Combined use of trazodone-naltrexone versus clonidine-naltrexone in rapid withdrawal from methadone treatment. A comparative inpatient study

Trazodone Prolonged-Release Monotherapy in Cannabis Dependent Patients during Lockdown Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Series

(1) Background: During the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, cannabis use increased relative to pre-pandemic levels, while forced home confinement frequently caused sleep/wake cycle disruptions, psychological distress, and maladaptive coping strategies with the consequent appearance of anxiety symptoms and their potential impact on substance use problems. (2) Aim: Long-acting trazodone (150 mg or 300 mg daily) has a potential benefit as monotherapy in patients with cannabis use disorder. The present work aims to investigate the effectiveness of trazodone in optimizing the condition of people with cannabis dependence under pandemic conditions. (3) Methods: All cases with cannabis use disorder were uniformly treated with long-acting trazodone 150 mg or 300 mg/day; their craving and clinical status were monitored through appropriate psychometric scales. Side effects were recorded as they were reported by patients. We described the cases of three young patients—one man and two women—who were affected by chronic cannabis use disorder and who experienced lockdown-related psychological distress and sought psychiatric help. (4) Results: The described cases highlight that the once-a-day formulation of trazodone seems to have a therapeutic role in patients with cannabis use disorder and to guarantee tolerability and efficacy over time. No significant side effects emerged. (5) Conclusions: The use of long-acting trazodone (150 mg or 300 mg daily) has a potential benefit as monotherapy in patients with cannabis use disorder. Trazodone deserves to be studied in terms of its efficacy for cannabis use disorder.

Opioid Tapering/Detoxification Protocols, A Compendium: Narrative Review

OBJECTIVES

The opioid epidemic has put pressure on clinicians to taper their chronic pain patients (CPPs) from opioids. This has resulted in rapid or forced tapers and opioid discontinuation. Partially responsible is lack of information on how to taper (tapering protocols).The objectives of this narrative review were then the following: compile all the published opioid tapering/detoxification protocols from the pain/drug rehabilitation/psychiatric literature whether for inpatient or outpatient use; organize these into general types; compare the types for advantages/disadvantages for use by a clinician in an outpatient setting; and answer some commonly asked questions relating to opioid tapering.

METHODS

Relevant references were identified by a search strategy utilizing the terms tapering, tapering protocols, detoxification, detoxification protocols, withdrawal, dependence, addiction, and drug rehabilitation. These were explored with the term opioids. Identified abstract were reviewed for any study relating to the objectives of this review. Those studies were then included in this review. As this is a narrative review, no quality ratings of these references were performed.

RESULTS

Of 1,922 abstracts identified by this search strategy, 301 were reviewed in detail for potential inclusion. Of these, 104 were utilized in this review. Nine types of opioid tapering protocols were identified and compared in tabular form. Twenty-two questions in reference to opioid tapering were addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this review, the protocol utilizing the opioid of current use is the simplest to use as it requires no rotation to another opioid and thereby avoids rotation errors. It also has behavior advantages.

Ensuring Patient Protections When Tapering Opioids: Consensus Panel Recommendations

Long-term opioid therapy has the potential for serious adverse outcomes and is often used in a vulnerable population. Because adverse effects or failure to maintain benefits is common with long-term use, opioid taper or discontinuation may be indicated in certain patients. Concerns about the adverse individual and population effects of opioids have led to numerous strategies aimed at reductions in prescribing. Although opioid reduction efforts have had generally beneficial effects, there have been unintended consequences. Abrupt reduction or discontinuation has been associated with harms that include serious withdrawal symptoms, psychological distress, self-medicating with illicit substances, uncontrolled pain, and suicide. Key questions remain about when and how to safely reduce or discontinue opioids in different patient populations. Thus, health care professionals who reduce or discontinue long-term opioid therapy require a clear understanding of the associated benefits and risks as well as guidance on the best practices for safe and effective opioid reduction. An interdisciplinary panel of pain clinicians and one patient advocate formulated recommendations on tapering methods and ongoing pain management in primary care with emphasis on patient-centered, integrated, comprehensive treatment models employing a biopsychosocial perspective.

Opioid Management: Initiating, Monitoring, and Tapering

Numerous guidelines targeting safe use of opioids for chronic pain have been published but substantial challenges persist in clinical application of best practice recommendations. This article describes a pragmatic approach to clinical care of adults with chronic pain receiving long-term opioid therapy. Three components of care are emphasized: (1) medical and mental health assessment before initiating opioid therapy, (2) clinical surveillance during the course of long-term opioid therapy, and (3) clinical considerations and strategies governing opioid tapering. A pressing need exists for ongoing research to further clarify the optimal role that long-term opioid therapy has in treatment of chronic pain.

