Efficacy and tolerability of buccal buprenorphine in opioid-naive patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events in chronic low back pain patients treated with buprenorphine or oral opioids: a retrospective commercial claims analysis

Aim: Explore the safety of Belbuca® (buprenorphine buccal film), buprenorphine transdermal patches and oral opioids for chronic low back pain (cLBP) treatment. Methods: The retrospective analysis of the MarketScan Commercial database (2018-2021) included treatment-naive cLBP adults. The first date of buprenorphine (Belbuca and transdermal patch) or opioid prescription was index date. Cohorts were defined based on the index medication. Observation included a 6-month pre-index period, while post-index lasted until the end of continuous insurance coverage. There were 44 relevant treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) identified in the literature. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) and incidence rate difference (IRD) were used to compare serious TEAE rates (in 1000 person-years) between cohorts. Propensity-score matching minimized the selection bias. Results: Buprenorphine had lower rates of 15 serious TEAEs than oral opioids (all p ≤ 0.037), while higher rates only for serious dizziness (IRR 2.44, p = 0.011; driven by Belbuca), opioid abuse/dependence (IRR 3.13, p = 0.004; driven by patches) and cholecystitis (IRD 20.25, p = 0.044; an outlier). Additionally, a comparison between Belbuca and oral opioids showed lower rates of 13 serious TEAEs (all p ≤ 0.024) and a higher serious dizziness rate (IRR 3.17, p = 0.024). Although the rates of serious opioid abuse/dependence were similar (24.60 vs 26.93, p = 0.921), all Belbuca patients and none of the opioid patients had a positive history of these events. Belbuca also had lower rates of five serious TEAEs than transdermal patches (all p ≤ 0.018), including a serious opioid abuse/dependence (IRR 0.04, p < 0.001), but higher rates of serious cholecystitis (IRD 52.17, p = 0.035; an outlier) and suicidal ideation (IRD 156.50, p < 0.001; an outlier). Conclusion: Buprenorphine had a better safety profile than oral opioids in cLBP treatment. Belbuca showed a more favorable TEAE profile than buprenorphine transdermal patches and oral opioids.

Frontline Perspectives on Buprenorphine for the Management of Chronic Pain

Due to the prevalence of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain in the US, a significant percentage of the population is prescribed opioids for pain management. However, opioid use disorder is associated with reduced quality of life, along with fatal opioid overdoses, and is a significant burden on the US economy. Considering the clinical needs of patients with intractable chronic pain and the potential harms associated with prescribed and illicit opioids in our communities, having a deep understanding of current treatment options, supporting evidence, and clinical practice guidelines is essential for optimizing treatment selections. Buprenorphine is a Schedule III opioid with a unique mechanism of action, allowing effective and long-lasting analgesia at microgram doses with fewer negative side effects and adverse events, including respiratory depression, when compared with other immediate-release, long-acting, and extended-release prescription opioids. Due to its relatively lower risk for overdose and misuse, buprenorphine was recently added to the Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Opioids in the Management of Chronic Pain as a first-line treatment for chronic pain managed by opioids by the US Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Health and Human Services recommends that buprenorphine be made available for the treatment of chronic pain. In this narrative review, we discuss the different buprenorphine formulations, clinical efficacy, advantages for older adults and other special populations, clinical practice guideline recommendations, and payer considerations of buprenorphine and suggest that buprenorphine products approved for chronic pain should be considered as a first-line treatment for this indication.

Treatment characteristics of chronic low back pain patients treated with buprenorphine buccal film or transdermal patch

Aims: Retrospective insurance claims analysis exploring treatment characteristics in chronic low back pain patients prescribed buprenorphine buccal film (Belbuca®) or transdermal patches. Patients and methods: The first buprenorphine prescription (buccal film or transdermal patch) was an index event. Patients were observed over 6 month pre- and post-index periods. Propensity score matching minimized the selection bias. Results: Buccal film patients had a higher buprenorphine daily dose (501.7 vs 270.9 µg; p < 0.001). The patch-to-film switching rate was higher than vice versa (11.5 vs 3.8%; p < 0.001). The buccal film showed a greater reduction in opioid prescriptions (-1.1 vs -0.7; p = 0.012), daily morphine milligram equivalents (-12.6 vs -7.3; p < 0.001) and opioid treatment duration (-13.4 vs -7.6 days; p = 0.022). Conclusion: Buccal film was associated with higher buprenorphine doses and a greater reduction of opioid burden.

