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

A narrative review of outcome measures used in drug and alcohol inpatient withdrawal treatment research

ISSUES

Assessing drug and alcohol inpatient withdrawal treatment programs is important, as these represent a first step of treatment among people with alcohol and drug problems. However, there are many ways of measuring outcomes making it difficult for service providers to decide which domains and methods to use. This narrative review aims to clarify frequencies of the domains and methods used to assess withdrawal treatment outcomes.

APPROACH

We reviewed published studies that examined outcomes of inpatient drug and alcohol withdrawal treatment. The types of outcome measures used and the frequency of use were summarised.

KEY FINDINGS

The review showed that assessment of withdrawal treatment outcomes goes beyond traditional abstinence measures. Outcomes mainly focus on biological and psychological outcomes, with social outcomes rarely measured. Even within outcome domains (e.g., cravings), there were many assessment methods.

IMPLICATIONS

The review provides service providers with an outline of common outcome domains and measures. Given the importance of social functioning to recovery from alcohol and drug problems, greater emphasis on such measures is desirable. Future research could develop greater consensus on outcome measures for use in withdrawal management services to facilitate clarity around factors associated with treatment success.

CONCLUSION

Outcome assessment in withdrawal treatment goes beyond abstinence to include holistic measurement of biological, psychological and some social outcomes; but more work needs to be done to cohere the different assessment methods and broaden the scope to include social functioning.

Buprenorphine and Methadone as Opioid Maintenance Treatments for Heroin-Addicted Patients Induce Oxidative Stress in Blood

Buprenorphine and methadone are two substances widely used in the substitution treatment of patients who are addicted to opioids. Although it is known that they partly act efficiently towards this direction, there is no evidence regarding their effects on the redox status of patients, a mechanism that could potentially improve their action. Therefore, the aim of the present investigation was to examine the impact of buprenorphine and methadone, which are administered as substitutes to heroin-dependent patients on specific redox biomarkers in the blood. From the results obtained, both the buprenorphine (n = 21) and the methadone (n = 21) groups exhibited oxidative stress and compromised antioxidant defence. This was evident by the decreased glutathione (GSH) concentration and catalase activity in erythrocytes and the increased concentrations of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) and protein carbonyls in the plasma, while there was no significant alteration of plasma total antioxidant capacity (TAC) compared to the healthy individuals (n = 29). Furthermore, methadone revealed more severe oxidant action compared to buprenorphine. Based on relevant studies, the tested substitutes mitigate the detrimental effects of heroin on patient redox status; still it appears that they need to be boosted. Therefore, concomitant antioxidant administration could potentially enhance their beneficial action, and most probably, buprenorphine that did not induce oxidative stress in such a severe mode as methadone, on the regulation of blood redox status.

Heroin refusal self-efficacy and preference for medication-assisted treatment after inpatient detoxification

OBJECTIVE

An individual's self-efficacy to refuse using heroin in high-risk situations is believed to minimize the likelihood for relapse. However, among individuals completing inpatient heroin detoxification, perceived refusal self-efficacy may also reduce one's perceived need for medication-assisted treatment (MAT), an effective and recommended treatment for opioid use disorder. In the current study, we examined the relationship between heroin refusal self-efficacy and preference for MAT following inpatient detoxification.

METHOD

Participants (N=397) were interviewed at the start of brief inpatient opioid detoxification. Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted association of background characteristics, depressed mood, and perceived heroin refusal self-efficacy with preference for MAT.

RESULTS

Controlling for other covariates, depressed mood and lower perceived refusal self-efficacy were associated with a significantly greater likelihood of expressing preference for MAT (versus no MAT).

CONCLUSIONS

Perceived ability to refuse heroin after leaving detox is inversely associated with a heroin user's desire for MAT. An effective continuum of care model may benefit from greater attention to patient's perceived refusal self-efficacy during detoxification which may impact preference for MAT and long-term recovery.

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.

Comparative profiles of men and women with opioid dependence: results from a national multisite effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND

Accumulating evidence indicates important gender differences in substance use disorders. Little is known, however, about gender differences and opioid use disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To compare demographic characteristics, substance use severity, and other associated areas of functioning (as measured by the Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI-Lite)) among opioid-dependent men and women participating in a multisite effectiveness trial.

METHODS

Participants were 892 adults screened for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network investigation of the effectiveness of two buprenorphine tapering schedules.

RESULTS

The majority of men and women tested positive for oxycodone (68% and 65%, respectively) and morphine (89% each). More women than men tested positive for amphetamines (4% vs. 1%, p < .01), methamphetamine (11% vs. 4%, p < .01), and phencyclidine (8% vs. 4%, p = .02). More men than women tested positive for methadone (11% vs. 6%, p = .05) and marijuana (22% vs. 15%, p = .03). Craving for opioids was significantly higher among women (p < .01). Men evidenced higher alcohol (p < .01) and legal (p = .04) ASI composite scores, whereas women had higher drug (p < .01), employment (p < .01), family (p < .01), medical (p < .01), and psychiatric (p < .01) ASI composite scores. Women endorsed significantly more current and past medical problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Important gender differences in the clinical profiles of opioid-dependent individuals were observed with regard to substance use severity, craving, medical conditions, and impairment in associated areas of functioning. The findings enhance understanding of the characteristics of treatment-seeking men and women with opioid dependence, and may be useful in improving identification, prevention, and treatment efforts for this challenging and growing population.

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.

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.

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.

Quality of life among heroin users on buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance

OBJECTIVES

To assess the quality of life (QoL) of heroin users starting and following 4 and 8 months of maintenance treatment program using buprenorphine vs. methadone.

METHODS

Participants received maintenance treatment with oral methadone or sublingual buprenorphine for the treatment of heroin dependence. Participants' QoL was measured using the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire completed before treatment and at 1-, 4-, and 8-month follow-up. Baseline data from 304 heroin-dependent participants starting maintenance treatment, and 4-month and 8-month follow-up data for the 180 and 129 participants, respectively, retained in trial treatment are presented.

RESULTS

For the participants retained in treatment, statistically significant improvements in QoL and all specific life domains were observed in 4 and 8 months. However, for users who were maintained on methadone, this improvement was observed during the first month of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show the beneficial effects of the maintenance treatment programs using both buprenorphine and methadone with regard to satisfaction with QoL and all specific life domains among heroin-dependent outpatients, with methadone having an earlier onset than buprenorphine. Further studies are needed to identify the factors linked to these benefits and their time course.