Non-Opioid Neurotransmitter Systems that Contribute to the Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome: A Review of Preclinical and Human Evidence

Opioid misuse and abuse is a major international public health issue. Opioid use disorder (OUD) is largely maintained by a desire to suppress aversive opioid withdrawal symptoms. Opioid withdrawal in patients seeking abstinence from illicit or prescribed opioids is often managed by provision of a μ-opioid agonist/partial agonist in combination with concomitant medications. Concomitant medications are administered based on their ability to treat specific symptoms rather than a mechanistic understanding of the opioid withdrawal syndrome; however, their use has not been statistically associated with improved treatment outcomes. Understanding the central and/or peripheral mechanisms that underlie individual withdrawal symptom expression in humans will help promote medication development for opioid withdrawal management. To support focused examination of mechanistically supported concomitant medications, this review summarizes evidence from preclinical (N = 68) and human (N = 30) studies that administered drugs acting on the dopamine, serotonin, cannabinoid, orexin/hypocretin, and glutamate systems and reported outcomes related to opioid withdrawal. These studies provide evidence that each of these systems contribute to opioid withdrawal severity. The Food and Drug Administration has approved medications acting on these respective systems for other indications and research in this area could support the repurposing of these medications to enhance opioid withdrawal treatment. These data support a focused examination of mechanistically informed concomitant medications to help reduce opioid withdrawal severity and enhance the continuum of care available for persons with OUD.

Opioid antagonists with minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of opioid antagonists plus minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal. Comparators were placebo as well as more established approaches to detoxification, such as tapered doses of methadone, adrenergic agonists, buprenorphine and symptomatic medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to December 2016: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials along with prospective controlled cohort studies comparing opioid antagonists plus minimal sedation versus other approaches or different opioid antagonist regimens for withdrawal in opioid-dependent participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (6 randomised controlled trials and 4 prospective cohort studies, involving 955 participants) met the inclusion criteria for the review. We considered 7 of the 10 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one of the domains we assessed.Nine studies compared an opioid antagonist-adrenergic agonist combination versus a treatment regimen based primarily on an alpha2-adrenergic agonist (clonidine or lofexidine). Other comparisons (placebo, tapered doses of methadone, buprenorphine) made by included studies were too diverse for any meaningful analysis. This review therefore focuses on the nine studies comparing an opioid antagonist (naltrexone or naloxone) plus clonidine or lofexidine versus treatment primarily based on clonidine or lofexidine.Five studies took place in an inpatient setting, two studies were in outpatients with day care, two used day care only for the first day of opioid antagonist administration, and one study described the setting as outpatient without indicating the level of care provided.The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of the type of opioid antagonist treatment regimen, the comparator, the outcome measures assessed, and the means of assessing outcomes. As a result, the validity of any estimates of overall effect is doubtful, therefore we did not calculate pooled results for any of the analyses.The quality of the evidence for treatment with an opioid antagonist-adrenergic agonist combination versus an alpha2-adrenergic agonist is very low. Two studies reported data on peak withdrawal severity, and four studies reported data on the average severity over the period of withdrawal. Peak withdrawal induced by opioid antagonists in combination with an adrenergic agonist appears to be more severe than withdrawal managed with clonidine or lofexidine alone, but the average severity over the withdrawal period is less. In some situations antagonist-induced withdrawal may be associated with significantly higher rates of treatment completion compared to withdrawal managed with adrenergic agonists. However, this result was not consistent across studies, and the extent of any benefit is highly uncertain.We could not extract any data on the occurrence of adverse events, but two studies reported delirium or confusion following the first dose of naltrexone. Delirium may be more likely with higher initial doses and with naltrexone rather than naloxone (which has a shorter half-life), but we could not confirm this from the available evidence.Insufficient data were available to make any conclusions on the best duration of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using opioid antagonists plus alpha2-adrenergic agonists is a feasible approach for managing opioid withdrawal. However, it is unclear whether this approach reduces the duration of withdrawal or facilitates transfer to naltrexone treatment to a greater extent than withdrawal managed primarily with an adrenergic agonist.A high level of monitoring and support is desirable for several hours following administration of opioid antagonists because of the possibility of vomiting, diarrhoea and delirium.Using opioid antagonists to induce and accelerate opioid withdrawal is not currently an active area of research or clinical practice, and the research community should give greater priority to investigating approaches, such as those based on buprenorphine, that facilitate the transition to sustained-release preparations of naltrexone.

Long-Acting Injectable Naltrexone Induction: A Randomized Trial of Outpatient Opioid Detoxification With Naltrexone Versus Buprenorphine

OBJECTIVE

At present there is no established optimal approach for transitioning opioid-dependent adults to extended-release injection naltrexone (XR-naltrexone) while preventing relapse. The authors conducted a trial examining the efficacy of two methods of outpatient opioid detoxification for induction to XR-naltrexone.