An Examination of the Complex Pharmacological Properties of the Non-Selective Opioid Modulator Buprenorphine

The goal of this review is to provide a recent examination of the pharmacodynamics as well as pharmacokinetics, misuse potential, toxicology, and prenatal consequences of buprenorphine. Buprenorphine is currently a Schedule III opioid in the US used for opioid-use disorder (OUD) and as an analgesic. Buprenorphine has high affinity for the mu-opioid receptor (MOR), delta (DOR), and kappa (KOR) and intermediate affinity for the nociceptin (NOR). Buprenorphine's active metabolite, norbuprenorphine, crosses the blood-brain barrier, is a potent metabolite that attenuates the analgesic effects of buprenorphine due to binding to NOR, and is responsible for the respiratory depressant effects. The area under the concentration curves are very similar for buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine, which indicates that it is important to consider this metabolite. Crowding sourcing has identified a buprenorphine street value (USD 3.95/mg), indicating some non-medical use. There have also been eleven-thousand reports involving buprenorphine and minors (age < 19) at US poison control centers. Prenatal exposure to clinically relevant dosages in rats produces reductions in myelin and increases in depression-like behavior. In conclusion, the pharmacology of this OUD pharmacotherapy including the consequences of prenatal buprenorphine exposure in humans and experimental animals should continue to be carefully evaluated.

Analgesic Effect of Buprenorphine for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist at the µ-opioid receptor and an antagonist at the delta and kappa opioid receptors. It has high affinity and low intrinsic activity at the µ-opioid receptor. Buprenorphine demonstrates no ceiling effect for clinical analgesia, but demonstrates this for respiratory depression and euphoria. It may provide effective analgesia while producing less adverse effects, making it a promising opioid analgesic. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to examine the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine for patients with chronic noncancer pain.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLNE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2022. Randomized controlled trials were included if they compared buprenorphine versus placebo or active analgesic in patients with chronic noncancer pain, where pain score was an outcome. Nonrandomized controlled trials, observational studies, qualitative studies, case reports, and commentaries were excluded. Two investigators independently performed the literature search, study selection, and data collection. A random-effects model was used. The primary outcome was the effect of buprenorphine on pain intensity in patients with chronic noncancer pain based on standardized mean difference (SMD) in pain score. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Two separate literature searches were conducted for patients with and without opioid use disorder (OUD). Only one study met the search criteria for those with OUD. Fourteen randomized controlled trials were included for those without OUD. Buprenorphine was associated with reduced pain score (SMD = -0.368, P < .001, I 2 = 89.37%) compared to placebo or active analgesic. Subgroup meta-analyses showed statistically significant differences in favor of buprenorphine versus placebo (SMD = -0.404, P < .001), for chronic low back pain (SMD = -0.383, P < .001), when administered via the transdermal route (SMD = -0.572, P = .001), via the buccal route (SMD = -0.453, P < .001), with length of follow-up lasting <12 weeks (SMD = -0.848, P < .05), and length of follow-up lasting 12 weeks or more (SMD = -0.415, P < .001). There was no significant difference when compared to active analgesic (SMD = 0.045, P > .05). Quality of evidence was low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine was associated with a statistically significant and small reduction in pain intensity compared to placebo. Both the transdermal and buccal routes provided pain relief. There was more evidence supporting its use for chronic low back pain.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Buprenorphine

Pain management in palliative care (PC) is becoming more complex as patients survive longer with life-limiting illnesses and population-wide trends involving opioid misuse become more common in serious illness. Buprenorphine, a generally safe partial mu-opioid receptor agonist, has been shown to be effective for both pain management and opioid use disorder. It is critical that PC clinicians become comfortable with indications for its use, strategies for initiation while understanding risks and benefits. This article, written by a team of PC and addiction-trained specialists, including physicians, nurse practitioners, social workers, and a pharmacist, offers 10 tips to demystify buprenorphine use in serious illness.

