Dangers involved in rapid opioid detoxification while using opioid antagonists: dehydration and renal failure

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.

Evidenced-based treatment of opioid-dependent patients

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of treatment options for opioid-dependent patients.

METHOD

We screened all published studies on the treatment of opioid dependence, with a special focus on systematic literature reviews, formal metaanalyses, and recent trials.

RESULTS

Both clinical experience and neurobiological evidence indicate that opioid dependence is a chronic relapsing disorder. Treatment objectives depend on the pursued goals: crisis intervention, abstinence-oriented treatment (detoxification and relapse prevention), or agonist maintenance treatment. The high quality of solid evidence in the literature demonstrates that there are numerous effective interventions available for the treatment of opioid dependence. Crisis intervention, frequently necessary owing to the high overdose rate, can be effectively handled with naloxone. Abstinence-oriented interventions are effective for only a few motivated patients with stable living conditions and adequate social support. Agonist maintenance treatment is considered the first line of treatment for opioid dependence. Numerous studies have shown efficacy for methadone and buprenorphine treatment, while maintenance with other agonists is also becoming available to a greater extent. Maintenance treatment with diamorphine should be made available for the small group of treatment-resistant, severely dependent addicts. Other harm-reduction measures can serve to engage individuals with opioid addiction who are not in treatment.

CONCLUSION

Opioid dependence is a chronic relapsing disease that is difficult to cure, but effective treatments are available to stabilize patients and reduce harm, thereby increasing life expectancy and quality of life.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of naltrexone in the maintenance treatment of opioid and alcohol dependence

This systematic review summarises evidence of the effectiveness of naltrexone (NTX) and the added value of psychosocial treatment in the maintenance treatment of opioid and alcohol dependence. Studies were selected through a literature search conducted in March 2004. Seven opioid and seventeen alcohol studies were identified. When possible, meta-(regression) analyses were performed. There is lack of evidence about the effectiveness of NTX in the maintenance treatment of opioid dependence. There is evidence for the effectiveness and applicability of NTX in the management of alcohol dependence. The opioid studies combined NTX with a variety of psychosocial interventions, which plagued the evaluation of their value. Concomitant psychosocial interventions used in the alcohol studies were mainly cognitive behavioural, which seems to be more effective than NTX combined with supportive therapy. Available data do not allow firm conclusions regarding the added effect of psychosocial interventions. However, the data suggest that a combination of naltrexone with cognitive behavioural relapse prevention therapy is beneficial in alcohol dependent patients.

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.

General anaesthesia does not improve outcome in opioid antagonist detoxification treatment: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Opioid detoxification by administering opioid-antagonists under general anaesthesia has caused considerable controversy. This study is conducted to determine whether rapid detoxification under general anaesthesia results in higher levels of opioid abstinence than rapid detoxification without anaesthesia.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled open clinical trial from September 1999 to August 2001.

SETTING

Four addiction centres in collaboration with three general hospitals in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 272 opioid-dependent patients whose previous attempts to abstain were unsuccessful.

INTERVENTION

Patients received rapid detoxification with general anaesthesia (RD-GA) or without general anaesthesia (RD).

MEASUREMENTS

Urine screens and an interview (EuropASI) to assess opioid abstinence; two questionnaires (SOOS, OOWS) to measure withdrawal symptoms and one to measure craving (VAS).

FINDINGS

One month after the intervention 62.8% of the patients in the RD-GA group and 60.0% in the RD group were abstinent for opioids (P = 0.71). No adverse events or complications occurred during RD; however, in the RD-GA group, five adverse events necessitated admission to a general hospital. The average 1-month cost for RD was Euros 2517 versus Euros 4439 for RD-GA.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid detoxification under general anaesthesia did not result in higher levels of opioid abstinence than rapid detoxification without anaesthesia. The cost of the former intervention was much higher.

Opioids and renal function

Opioids, both endogenous and exogenous, have a strong influence on the renal function through different mechanisms, producing changes in the renal excretion of water and sodium. Several studies have demonstrated that opioids influence renal function, according to the agonist profile used. Mu, kappa, and delta agonists produce different renal effects, although the mechanisms remain unclear. Experimental data have given the input for a possible therapeutic role of kappa agonists for some specific conditions, for example, in treating water retention or hyponatremia occurring in patients who have hepatic cirrhosis with ascites. On the other hand, changes in renal function might strongly condition the use of opioids in the clinical setting, and the knowledge of the relationship between opioids and renal function is mandatory for a tailored approach to accommodate the individual responses in terms of pain intensity, tolerance, and adverse effects experienced by these groups of patients. The influence of renal function when using different opioids in the clinical setting is reviewed, as well as problems related to transplantation, renal damage induced by opioid addiction, and problems related to the use of opioid antagonists in such conditions.

PERSPECTIVE

Endogenous opioids exert physiologic effects on renal function, and the use of opioids may have an influence on renal activity. Renal impairment has a serious impact on the clearance of most opioids used in the clinical setting. Biochemical and clinical monitoring is mandatory to prevent serious complications.