METHOD

Participants were 150 opioid-dependent adults randomly assigned 2:1 to one of two outpatient detoxification regimens, naltrexone-assisted detoxification or buprenorphine-assisted detoxification, followed by an injection of XR-naltrexone. Naltrexone-assisted detoxification lasted 7 days and included a single day of buprenorphine followed by ascending doses of oral naltrexone along with clonidine and other adjunctive medications. Buprenorphine-assisted detoxification included a 7-day buprenorphine taper followed by a week-long delay before administration of XR-naltrexone, consistent with official prescribing information for XR-naltrexone. Participants from both groups received behavioral therapy focused on medication adherence and a second dose of XR-naltrexone.

RESULTS

Compared with participants in the buprenorphine-assisted detoxification condition, participants assigned to naltrexone-assisted detoxification were significantly more likely to be successfully inducted to XR-naltrexone (56.1% compared with 32.7%) and to receive the second injection at week 5 (50.0% compared with 26.9%). Both models adjusted for primary type of opioid use, route of opioid administration, and morphine equivalents at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of low-dose naltrexone, in conjunction with single-day buprenorphine dosing and adjunctive nonopioid medications, for initiating adults with opioid dependence to XR-naltrexone. This strategy offers a promising alternative to the high rates of attrition and relapse currently observed with agonist tapers in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

Opioid antagonists with minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Managed 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 opioid antagonists in combination with minimal sedation 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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled studies of interventions involving the use of opioid antagonists in combination with minimal sedation to manage withdrawal in opioid-dependent participants compared with other approaches or different opioid antagonist regimes.

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

Nine studies (6 randomised controlled trials), involving 837 participants, met the inclusion criteria for the review.The quality of the evidence is low, but suggests that withdrawal induced by opioid antagonists in combination with an adrenergic agonist is more intense than withdrawal managed with clonidine or lofexidine alone, while the overall severity is less. Delirium may occur following the first dose of opioid antagonist, particularly with higher doses (> 25mg naltrexone).In some situations antagonist-induced withdrawal may be associated with significantly higher rates of completion of treatment, comp[ared to withdrawal managed primarily with adrenergic agonists. However, this outcome has not been produced consistently, and the extent of any benefit is highly uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of opioid antagonists combined with alpha(2)-adrenergic agonists is a feasible approach to the management of opioid withdrawal. However, it is unclear whether this approach reduces the duration of withdrawal or facilitates transfer to naltrexone treatment to a greater extent than withdrawal managed primarily with an adrenergic agonist.A high level of monitoring and support is desirable for several hours following administration of opioid antagonists because of the possibility of vomiting, diarrhoea and delirium.Further research is required to confirm the relative effectiveness of antagonist-induced regimes, as well as variables influencing the severity of withdrawal, adverse effects, the most effective antagonist-based treatment regime, and approaches that might increase retention in subsequent naltrexone maintenance treatment.

Clinical features, response to treatment and functional outcome of bipolar disorder patients with and without co-occurring substance use disorder: 1-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Bipolar disorder patients (BP) with comorbid Substance Use Disorder (SUD) may present clinical features that could compromise adherence and response to pharmacological treatment. The purpose of this study was to examine clinical and psychopathological features of BP with and without comorbid SUD in a real-world setting.

METHODS

The sample was composed by 131 affective patients. Sixty-five patients were affected by Bipolar Disorder I (BP-I, 49.2%), 29 by Bipolar Disorder II (BP-II, 22.3%) and 37 by Cyclothymic Disorder (CtD, 28.5%), according to DSM-IV. Sixty-six patients were diagnosed for a comorbid SUD. All patients have been submitted to psychometric assessment with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Global Assessment Scale (GAS), Social Adjustment Self-reported Scale (SASS), Quality of Life Scale (QoL), at baseline and repeated follow-up periods (1, 3, 6, 12 months).

RESULTS

BP comorbid for SUD were more likely diagnosed as BP-II and CtD and were less likely to present a moderate-severe manic symptomatology. Furthermore, personality disorders were more frequent in SUD patients than in non-comorbid BP. BP with SUD were not different for primary outcome measure (HDRS, HARS, YMRS, GAS) from non-comorbid BP; however, BP with SUD were significantly more impaired in social functioning (SASS) at any stage of the follow-up and poor functioning increased the risk of relapse in substance use during treatment. Finally, SUD comorbidity did not represent a risk factor for treatment drop-out, while in our sample young age, low treatment dosage and BP-I diagnosis were significantly associated with drop-out.