Buprenorphine and its formulations: a comprehensive review

Buprenorphine, a novel long-acting analgesic, was developed with the intention of two purposes: analgesia and opioid use disorder. Regarding its pharmacodynamics, it is a partial agonist at mu receptors, an inverse agonist at kappa receptors, and an antagonist at delta receptors. For the purpose of analgesia, three formulations of buprenorphine were developed: IV/IM injectable formulation (Buprenex®), transdermal patch formulation (Butrans®), and buccal film formulation (Belbuca®). Related to opioid dependence, the formulations developed were subcutaneous extended release (Sublocade®), subdermal implant (Probuphine®), and sublingual tablets (Subutex®). Lastly, in order to avoid misuse of buprenorphine for opioid dependence, two combination formulations paired with naloxone were developed: film formulation (Suboxone®) and tablet formulation (Zubsolv®). In this review, we present details of each formulation along with their similarities and differences between each other and clinical considerations.

Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Most systematic reviews of opioids for chronic pain have pooled treatment effects across individual opioids under the assumption they provide similar benefits and harms. We examined the comparative effects of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain through a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2021 for studies that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer pain, randomised them to receive different opioids, or opioids vs placebo, and followed them for at least 4 weeks. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We identified 82 eligible trials (22 619 participants) that evaluated 14 opioids. Compared with placebo, several opioids showed superiority to others for analgesia and improvement in physical function; however, when restricted to pooled-effect estimates supported by moderate certainty evidence, no differences between opioids were evident. Among opioids with moderate certainty evidence, all increased the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, although no opioids were more harmful than others. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that extended-release vs immediate-release opioids may provide similar benefits for pain relief and physical functioning, and gastrointestinal harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the pooling of effect estimates across different types and formulations of opioids to inform effectiveness for chronic non-cancer pain.

Pharmacotherapy for Spine-Related Pain in Older Adults

As the population ages, spine-related pain is increasingly common in older adults. While medications play an important role in pain management, their use has limitations in geriatric patients due to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy. This review will assess the evidence basis for medications used for spine-related pain in older adults, with a focus on drug metabolism and adverse drug reactions. A PubMed/OVID search crossing common spine, neck, and back pain terms with key words for older adults and geriatrics was combined with common drug classes and common drug names and limited to clinical trials and age over 65 years. The results were then reviewed with identification of commonly used drugs and drug categories: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, corticosteroids, gabapentin and pregabalin, antispastic and antispasmodic muscle relaxants, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tramadol, and opioids. Collectively, 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were the focus of the review. The review found a variable contribution of high-quality studies examining the efficacy of medications for spine pain primarily in the geriatric population. There was strong evidence for NSAID use with adjustments for gastrointestinal and renal risk factors. Gabapentin and pregabalin had mixed evidence for neuropathic pain. SNRIs had good evidence for neuropathic pain and a more favorable safety profile than TCAs. Tramadol had some evidence in older patients, but more so in persons aged < 65 years. Rational therapeutic choices based on geriatric spine pain diagnosis are helpful, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based pain, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular pain, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies. Tramadol can be well tolerated in older patients, but has risks of cognitive and classic opioid side effects. Otherwise, opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults due to their morbidity and mortality risk and are reserved for refractory severe pain. Whenever possible, beneficial geriatric spine pain pharmacotherapy should employ the lowest therapeutic doses with consideration of polypharmacy, potentially decreased renal and hepatic metabolism, and co-morbid medical disorders.

