Advances in opioid antagonist treatment for opioid addiction

Evolutionary perspectives on substance and behavioural addictions: Distinct and shared pathways to understanding, prediction and prevention

Addiction poses significant social, health, and criminal issues. Its moderate heritability and early-life impact, affecting reproductive success, poses an evolutionary paradox: why are humans predisposed to addictive behaviours? This paper reviews biological and psychological mechanisms of substance and behavioural addictions, exploring evolutionary explanations for the origin and function of relevant systems. Ancestrally, addiction-related systems promoted fitness through reward-seeking, and possibly self-medication. Today, psychoactive substances disrupt these systems, leading individuals to neglect essential life goals for immediate satisfaction. Behavioural addictions (e.g. video games, social media) often emulate ancestrally beneficial behaviours, making them appealing yet often irrelevant to contemporary success. Evolutionary insights have implications for how addiction is criminalised and stigmatised, propose novel avenues for interventions, anticipate new sources of addiction from emerging technologies such as AI. The emerging potential of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists targeting obesity suggest the satiation system may be a natural counter to overactivation of the reward system.

A comparative study of the efficacy of venlafaxine and naltrexone for relapse prevention in patients with opioid use disorder attributed to tramadol

Tramadol and venlafaxine share similar pharmacological characteristics that may allow for overlapping therapeutic indications for them. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of venlafaxine and naltrexone in the treatment of tramadol abuse. This comparative trial included 95 patients with tramadol abuse who were detoxified for 2 weeks. Twenty-eight participants underwent the maintenance phase, while the remaining participants (n = 67) dropped out. The patients were randomized to use 50 mg/day of naltrexone or 225 mg/day of venlafaxine for 8 weeks. All participants were interviewed using SCID-I (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for diagnosing substance use and other psychiatric disorders. The proportion of relapsed patients was comparable between the naltrexone and venlafaxine groups (29.4% vs. 30.4%, P = 0.9). However, participants in the venlafaxine group stayed in treatment longer than participants in the naltrexone group, and the difference was significant (22.9 ± 7.89 days vs. 16.9 ± 3.4 days, P = 0.01). Only psychiatric comorbidity was found to be significantly associated with retention in treatment (80% vs. 22%, P = 0.005). Venlafaxine is as effective as naltrexone in preventing relapse in patients with tramadol abuse. Venlafaxine was more effective than naltrexone in treatment retention.

Retention Strategies for Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Adults: A Rapid Evidence Review

OBJECTIVES

Although medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) save lives, treatment retention remains challenging. Identification of interventions to improve MOUD retention is of interest to policymakers and researchers. On behalf of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, we conducted a rapid evidence review on interventions to improve MOUD retention.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from February 2009 through August 2019 for systematic reviews and randomized trials of care settings, services, logistical support, contingency management, health information technology (IT), extended-release (XR) formulations, and psychosocial interventions that assessed retention at least 3 months.

RESULTS

Two systematic reviews and 39 primary studies were included; most did not focus on retention as the primary outcome. Initiating MOUD in soon-to-be-released incarcerated people improved retention following release. Contingency management may improve retention using antagonist but not agonist MOUD. Retention with interventions integrating medical, psychiatric, social services, or IT did not differ from in-person treatment-as-usual approaches. Retention was comparable with XR- compared to daily buprenorphine formulations and conflicting with XR-naltrexone monthly injection compared to daily buprenorphine. Most psychosocial interventions did not improve retention.

DISCUSSION

Consistent but sparse evidence supports criminal justice prerelease MOUD initiation, and contingency management interventions for antagonist MOUD. Integrating MOUD with medical, psychiatric, social services, delivering through IT, or administering via XR-MOUD formulations did not worsen retention. Fewer than half of the studies we identified focused on retention as a primary outcome. Studies used different measures of retention, making it difficult to compare effectiveness. Additional inquiry into the causes of low retention would inform future interventions.Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42019134739.

Opioid use and dropout from extended-release naltrexone in a controlled trial: implications for mechanism

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Extended-release formulations of naltrexone have emerged as effective treatment options for opioid use disorder. This post-hoc analysis examined the temporal relationship between episodes of opioid use and subsequent dropout in a placebo-controlled trial of extended-release injection naltrexone (XR-NTX) to draw inferences about the mechanism by which extended blockade of opioid receptors translates into clinical effectiveness.

