados.

Pharmacotherapy for pregnant women with addictions

OBJECTIVE

Dependence on alcohol, nicotine, or illicit drugs during pregnancy continues to be a problem of major medical, social, and fetal consequences. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize current experience that pertains to pharmacotherapy for pregnant women with specific chemical addictions.

STUDY DESIGN

Studies were identified through Medline and HealthSTAR (1979-2003) that linked specific pharmacotherapy with pregnancy. This article reviews the English language literature for clinical studies that link the 2 conditions. In addition, reference lists of all articles that were obtained were evaluated for other potential citations.

RESULTS

Pregnant women are excluded systematically from almost all drug trials. Most knowledge about the fetal effects from maternal substance and medication use comes from animal data and from case reports and small clinical series. With the exception of methadone and nicotine replacement, clinical experience with antiaddictive medications in pregnant women is either very limited (alcohol, stimulants) or nonexistent (cannabis, hallucinogens).

CONCLUSION

Antiaddiction medications are important in the treatment of pregnant women with opioid and nicotine dependence and are of growing importance in the treatment of alcohol and stimulant dependence. Future directions will be toward increasing knowledge about current drug therapy and in developing new antiaddiction medications.

Opioid detoxification using high doses of buprenorphine in 24 hours: a randomized, double blind, controlled clinical trial

In recent years, interest in shortening of opioid detoxification has increased with the rising demands to find more cost-effective approaches for treatment of opioid dependence. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of administration of high doses of buprenorphine during 24 h in the management of acute opioid withdrawal. A total of 40 treatment-seeking opioid dependents were admitted and randomly assigned to two groups in a double blind, parallel trial. Buprenorphine was administered intramuscularly. Twenty patients received 12 mg buprenorphine in 24 h and the remaining 20 patients treated with conventional doses of buprenorphine tapered down over 5 days. Variables that were assessed included retention in treatment, rates of successful detoxification, the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (OOWS) scores, the Objective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS) scores, intensity of craving, drug side effects, and levels of hepatic enzymes (ALT and AST). There was no significant difference between the two groups on most variables. The main difference was in the time that maximal withdrawal symptoms occurred, which in the experimental protocol group appeared early while in the conventional protocol group appeared later during the detoxification period. Moreover, the experimental protocol was not only tolerated well but also accompanied with significantly less elevation in the ALT levels compared to the conventional treatment. However, patients in this group used more indomethacin and trazodone for symptom palliation. This study suggests that administration of high doses of buprenorphine in 24 h may be a reasonable approach for shortening of opioid detoxification. However, a larger study to confirm our results is warranted.

Office-based buprenorphine treatment for opioid-dependent patients

Opioid dependence is epidemic in the United States, with increasing numbers addicted to heroin and burgeoning abuse of prescription opioid analgesics. Buprenorphine, the most recent addition to the pharmacotherapies available to treat opioid dependence, is novel among the opioid pharmacotherapies because of its partial agonist properties. It has been placed on Schedule III and is available by prescription from a physician's office-based practice. This review briefly summarizes the research supporting buprenorphine as a treatment for opioid dependence--including its clinical pharmacology, formulation with naloxone to prevent diversion, clinical use in treatment of opioid dependence, and issues regarding its use in special populations.

Alpha2 adrenergic agonists for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal (detoxification) is necessary prior to drug-free treatment. It may also represent the end point of long-term 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 use of alpha2 adrenergic agonists (clonidine, lofexidine, guanfacine) to manage opioid withdrawal in terms of withdrawal signs and symptoms, completion of withdrawal and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Multiple electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Australian Medical Index, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register) were systematically searched. Reference lists of retrieved studies, reviews and conference abstracts were handsearched and relevant pharmaceutical companies contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled trials comparing alpha2 adrenergic agonists with reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications or placebo, or comparing different alpha2 adrenergic agonists to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent.

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 four reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies, involving 1709 participants, were included. Eighteen were randomised controlled trials; for the remaining studies allocation was by participant choice in two, one used alternate allocation and in one the method of allocation was unclear. Twelve studies compared a treatment regime based on an alpha2 adrenergic agonist with one based on reducing doses of methadone. Diversity in study design, assessment and reporting of outcomes limited the extent of quantitative analysis. For the comparison of alpha2 adrenergic agonist regimes with reducing doses of methadone, there were insufficient data for statistical analysis, but withdrawal intensity appears similar to, or marginally greater with alpha2 adrenergic agonists, while signs and symptoms of withdrawal occur and resolve earlier in treatment. Participants stay in treatment longer with methadone. No significant difference was detected in rates of completion of withdrawal with adrenergic agonists compared to reducing doses of methadone, or clonidine compared to lofexidine. Clonidine is associated with more adverse effects (low blood pressure, dizziness, dry mouth, lack of energy) than reducing doses of methadone. Lofexidine does not reduce blood pressure to the same extent as clonidine, but is otherwise similar to clonidine.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference in efficacy was detected for treatment regimes based on the alpha2 adrenergic agonists clonidine and lofexidine, and those based on reducing doses of methadone over a period of around 10 days, for the management of withdrawal from heroin or methadone. Participants stay in treatment longer with methadone regimes and experience less adverse effects. The lower incidence of hypotension makes lofexidine more suited to use in outpatient settings than clonidine. There are insufficient data available to support a conclusion on the efficacy of other alpha2 adrenergic agonists.