Efficacy and safety of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain and chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analyses

ABSTRACT

In recent years, long-term prescribing and use of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) has increased in high-income countries. Yet existing uncertainties, controversies, and differing recommendations make the rationale for prolonged opioid use in CNCP unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of strong opioids with placebo or nonopioid therapy in CNCP, with a special focus on chronic low back pain (CLBP). Systematic literature searches were performed in 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) in July 2019 and updated by regular alerts until December 2020. We included 16 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials for CLBP and 5 studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 3 nonrandomized studies) of opioids vs nonopioids for CNCP in the quantitative and qualitative synthesis. Random effects pairwise meta-analyses were performed for efficacy, safety, and tolerability outcomes and subgroup analyses for treatment duration, study design, and opioid experience status. Very low to low certainty findings suggest that 4 to 15 weeks (short or intermediate term) opioid therapy in CLBP (compared with placebo) may cause clinically relevant reductions in pain but also more gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events, with likely no effect on disability. By contrast, long-term opioid therapy (≥6 months) in CNCP may not be superior to nonopioids in improving pain or disability or pain-related function but seems to be associated with more adverse events, opioid abuse or dependence, and possibly an increase in all-cause mortality. Our findings also underline the importance and need for well-designed trials assessing long-term efficacy and safety of opioids for CNCP and CLBP.

Buprenorphine for Chronic Pain: A Safer Alternative to Traditional Opioids

With the ongoing public health crisis with prescription opioids, there is a need for safer alternatives for medication management in chronic pain patients. Buprenorphine is a partial mu-opioid agonist which is commonly utilized to treat patients with opioid-use disorders. The purpose of this review is to discuss the potential use of this medication for the treatment of chronic pain instead of resorting to more traditional Schedule II opioids. Buprenorphine offers a safer alternative for patients who require opioids to manage chronic pain, given the unique pharmacological properties that allow it to provide adequate analgesia with less abuse potential.

Benefit-Risk Analysis of Buprenorphine for Pain Management

Health care providers in the United States are facing challenges in selecting appropriate medication for patients with acute and chronic pain in the midst of the current opioid crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. When compared with conventional opioids, the partial µ-opioid receptor agonist buprenorphine has unique pharmacologic properties that may be more desirable for pain management. The formulations of buprenorphine approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for pain management include intravenous injection, transdermal patch, and buccal film. A comparison of efficacy and safety data from studies of buprenorphine and conventional opioids suggests that buprenorphine may be a better-tolerated treatment option for many patients that provides similar or superior analgesia. Our benefit-risk assessment in this narrative review suggests that health care providers should consider that buprenorphine may be an appropriate alternative for pain management over other opioids.

Conversion of Schedule II Opioids to Buprenorphine Buccal Film: A Retrospective Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To provide clinical data for the conversion of Schedule II opioids to buprenorphine buccal film and to demonstrate sustained analgesia and a reduction in morphine milligram equivalents after conversion.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of electronic medical records.

SETTING

Group clinical practice providing outpatient chronic pain management care in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

SUBJECTS

Patients who received opioids for chronic pain between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019, were selected for chart review if they were converted to buprenorphine buccal film from a Schedule II opioid.

METHODS

Patients who met inclusion criteria were stratified into subgroups on the basis of preconversion morphine milligram equivalents, whether they remained on opioids for breakthrough pain postconversion, and pre- and postconversion numerical rating scale pain scores. Outcomes of interest included the differences between pre- and postconversion numerical rating scale pain scores and daily morphine milligram equivalents for each subgroup.

RESULTS

Of 157 patients reviewed, 87.9% were successfully converted to buprenorphine buccal film. Overall, numerical rating scale pain scores were stable after conversion. Statistically significant reductions were demonstrated in the <90 daily morphine milligram equivalent subgroup. Postconversion daily morphine milligram equivalents decreased by 85.4% from baseline. Change in daily morphine milligram equivalents is representative of patients who remained on breakthrough pain medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrate continued analgesia after conversion to buprenorphine buccal film despite reductions in daily morphine milligram equivalents. