Opioid detoxification with buprenorphine, clonidine, or methadone in hospitalized heroin-dependent patients with HIV infection

Factors associated with patient perceived suboptimal dosing of in-hospital opioid agonist therapy among people who use illicit drugs in Vancouver, Canada

Optimal dosing of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is essential for treatment success. However, initiation and maintenance of OAT in hospital settings can be challenging given differing levels of opioid tolerance, withdrawal, and intoxication among patients.

The objective of this study was to characterize the prevalence and factors associated with in-hospital patient perceived suboptimal OAT dosing among people who use illicit drugs (PWUD) in Vancouver, Canada.

Data were derived from three prospective cohorts of PWUD in Vancouver, Canada. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with patient perceived suboptimal in-hospital OAT dose.

273 study participants were prescribed OAT while in hospital: 83 (30.4%) participants perceived their OAT dose to be suboptimal. In a multivariable model, factors positively associated with a perceived suboptimal OAT dose included: homelessness (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.85; 95% CI: 1.53-5.28), daily stimulant use (AOR = 2.03; 95% CI: 1.14-3.63) and illicit drug use while in hospital (AOR = 2.33; 95% CI: 1.31-4.16).

Almost one third of participants perceived receiving a suboptimal OAT dose while in hospital. These observed correlations indicate that a patient's perception of suboptimal OAT dosing in hospital may be more prevalent for patients who are homeless, report polysubstance use with stimulants and opioids and who obtain illicit drugs while hospitalized. While cautious prescribing of OAT in patients experiencing hospitalization is important, these findings demonstrate a high prevalence of and apparent risk factors for perceived suboptimal OAT dosing.

Buprenorphine management in the perioperative period: educational review and recommendations from a multisociety expert panel

BACKGROUND

The past two decades have witnessed an epidemic of opioid use disorder (OUD) in the USA, resulting in catastrophic loss of life secondary to opioid overdoses. Medication treatment of opioid use disorder (MOUD) is effective, yet barriers to care continue to result in a large proportion of untreated individuals. Optimal analgesia can be obtained in patients with MOUD within the perioperative period. Anesthesiologists and pain physicians can recommend and consider initiating MOUD in patients with suspected OUD at the point of care; this can serve as a bridge to comprehensive treatment and ultimately save lives.

METHODS

The Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Society of Addiction Medicine and American Society of Health System Pharmacists approved the creation of a Multisociety Working Group on Opioid Use Disorder, representing the fields of pain medicine, addiction, and pharmacy health sciences. An extensive literature search was performed by members of the working group. Multiple study types were included and reviewed for quality. A modified Delphi process was used to assess the literature and expert opinion for each topic, with 100% consensus being achieved on the statements and each recommendation. The consensus statements were then graded by the committee members using the United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence guidelines. In addition to the consensus recommendations, a narrative overview of buprenorphine, including pharmacology and legal statutes, was performed.

RESULTS

Two core topics were identified for the development of recommendations with >75% consensus as the goal for consensus; however, the working group achieved 100% consensus on both topics. Specific topics included (1) providing recommendations to aid physicians in the management of patients receiving buprenorphine for MOUD in the perioperative setting and (2) providing recommendations to aid physicians in the initiation of buprenorphine in patients with suspected OUD in the perioperative setting.

CONCLUSIONS

To decrease the risk of OUD recurrence, buprenorphine should not be routinely discontinued in the perioperative setting. Buprenorphine can be initiated in untreated patients with OUD and acute pain in the perioperative setting to decrease the risk of opioid recurrence and death from overdose.

Chronic Pain in HIV

The evolution of therapeutics for and management of human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) infection has shifted it from predominately manifesting as a severe, acute disease with high mortality to a chronic, controlled infection with a near typical life expectancy. However, despite extensive use of highly active antiretroviral therapy, the prevalence of chronic widespread pain in people with HIV remains high even in those with a low viral load and high CD4 count. Chronic widespread pain is a common comorbidity of HIV infection and is associated with decreased quality of life and a high rate of disability. Chronic pain in people with HIV is multifactorial and influenced by HIV-induced peripheral neuropathy, drug-induced peripheral neuropathy, and chronic inflammation. The specific mechanisms underlying these three broad categories that contribute to chronic widespread pain are not well understood, hindering the development and application of pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches to mitigate chronic widespread pain. The consequent insufficiencies in clinical approaches to alleviation of chronic pain in people with HIV contribute to an overreliance on opioids and alarming rise in active addiction and overdose. This article reviews the current understanding of the pathogenesis of chronic widespread pain in people with HIV and identifies potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets to mitigate it.