DESIGN

This was a 24-week multiple-site, double-blind, randomized trial of monthly XR-NTX versus placebo injections. We analyzed time to dropout from treatment using survival analysis with an extended Cox model as a function of treatment (XR-NTX versus placebo) and with weekly urine drug test (UDT) results for opioids at each week as a time-dependent covariate.

SETTING

Thirteen addiction treatment programs in Russia, 2008-09.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 250 adults with opioid use disorder who had completed in-patient detoxification.

INTERVENTION

XR-NTX injection or placebo injection every 4 weeks with weekly clinic visits and biweekly counseling.

MEASUREMENTS

Urine toxicology for opioids measured weekly and week of dropout from treatment.

FINDINGS

The Cox model yielded a significant interaction of time-dependent urine toxicology by treatment (P = 0.024). Among patients receiving placebo, a positive UDT in a given week increased the risk for dropout from treatment in the subsequent week [hazard ratio (HR) = 6.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.6-10.0], whereas among patients receiving XR-NTX, a positive UDT result showed no significant effect on risk for dropout (HR = 1.67; 95% CI = 0.6-4.5). The proportion of patients who completed all 24 weeks without any positive UDT result was 31% on XR-NTX compared with 20% on placebo (P = 0.051).

CONCLUSIONS

Extended-release injection naltrexone was effective at reducing the risk of dropout from opioid use disorder treatment after an episode of opioid use. Just under a third of patients (31%) on XR-NTX had no opioid-positive urine tests across the trial, but the hypothesis that this would differ from placebo (20%) was not confirmed.

Changes in fentanyl demand following naltrexone, morphine, and buprenorphine in male rats

BACKGROUND

Individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) exhibit high levels of economic demand for opioids, with high levels of consumption and relative insensitivity to changes in price. Because the medications used to treat OUD in medication-assisted therapy (MAT) act as antagonists or agonists at μ opioid receptors, they may alter the relationship between price and opioid intake.

METHODS

This study examined demand for a commonly abused synthetic prescription opioid, fentanyl, in male rats following s.c. pre-treatment with naltrexone (0.1-1.0 mg/kg), morphine (0.3-3.0 mg/kg) or buprenorphine (0.3-3.0 mg/kg). We normalized demand curves to intake at the lowest price and estimated effects on elasticity (sensitivity to changes in price). Rats were first trained to earn fentanyl (5 μg/kg/infusion) on a fixed ratio schedule, then they underwent daily training under a threshold procedure designed to produce within-session demand curve estimates. Rats received 14 threshold sessions before undergoing a series of tests encompassing each drug, at each dose.

RESULTS

Elasticity was increased by pretreatment with naltrexone, morphine or buprenorphine. Morphine also decreased initial intake, when the price for fentanyl was lowest. In contrast, initial intake was increased by naltrexone (according to an inverted-U shaped curve). The effects of naltrexone did not persist after the test session, but morphine and buprenorphine continued affecting demand elasticity 24 h or 48 h after the test, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that fentanyl demand is sensitive to blockade or activation of opioid receptors by the drug classes used for MAT in humans.

Lofexidine in Combination With Oral Naltrexone for Opioid Use Disorder Relapse Prevention: A Pilot Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Lofexidine (LFX), an α2A adrenergic receptor agonist, known to alleviate opioid withdrawal symptoms, was assessed in combination with oral naltrexone (NTX) for effects on opioid use outcomes and NTX treatment compliance.

METHODS

Detoxified individuals (ages 18-55, 80% male) with opioid use disorder Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition were randomized to 2.4 mg/day of LFX (n = 26) or Placebo (PBO, n = 31) in a double-blind manner for 12 weeks of treatment. NTX compliance, opioid-free urine samples, opioid craving as well as vital signs, subjective opioid withdrawal symptoms were assessed.

RESULTS

Intent to treat analysis revealed significantly better control over opioid craving in the LFX/NTX vs PBO/NTX group (P < .03), but no differences between groups in NTX compliance, opioid use, and overall opioid craving. However, subject withdrawal due to medication intolerance was significantly higher in the LFX/NTX (5/26) vs PBO/NTX (0/31) (P < .01). Two additional patients were withdrawn due to acute hepatitis infection. Post hoc secondary analyses with the nonwithdrawn sample indicated significantly higher rates of treatment completion (P < .05) and NTX compliance (P < .01), lower percent opioid urine samples (P < .05), and lower overall opioid craving (P < .05) in the LFX/NTX vs the PBO/NTX group.