The clinical use of buprenorphine in opiate addiction: evidence and practice

Buprenorphine is a partial μ-opioid receptor agonist that is being increasingly used in clinical practice in the treatment of opioid dependence in the UK, USA, and, elsewhere. Its unique pharmacological properties mean it is a relatively safe drug, it can be given by alternate day dispensing, and it is associated with relatively mild symptoms on withdrawal. The interpretation of the research literature on buprenorphine is however, complex, and often appears to be in conflict with how buprenorphine is used in clinical practice. This article describes these apparent contradictions, their likely explanations, and how these may further inform our clinical practice. The article also describes the clinically relevant pharmacological properties of buprenorphine, compares it to methadone, relates the evidence to clinical experience, and provides practical advice on how to manage the most common clinical techniques. The best quality evidence suggests that very rapid buprenorphine induction is not associated with a higher drop-out rate than methadone, that buprenorphine is probably as good as methadone for maintenance treatment, and is superior to methadone and α-2 adrenergic agonists for detoxification. However, buprenorphine cannot yet be considered the 'gold standard' treatment for opiate dependence because of the higher drop-out rates that may occur on induction using current techniques, its high-cost relative to methadone, and because the place of buprenorphine in treatment is still continuing to evolve.

Bringing buprenorphine-naloxone detoxification to community treatment providers: the NIDA Clinical Trials Network field experience

In October 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone) sublingual tablets as an opioid dependence treatment available for use outside traditionally licensed opioid treatment programs. The NIDA Center for Clinical Trials Network (CTN) sponsored two clinical trials assessing buprenorphine-naloxone for short-term opioid detoxification. These trials provided an unprecedented field test of its use in twelve diverse community-based treatment programs. Opioid-dependent men and women were randomized to a thirteen-day buprenorphine-naloxone taper regimen for short-term opioid detoxification. The 234 buprenorphine-naloxone patients averaged 37 years old and used mostly intravenous heroin. Direct and rapid induction onto buprenorphine-naloxone was safe and well tolerated. Most patients (83%) received 8 mg buprenorphine-2 mg naloxone on the first day and 90% successfully completed induction and reached a target dose of 16 mg buprenorphine-4 mg naloxone in three days. Medication compliance and treatment engagement was high. An average of 81% of available doses was ingested, and 68% of patients completed the detoxification. Most (80.3%) patients received some ancillary medications with an average of 2.3 withdrawal symptoms treated. The safety profile of buprenorphine-naloxone was excellent. Of eighteen serious adverse events reported, only one was possibly related to buprenorphine-naloxone. All providers successfully integrated buprenorphine-naloxone into their existing treatment milieus. Overall, data from the CTN field experience suggest that buprenorphine-naloxone is practical and safe for use in diverse community treatment settings, including those with minimal experience providing opioid-based pharmacotherapy and/or medical detoxification for opioid dependence.

Buprenorphine antinociception is abolished, but naloxone-sensitive reward is retained, in mu-opioid receptor knockout mice

Buprenorphine is a relatively nonselective opioid receptor partial agonist that is used in the management of both pain and addiction. To improve understanding of the opioid receptor subtypes important for buprenorphine effects, we now report the results of our investigation on the roles of mu-, delta-, and kappa-opioid receptors in antinociceptive responses and place preferences induced by buprenorphine. Buprenorphine antinociception, assessed by hot-plate and tail-flick tests, was significantly reduced in heterozygous mu-opioid receptor knockout (MOR-KO) mice and abolished in homozygous MOR-KO mice. In contrast, buprenorphine retained its ability to establish a conditioned place preference (CPP) in homozygous MOR-KO, although the magnitude of place preference was reduced as the number of copies of wild-type mu-opioid receptor genes was reduced. The remaining CPP of buprenorphine was abolished by pretreatment with the nonselective opioid antagonist naloxone, but only partially blocked by pretreatment with either the delta-selective opioid antagonist naltrindole or the kappa-selective opioid antagonist norbinaltorphimine. These data, and biochemical confirmation of buprenorphine actions as a partial delta-, mu-, and kappa-agonist, support the ideas that mu-opioid receptors mediate most of analgesic properties of buprenorphine, but that mu- and delta- and/or kappa-opioid receptors are each involved in the rewarding effects of this drug.

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) project: an open-label pragmatic randomised control trial comparing the efficacy of differing therapeutic agents for primary care detoxification from either street heroin or methadone [ISRCTN07752728]

Background

Heroin is a synthetic opioid with an extensive illicit market leading to large numbers of people becoming addicted. Heroin users often present to community treatment services requesting detoxification and in the UK various agents are used to control symptoms of withdrawal. Dissatisfaction with methadone detoxification [8] has lead to the use of clonidine, lofexidine, buprenorphine and dihydrocodeine; however, there remains limited evaluative research. In Leeds, a city of 700,000 people in the North of England, dihydrocodeine is the detoxification agent of choice. Sublingual buprenorphine, however, is being introduced. The comparative value of these two drugs for helping people successfully and comfortably withdraw from heroin has never been compared in a randomised trial. Additionally, there is a paucity of research evaluating interventions among drug users in the primary care setting. This study seeks to address this by randomising drug users presenting in primary care to receive either dihydrocodeine or buprenorphine.

Methods/design

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) project is a pragmatic randomised trial which will compare the open use of buprenorphine with dihydrocodeine for illicit opiate detoxification, in the UK primary care setting. The LEEDS project will involve consenting adults and will be run in specialist general practice surgeries throughout Leeds. The primary outcome will be the results of a urine opiate screening at the end of the detoxification regimen. Adverse effects and limited data to three and six months will be acquired.