Treating Withdrawal and Pain in Inpatients With Opioid Use Disorder: A Brief Educational Intervention for Internal Medicine Residents

INTRODUCTION

Despite the effectiveness of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) for treating patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), insufficient education remains a barrier to prescribing. Internal medicine (IM) residents are optimally positioned to facilitate use of OAT, especially in the inpatient setting. We implemented an educational intervention aimed at increasing IM residents' knowledge and confidence regarding prescribing OAT to inpatients with OUD.

METHODS

We created a 35-minute, case-based presentation highlighting the management of opioid withdrawal using OAT and treating pain in inpatients on maintenance OAT. It was presented to IM residents beginning their general medicine ward rotations from November 2019 through January 2020. We developed a survey to measure participants' knowledge (mean number of questions correct out of five) and confidence (mean Likert-scale score, 1 = Not at all confident, 5 = Extremely confident, on each of five items) regarding prescribing OAT in the inpatient setting. We compared knowledge and confidence before versus 1 month after the intervention using paired Student t tests, with p < .05 indicating significance.

RESULTS

Of 103 unique residents completing ward rotations, 29 (28%) completed both the pre- and 1-month postsurveys and were included in the analysis. The mean number of knowledge questions correct increased from 3.1 pre- to 4.3 postintervention, and mean confidence scores increased from below 2 pre- to over 3 postintervention in four of five items (ps < .001).

DISCUSSION

A brief, generalizable, educational intervention significantly increased residents' knowledge of and confidence in prescribing OAT in inpatients with OUD.

Negative experiences of pain and withdrawal create barriers to abscess care for people who inject heroin. A mixed methods analysis

BACKGROUND

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are prevalent among people who inject heroin (PWIH). Delays in seeking health care lead to increased costs and potential mortality, yet the barriers to accessing care among PWIHs are poorly understood.

METHODS

We administered a quantitative survey (N = 145) and conducted qualitative interviews (N = 12) with PWIH seeking syringe exchange services in two U.S. cities.

RESULTS

66% of participants had experienced at least one SSTI. 38% reported waiting two weeks or more to seek care, and 57% reported leaving the hospital against medical advice. 54% reported undergoing a drainage procedure performed by a non-medical professional, and 32% reported taking antibiotics that were not prescribed to them. Two of the most common reasons for these behaviors were fear of withdrawal symptoms and inadequate pain control, and these reasons emerged as prominent themes in the qualitative findings. These issues are often predicated on previous negative experiences and exacerbated by stigma and an asymmetrical power dynamic with providers, resulting in perceived barriers to seeking and completing care for SSTIs.

CONCLUSIONS

For PWIH, unaddressed pain and withdrawal symptoms contribute to profoundly negative health care experiences, which then generate motivation for delaying care SSTI seeking and for discharge against medical advice. Health care providers and hospitals should develop policies to improve pain control, manage opioid withdrawal, minimize prejudice and stigma, and optimize communication with PWIH. These barriers should also be addressed by providing medical care in accessible and acceptable venues, such as safe injection facilities, street outreach, and other harm reduction venues.

Neuromodulation with percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation is associated with reduction in signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal: a multisite, retrospective assessment

BACKGROUND

Finding an effective, non-pharmacological approach to treat opioid withdrawal could remove some of the barriers associated with pharmacotherapy. The BRIDGE® is a noninvasive, percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulator developed to target pain.

OBJECTIVES

This pilot study aimed to determine (1) the effects of the BRIDGE on withdrawal scores during the induction phase of opioid withdrawal therapy, (2) the percentage of subjects who successfully transitioned to medication assisted therapy (MAT).

METHODS

Adult patients treated with the BRIDGE during medically supervised withdrawal were included in this open label, uncontrolled, and retrospective study. The clinical opioid withdrawal scale (COWS) scores were prospectively recorded at different intervals (20, 30, and 60 min) and analyzed retrospectively. A subset of patients had scores recorded 5-days post-BRIDGE. Those who returned to the clinic and received their first dose of maintenance medication were considered to be successfully transitioned.

RESULTS

In this cohort (n=73), 65% were male. The mean COWS score prior to BRIDGE placement was 20.1 (±6.1). Twenty minutes after BRIDGE placement, the mean score was reduced to 7.5 (±5.9) (62.7% reduction, p<0.001). The scores further decreased after 30 minutes 4.0 (±4.4) and 60 minutes 3.1 (±3.4) (84.6% reduction, p<0.001). No rescue medications were administered during this period. The mean withdrawal score on day 5 was 0.6 (97.1% reduction, p<0.001) (n=33). Overall, 64/73 patients (88.8%) successfully transitioned to MAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurostimulation with the BRIDGE is associated with a reduction in opioid withdrawal scores. This effect persisted during the induction period and allowed for effective transition to MAT.

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.

Buprenorphine Initiation and Linkage to Outpatient Buprenorphine do not Reduce Frequency of Injection Opiate Use Following Hospitalization

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine has established effectiveness for outpatient treatment of opioid use disorder. Our previously published STOP (Suboxone Transition to Opiate Program) trial showed that buprenorphine induction, stabilization, and linkage to outpatient treatment in opioid-dependent inpatients (injection and non-injection drug users) decreased illicit opioid use over 6months. The present study was a planned subgroup analysis of injection opiate users from STOP.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if inpatient buprenorphine initiation and linkage to outpatient buprenorphine reduce injection opiate users' frequency of injection opiate use (IOU).

METHODS

Inpatient injection opiate users at a safety-net hospital were randomized to buprenorphine linkage (induction, stabilization, bridge prescription, and facilitated referral to outpatient treatment) or detoxification (5-day inpatient buprenorphine taper). Conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression was used to estimate the effects of intervention on 30-day (self-report) at 1, 3, and 6months, measured using 30-day timeline follow-back. The secondary outcome was linkage effectiveness, measured as % presenting to initial outpatient buprenorphine visits after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Analysis was limited to persons (n=62 randomized to detoxification and n=51 to linkage) with baseline IOU. There were no significant differences in age, ethnicity, or baseline IOU frequency. At follow-up, linkage patients (70.6%) were significantly more likely (p<0.001) to present to initial buprenorphine visits than detoxification patients (9.7%). However, there was no significant between group difference in the rate of IOU at 1- (IRR=0.73, p=0.32), 3- (IRR=1.20, p=0.54), or 6-month (IRR=0.73, p=0.23) follow-ups. Using person-day analysis, participants self-reported IOU on 5.8% of follow-up days in which they used prescription buprenorphine and 37.5% of non-buprenorphine days. Using a generalized estimating equation, the estimated odds of IOU was 4.57 times higher (p<0.001) on non-buprenorphine days.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite STOP's success in linking patients who inject opiates to outpatient buprenorphine, the intervention did not significantly decrease their IOU frequency. Injection opiate users will require a more intensive protocol to sustain outpatient buprenorphine treatment and decrease injection with its attendant risks.

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.

Opiate addiction therapies and HIV-1 Tat: interactive effects on glial [Ca²⁺]i, oxyradical and neuroinflammatory chemokine production and correlative neurotoxicity

Few preclinical studies have compared the relative therapeutic efficacy of medications used to treat opiate addiction in relation to neuroAIDS. Here we compare the ability of methadone and buprenorphine, and the prototypic opiate morphine, to potentiate the neurotoxic and proinflammatory ([Ca²⁺]i, ROS, H2O2, chemokines) effects of HIV-1 Tat in neuronal and/or mixed-glial co-cultures. Repeated observations of neurons during 48 h exposure to combinations of Tat, equimolar concentrations (500 nM) of morphine, methadone, or buprenorphine exacerbated neurotoxicity significantly above levels seen with Tat alone. Buprenorphine alone displayed marked neurotoxicity at 500 nM, prompting additional studies of its neurotoxic effects at 5 nM and 50 nM concentrations ± Tat. In combination with Tat, buprenorphine displayed paradoxical, concentration-dependent, neurotoxic and neuroprotective actions. Buprenorphine neurotoxicity coincided with marked elevations in [Ca²⁺]i, but not increases in glial ROS or chemokine release. Tat by itself elevated the production of CCL5/RANTES, CCL4/MIP-1β, and CCL2/MCP-1. Methadone and buprenorphine alone had no effect, but methadone interacted with Tat to further increase production of CCL5/RANTES. In combination with Tat, all drugs significantly increased glial [Ca²⁺]i, but ROS was only significantly increased by co-exposure with morphine. Taken together, the increases in glial [Ca²⁺]i, ROS, and neuroinflammatory chemokines were not especially accurate predictors of neurotoxicity. Despite similarities, opiates displayed differences in their neurotoxic and neuroinflammatory interactions with Tat. Buprenorphine, in particular, was partially neuroprotective at a low concentration, which may result from its unique pharmacological profile at multiple opioid receptors. Overall, the results reveal differences among addiction medications that may impact neuroAIDS.

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 treatment for hospitalized, opioid-dependent patients: a randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

Buprenorphine opioid agonist treatment (OAT) has established efficacy for treating opioid dependency among persons seeking addiction treatment. However, effectiveness for out-of-treatment, hospitalized patients is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether buprenorphine administration during medical hospitalization and linkage to office-based buprenorphine OAT after discharge increase entry into office-based OAT, increase sustained engagement in OAT, and decrease illicit opioid use at 6 months after hospitalization.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From August 1, 2009, through October 31, 2012, a total of 663 hospitalized, opioid-dependent patients in a general medical hospital were identified. Of these, 369 did not meet eligibility criteria. A total of 145 eligible patients consented to participation in the randomized clinical trial. Of these, 139 completed the baseline interview and were assigned to the detoxification (n = 67) or linkage (n = 72) group.

INTERVENTIONS

Five-day buprenorphine detoxification protocol or buprenorphine induction, intrahospital dose stabilization, and postdischarge transition to maintenance buprenorphine OAT affiliated with the hospital's primary care clinic (linkage).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Entry and sustained engagement with buprenorphine OAT at 1, 3, and 6 months (medical record verified) and prior 30-day use of illicit opioids (self-report).

RESULTS

During follow-up, linkage participants were more likely to enter buprenorphine OAT than those in the detoxification group (52 [72.2%] vs 8 [11.9%], P < .001). At 6 months, 12 linkage participants (16.7%) and 2 detoxification participants (3.0%) were receiving buprenorphine OAT (P = .007). Compared with those in the detoxification group, participants randomized to the linkage group reported less illicit opioid use in the 30 days before the 6-month interview (incidence rate ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46-0.73; P < .01) in an intent-to-treat analysis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Compared with an inpatient detoxification protocol, initiation of and linkage to buprenorphine treatment is an effective means for engaging medically hospitalized patients who are not seeking addiction treatment and reduces illicit opioid use 6 months after hospitalization. However, maintaining engagement in treatment remains a challenge.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00987961.

Programmable transdermal clonidine delivery through voltage-gated carbon nanotube membranes

Oral dosage forms and traditional transdermal patches are inadequate for complex clonidine therapy dosing schemes, because of the variable dose/flux requirement for the treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro transdermal flux changes of clonidine in response to alterations in carbon nanotube (CNT) delivery rates by applying various electrical bias. Additional skin diffusion studies were carried out to demonstrate the therapeutic feasibility of the system. This study demonstrated that application of a small electrical bias (-600 mV) to the CNT membrane on the skin resulted in a 4.7-fold increase in clonidine flux as compared with no bias (0 mV) application. The high and low clonidine flux values were very close to the desired variable flux of clonidine for the treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms. Therapeutic feasibility studies demonstrated that CNT membrane served as the rate-limiting step to clonidine diffusion and lag and transition times were suitable for the clonidine therapy. Skin elimination studies revealed that clonidine depletion from the skin would not negatively affect clonidine therapy. Overall, this study showed that clonidine administration difficulties associated with the treatment of opiate withdrawal symptoms can be reduced with the programmable CNT membrane transdermal system.

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.

Perioperative analgesia and challenges in the drug-addicted and drug-dependent patient

The epidemic use of illicit drugs has led to an increasing number of patients with drug addiction and dependence presenting for perioperative care. There are a wide variety of drugs commonly abused including opioids, such as heroin and prescription drugs; stimulants, such as amphetamine and cocaine; depressant drugs, such as alprazolam and diazepam; and hallucinogens, such as lysergic acid diethylamide, phencyclidine, and marijuana. Treatment of opioid dependence by office-based buprenorphine and methadone maintenance programs has expanded opportunities for therapy. Treatment of these patients in the perioperative period is challenging. In addition to pain control, management of anxiety, psychological states, and hemodynamic control are the factors to be considered to provide optimum treatment. Although opioids are the mainstay for the control of acute pain, other therapeutic options include alternative routes of administration of local anesthetic, ketamine infusion, and the use of regional anesthesia. We discuss optimum perioperative management, the role of perioperative urine testing, and special considerations in patients on methadone and buprenorphine.

Methadone at tapered doses for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

The evidence of tapered methadone's efficacy in managing opioid withdrawal has been systematically evaluated in the previous version of this review that needs to be updated

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of tapered methadone compared with other detoxification treatments and placebo in managing opioid withdrawal on completion of detoxification and relapse rate.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), PubMed (January 1966 to May 2012), EMBASE (January 1988 to May 2012), CINAHL (2003- December 2007), PsycINFO (January 1985 to December 2004), reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that focused on the use of tapered methadone versus all other pharmacological detoxification treatments or placebo for the treatment of opiate withdrawal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed the included studies. Any doubts about how to rate the studies were resolved by discussion with a third review author. Study quality was assessed according to the criteria indicated in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three trials involving 2467 people were included. Comparing methadone versus any other pharmacological treatment, we observed no clinical difference between the two treatments in terms of completion of treatment, 16 studies 1381 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.21); number of participants abstinent at follow-up, three studies, 386 participants RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.37); degree of discomfort for withdrawal symptoms and adverse events, although it was impossible to pool data for the last two outcomes. These results were confirmed also when we considered the single comparisons: methadone with: adrenergic agonists (11 studies), other opioid agonists (eight studies), anxiolytic (two studies), paiduyangsheng (one study). Comparing methadone with placebo (two studies) more severe withdrawal and more drop-outs were found in the placebo group. The results indicate that the medications used in the included studies are similar in terms of overall effectiveness, although symptoms experienced by participants differed according to the medication used and the program adopted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data from literature are hardly comparable; programs vary widely with regard to the assessment of outcome measures, impairing the application of meta-analysis. The studies included in this review confirm that slow tapering with temporary substitution of long- acting opioids, can reduce withdrawal severity. Nevertheless, the majority of patients relapsed to heroin use.

Comparison of methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification (LEEDS trial): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many opiate users require prescribed medication to help them achieve abstinence, commonly taking the form of a detoxification regime. In UK prisons, drug users are nearly universally treated for their opiate use by primary care clinicians, and once released access GP services where 40% of practices now treat drug users. There is a paucity of evidence evaluating methadone and buprenorphine (the two most commonly prescribed agents in the UK) for opiate detoxification.

AIM

To evaluate whether buprenorphine or methadone help to achieve drug abstinence at completion of a reducing regimen for heroin users presenting to UK prison health care for detoxification.

DESIGN

Open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in three prison primary healthcare departments in the north of England.

METHOD

Prisoners (n = 306) using illicit opiates were recruited and given daily sublingual buprenorphine or oral methadone, in the context of routine care, over a standard reduced regimen of not more than 20 days. The primary outcome measure was abstinence from illicit opiates at 8 days post detoxification, as indicated by urine test (self-report/clinical notes where urine sample was not feasible). Secondary outcomes were also recorded.

RESULTS

Abstinence was ascertained for 73.7% at 8 days post detoxification (urine sample = 52.6%, self report = 15.2%, clinical notes = 5.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in the odds of achieving abstinence between methadone and buprenorphine (odds ratio [OR] = 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81 to 3.51; P = 0.163). Abstinence was associated solely with whether or not the participant was still in prison at that time (15.22 times the odds; 95% CI = 4.19 to 55.28). The strongest association for lasting abstinence was abstinence at an earlier time point.

CONCLUSION

There is equal clinical effectiveness between methadone and buprenorphine in achieving abstinence from opiates at 8 days post detoxification within prison.

Opioids and HIV/HCV infection

Since human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) share the same modes of transmission and common risk factors for infection, co-infections with HIV and HCV are frequently found in injection drug users (IDUs). IDUs represent one of the largest reservoirs of HIV as well as HCV in the United States. These two pathogens are also likely to be responsible for the highest infectious disease morbidity and mortality rates among IDUs. IDUs frequently involve the abuse of heroin, the most common abused opiate. Opiates have been suggested to have a cofactor role in the immunopathogenesis of HIV disease, as they have the potential to compromise host immune responses and enhances microbial infections. Although in vitro studies have yielded relatively agreeable data that morphine, the active metabolite of heroin, exacerbate HIV infection/replication, epidemiologic studies as well as in vivo non-human primate investigations on the impact of opiate abuse on HIV disease progression have yielded the conflicting data. Given immunomodulation and immunocompromising effect as well as demonstrated impact to enhance HIV replication in vitro, it is reasonable to believe that opiate abuse is a facilitator in HIV and/or HCV disease progression. However, much remain to be learned about the mechanisms of opiate-mediated broad influence on host immunity and viral expression. Thus, more extensive studies are needed in order to determine the effects of different conditions of opiate abuse and to define the understanding of the role of opiate in modulating HIV and/or HCV disease progression.

Use of the evidence base in substance abuse treatment programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives: pursuing quality in the crucible of practice and policy

BACKGROUND

A variety of forces are now shaping a passionate debate regarding the optimal approaches to improving the quality of substance abuse services for American Indian and Alaska Native communities. While there have been some highly successful efforts to meld the traditions of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes with that of 12-step approaches, some American Indian and Alaska Natives remain profoundly uncomfortable with the dominance of this Euro-American approach to substance abuse treatment in their communities. This longstanding tension has now been complicated by the emergence of a number of evidence-based treatments that, while holding promise for improving treatment for American Indian and Alaska Natives with substance use problems, may conflict with both American Indian and Alaska Native and 12-step healing traditions.

DISCUSSION

We convened a panel of experts from American Indian and Alaska Native communities, substance abuse treatment programs serving these communities, and researchers to discuss and analyze these controversies in preparation for a national study of American Indian and Alaska Native substance abuse services. While the panel identified programs that are using evidence-based treatments, members still voiced concerns about the cultural appropriateness of many evidence-based treatments as well as the lack of guidance on how to adapt them for use with American Indians and Alaska Natives. The panel concluded that the efforts of federal and state policymakers to promote the use of evidence-based treatments are further complicating an already-contentious debate within American Indian and Alaska Native communities on how to provide effective substance abuse services. This external pressure to utilize evidence-based treatments is particularly problematic given American Indian and Alaska Native communities' concerns about protecting their sovereign status.

SUMMARY

Broadening this conversation beyond its primary focus on the use of evidence-based treatments to other salient issues such as building the necessary research evidence (including incorporating American Indian and Alaska Native cultural values into clinical practice) and developing the human and infrastructural resources to support the use of this evidence may be far more effective for advancing efforts to improve substance abuse services for American Indian and Alaska Native communities.

The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for the biological treatment of substance use and related disorders. Part 2: Opioid dependence

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based practice guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of opioid abuse and dependence.

METHODS

An international task force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) developed these practice guidelines after a systematic review of the available evidence pertaining to the treatment of opioid dependence. On the basis of the evidence, the Task Force reached a consensus on practice recommendations, which are intended to be clinically and scientifically meaningful for physicians who treat adults with opioid dependence. The data used to develop these guidelines were extracted primarily from national treatment guidelines for opioid use disorders, as well as from meta-analyses, reviews, and publications of randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of pharmacological and other biological treatments for these disorders. Publications were identified by searching the MEDLINE database and the Cochrane Library. The literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for efficacy, which was categorized into one of six levels (A-F).

RESULTS

There is an excellent evidence base supporting the efficacy of methadone and buprenorphine or the combination of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of opioid withdrawal, with clonidine and lofexidine as secondary or adjunctive medications. Opioid maintenance with methadone and buprenorphine is the best-studied and most effective treatment for opioid dependence, with heroin and naltrexone as second-line medications.

CONCLUSIONS

There is enough high quality data to formulate evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of opioid abuse and dependence. This task force report provides evidence for the efficacy of a number of medications to treat opioid abuse and dependence, particularly the opioid agonists methadone or buprenorphine. These medications have great relevance for clinical practice.

Induction of opioid-dependent individuals onto buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone soluble-films

A sublingual soluble-film formulation of buprenorphine/naloxone (B/N) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of opioid dependency. This preparation provides unit-dose, child-resistant packaging amenable to tracking and accountability, offers more rapid dissolution, and has a potentially preferred taste vs. tablets. This study compared the ability of buprenorphine (B) and B/N films to suppress spontaneous withdrawal in opioid-dependent volunteers. Participants were maintained on morphine and underwent challenge sessions to confirm sensitivity to naloxone-induced opioid withdrawal. Subjects were randomized to receive either B (16 mg, n = 18) or B/N (16/4 mg, n = 16) soluble films for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score. Thirty-four subjects completed induction onto soluble films. There was a significant decrease in COWS scores but no significant differences between the groups. The results support the use of B and B/N soluble films as safe and effective delivery methods for opioid induction.

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.

Opioid dependence treatment: options in pharmacotherapy

The development of effective treatments for opioid dependence is of great importance given the devastating consequences of the disease. Pharmacotherapies for opioid addiction include opioid agonists, partial agonists, opioid antagonists, and alpha-2-adrenergic agonists, which are targeted toward either detoxification or long-term agonist maintenance. Agonist maintenance therapy is currently the recommended treatment for opioid dependence due to its superior outcomes relative to detoxification. Detoxification protocols have limited long-term efficacy, and patient discomfort remains a significant therapy challenge. Buprenorphine's effectiveness relative to methadone remains a controversy and may be most appropriate for patients in need of low doses of agonist treatment. Buprenorphine appears superior to alpha-2 agonists, however, and office-based treatment with buprenorphine in the USA is gaining support. Studies of sustained-release formulations of naltrexone suggest improved effectiveness for retention and sustained abstinence; however, randomized clinical trials are needed.

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.

Modest opioid withdrawal suppression efficacy of oral tramadol in humans

RATIONALE

Tramadol is in an unscheduled atypical analgesic with low rates of diversion and abuse and mixed pharmacologic actions, including modest opioid agonist activity.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the current study was to characterize the opioid withdrawal suppression efficacy of oral tramadol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Residential, opioid-dependent adults (n = 10) were maintained on morphine (15 mg subcutaneously, quad in diem) for approximately 6 weeks. Spontaneous opioid withdrawal was produced by substituting placebo for scheduled morphine doses 17.5 h before experimental sessions that occurred twice weekly. The acute effects of placebo, tramadol (50, 100, 200, and 400 mg orally), naloxone (0.1 and 0.2 mg intramuscularly [IM]), and morphine (15 and 30 mg IM) were tested under double-blind, double-dummy, randomized conditions. Outcomes included observer- and subject-rated measures, physiologic indices, and psychomotor/cognitive task performance.

RESULTS

Naloxone and morphine produced prototypic opioid antagonist and agonist effects, respectively. Tramadol 50 and 100 mg produced effects most similar to placebo. Tramadol 200 and 400 mg initially produced significant dose-related increases in ratings of "bad effects" and "feel sick," followed by evidence of opioid withdrawal suppression. Tramadol did not produce significant increases on measures of positive drug effects nor any clinically significant physiologic changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Tramadol 200 and 400 mg show evidence of opioid withdrawal suppression without significant observer- and subject-rated opioid agonist effects. The profile of action did not suggest a high risk for tramadol abuse in opioid dependent individuals. Tramadol may be a useful medication for treating opioid withdrawal.

Buprenorphine and methadone: a comparison of patient completion rates during inpatient detoxification

Buprenorphine and methadone are both effective for the control of the acute signs and symptoms of opiate withdrawal, but it is not known if there are differences between these two medications for other important clinical outcomes. This observational, non-randomized study evaluated completion rates of patients over a 13-month period when buprenorphine replaced methadone as the medication used for short-term inpatient opiate detoxification. Of the 644 patients in the study, the 303 treated with buprenorphine were more likely to complete detoxification than the 341 treated with methadone (89% vs. 78%; P < .001). Improvement in completion rates coincided with the introduction of buprenorphine. We conclude that as compared to methadone, buprenorphine is associated with greater rates of completion of inpatient detoxification.

Pharmacological pain control for human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults with a history of drug dependence

Clinicians treating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients with substance use disorders often face the challenge of managing patients' acute or chronic pain conditions while keeping in mind the potential dangers of prescription opiate dependence. In this clinical review, we critically appraise the existing data concerning barriers to appropriate treatment of pain among HIV-infected patients with substance use disorders. We then analyze published studies concerning the choice of pharmacological pain control regimens for acute and chronic pain conditions in HIV-infected patients, keeping in mind HIV-specific issues related to drug interactions and substance use disorders. We summarize this information in the form of flowcharts for physicians approaching HIV-infected patients who present with complaints of pain, providing evidence-based guidance for the structuring of pain management services and for addressing aberrant drug-taking behaviors.

Comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of opiate withdrawal: possible advantages of buprenorphine for the treatment of opiate-benzodiazepine codependent patients?

The study is a preliminary investigation to compare the effectiveness of buprenorphine and methadone as opiate detoxification treatments. The sample comprised 123 drug misusers who were dependent upon opiates only or who were codependent upon opiates and benzodiazepines. Drug misusers dependent upon methadone doses up to 70 mg were eligible for the study. Detoxification took place within a specialist inpatient drug-dependence unit. Withdrawal symptom severity was assessed on a daily basis by means of the Short Opiate Withdrawal Scale. Outcome was assessed for reductions in severity of withdrawal symptoms, treatment retention, and treatment completion. Buprenorphine detoxification was associated with less severe opiate withdrawal symptoms than methadone. Opiate/Benzodiazepine codependent patients reported less severe withdrawal symptoms during treatment with buprenorphine than with methadone and were also more likely to complete detoxification when treated with buprenorphine.

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.

Methadone at tapered doses for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread use in many countries the evidence of tapered methadone's efficacy in managing opioid withdrawal has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of tapered methadone compared with other detoxification treatments and placebo in managing opioid withdrawal on completion of detoxification and relapse rate.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2004), EMBASE (January 1988 to December 2004), PsycINFO (January 1985 to December 2004), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials which focus on the use of tapered methadone versus all other pharmacological detoxification treatments or placebo for the treatment of opiate withdrawal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers assessed the included studies. Any doubt about how to rate the studies were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. Study quality was assessed according to the criteria indicated in Cochrane Reviews Handbook 4.2. (Alderson 2004)

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials involving 1187 people were included. Comparing methadone versus any other pharmacological treatment we observed no clinical difference between the two treatments in terms of completion of treatment, relative risk (RR) 1.12; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.34 and results at follow-up RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92. It was impossible to pool data for the other outcomes but the results of the studies did not show significant differences between the considered treatments. These results were confirmed also when we considered the single comparisons: methadone with: adrenergic agonists (11 studies), other opioid agonists (four studies), chlordiazepoxide (study). Comparing methadone with placebo (one study) more severe withdrawal and more drop outs were found in the placebo group. The results indicate that the medications used in the included studies are similar in terms of overall effectiveness, although symptoms experienced by participants differed according to the medication used and the program adopted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data from literature are hardly comparable; programs vary widely with regard to duration, design and treatment objectives, impairing the application of meta-analysis. The studies included in this review confirm that slow tapering with temporary substitution of long acting opioids, accompanied by medical supervision and ancillary medications can reduce withdrawal severity. Nevertheless the majority of patients relapsed to heroin use.

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.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2003

This paper is the 26th consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, now spanning over a quarter-century of research. It summarizes papers published during 2003 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurologic disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration and thermoregulation (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).

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.