CONCLUSION AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Although preliminary, these findings suggest that LFX at doses up to 2.4 mg/daily was safe and improved control over opioid cravings. Among those who tolerated the medication, LFX/NTX significantly improved the opioid craving, delayed return to opioid use, and improved treatment compliance and completion rates. These findings support further assessment of LFX dose titration schedule along with the adjunctive use of LFX with NTX treatment to enhance opioid relapse prevention. (Am J Addict 2019;00:1-9).

Prevention of Opioid Abuse and Treatment of Opioid Addiction: Current Status and Future Possibilities

Prescription opioid medications have seen a dramatic rise in misuse and abuse, leading regulators and scientists to develop policies and abuse-deterrent technologies to combat the current opioid epidemic. These abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) are intended to deter physical and chemical tampering of opioid-based products, while still providing safe and effective delivery for therapeutic purposes. Even though formulations with varying abuse-deterrent technologies have been approved, questions remain about their effectiveness. While these formulations provide a single means to combat the epidemic, a greater emphasis should be placed on formulations for treatment of addiction and overdose to help those struggling with opioid dependence. This article analyzes various ADFs currently in clinical use and explores potential novel systems for treatment of addiction and prevention of overdose.

Management of Opioid Addiction With Opioid Substitution Treatments: Beyond Methadone and Buprenorphine

With the opioid crisis in North America, opioid addiction has come in the spotlight and reveals the weakness of the current treatments. Two main opioid substitution therapies (OST) exist: buprenorphine and methadone. These two molecules are mu opioid receptor agonists but with different pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. In this review, we will go through these properties and see how they could explain why these medications are recognized for their efficacy in treating opioid addiction but also if they could account for the side effects especially for a long-term use. From this critical analysis, we will try to delineate some guidelines for the design of future OST.

Factors associated with willingness to take extended release naltrexone among injection drug users

BACKGROUND

Although opioid-agonist therapy with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone is currently the mainstay of medical treatment for opioid use disorder, these medications often are not well accepted or tolerated by patients. Recently, extended release naltrexone (XR-NTX), an opioid antagonist, has been advanced as an alternative treatment. The willingness of opioid-addicted patients to take XR-NTX has not been well described.

METHODS

Opioid-using persons enrolled in a community-recruited cohort in Vancouver, Canada, were asked whether or not they would be willing to take XR-NTX. Logistic regression was used to independently identify factors associated with willingness to take the medication.

RESULTS

Among the 657 participants surveyed between June 1, 2013, and November 30, 2013, 342 (52.1%) were willing to take XR-NTX. One factor positively associated with willingness was daily heroin injection (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-2.31), whereas Caucasian ethnicity was negatively associated (AOR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.43-0.82). Satisfaction with agonist therapy (13.4%) and unwillingness to stop opioids being used for pain (26.9%) were the most common reasons for being unwilling to take XR-NTX.

CONCLUSIONS

A high level of willingness to take XR-NTX was observed in this setting. Interestingly, daily injection heroin use was positively associated with willingness, whereas Caucasian participants were less willing to take XR-NTX. Although explanations for unwillingness were described in this study, further research is needed to investigate real-world acceptability of XR-NTX as an additional option for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

Cost-Effectiveness of Injectable Extended-Release Naltrexone Compared With Methadone Maintenance and Buprenorphine Maintenance Treatment for Opioid Dependence

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) compared with methadone maintenance and buprenorphine maintenance treatment (MMT and BMT, respectively) for adult males enrolled in treatment for opioid dependence in the United States from the perspective of state-level addiction treatment payers.

METHODS

A Markov model with daily time cycles was used to estimate the incremental cost per opioid-free day in a simulated cohort of adult males aged 18-65 over a 6-month period from the state health program perspective.

RESULTS

XR-NTX is predicted to be more effective and more costly than methadone or buprenorphine in our target population, with an incremental cost per opioid-free day gained relative to the next-most effective treatment (MMT) of $72. The cost-effectiveness of XR-NTX relative to MMT was driven by its effectiveness in deterring opioid use while receiving treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

XR-NTX is a cost-effective medication for treating opioid dependence if state addiction treatment payers are willing to pay at least $72 per opioid-free day.