DISCUSSION

The primary finding of this work is that BP with comorbid SUD are significantly more compromised in social functioning. Second, these patients were less likely to be diagnosed for BP-I and to present a severe manic symptomatology. Finally, we found that the diagnosis of SUD, but young age, low treatment dosage and BP-I diagnosis to be risk factors for treatment drop-out. Physicians should be alert to these differences in their clinical practice.

Opioid antagonists with minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Managed withdrawal is necessary prior to drug-free treatment. It may also represent the end point of long-term opioid replacement treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of opioid antagonists in combination with minimal sedation to induce withdrawal, in terms of intensity of withdrawal, adverse effects and completion of treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Experimental interventions involved the use of opioid antagonists in combination with minimal sedation to manage withdrawal in opioid-dependent participants compared with other approaches or different opioid antagonist regime.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer assessed studies for inclusion and undertook data extraction and trial quality. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (5 randomised controlled trials), involving 775 participants, met the inclusion criteria for the review. Withdrawal induced by opioid antagonists in combination with an adrenergic agonist is more intense than withdrawal managed with clonidine or lofexidine alone, but the overall severity is less. Limited data showed that antagonist-induced withdrawal may be more severe when the last opioid used was methadone rather than heroin or another short-acting opioid. Delirium may occur following the first dose of opioid antagonist, particularly with higher doses (> 25mg naltrexone). The studies included suggest there is no significant difference in rates of completion of treatment for withdrawal induced by opioid antagonists, in combination with an adrenergic agonist, compared with adrenergic agonist alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of opioid antagonists combined with alpha2 adrenergic agonists is a feasible approach to the management of opioid withdrawal. However, it is unclear whether this approach reduces the duration of withdrawal or facilitates transfer to naltrexone treatment to a greater extent than withdrawal managed primarily with an adrenergic agonist.A high level of monitoring and support is desirable for several hours following administration of opioid antagonists because of the possibility of vomiting, diarrhoea and delirium. Further research is required to confirm the relative effectiveness of antagonist-induced regimes, as well as variables influencing the severity of withdrawal, adverse effects, the most effective antagonist-based treatment regime, and approaches that might increase retention in subsequent naltrexone maintenance treatment.

Effectiveness of interventions on opiate withdrawal treatment: an overview of systematic reviews

AIM

To provide an overview of 5 Cochrane reviews of different approaches for treating opioid withdrawal.

DESIGN

Narrative and quantitative summary of review findings.

PARTICIPANTS

There were 46 studies included in the original reviews with a total of 3350 participants (range 18-300).

INTERVENTION

The 5 reviews considered 46 studies covering seven different comparisons, the major ones being methadone compared with alpha2-adrenergic agonists and other opioid agonists, different alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with each other and to antagonist-induced withdrawal and buprenorphine.

MEASUREMENTS

The outcomes considered were signs and symptoms of withdrawal, retention in treatment, completion rate, relapse rate and side effects.

FINDINGS

Methadone detoxification results in higher retention in treatment, lower relapse rate and fewer side effects when compared with adrenergic agonists. No difference was observed when comparing different adrenergic agonists; buprenorphine appears to have an advantage over adrenergic agonists on withdrawal symptoms and side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the considerable number of trials that have been carried out on this topic, they are very heterogeneous as far as the comparisons and outcomes considered. This prevented many of them from being incorporated into a quantitative meta-analysis. Consensus in measurements and results should be reached among researchers involved in the evaluation of the effectiveness of treatments for opiate addiction in order to produce consistent outcomes in the measuring and reporting of results from clinical trials.

The effect of clonidine on the naltrexone-induced withdrawal response in morphine-treated guinea-pigs

Rapid opioid withdrawal induced by naltrexone is now used as a treatment for heroin addiction. The alpha2-adrenoceptor agonist, clonidine, is currently used in clinical practice to reduce opioid withdrawal in humans. However, few studies have been reported on its effectiveness for this purpose. Guinea-pigs were made dependent and tolerant to morphine using a 3-day chronic morphine regimen (total 410 mg kg(-1) morphine base), and injected with either clonidine (0.1 mg kg(-1), s.c.) or saline, 1 h before induction of withdrawal with naltrexone (15 mg kg(-1), s.c.). Withdrawal behaviours were measured for 90 min and animals were then euthanased and the brains removed. The presence of the immediate early gene protein product, c-Fos, was detected using immunohistochemical techniques. Clonidine reduced the number of head/body shakes, but had no effect on the total withdrawal behaviour score. In the CNS, clonidine increased the number of Fos-LI neurons in the central amygdala. In conclusion, the modest effect of clonidine in the present experiments suggests that the efficacy of clonidine in humans undergoing naltrexone-induced opioid withdrawal requires further investigation.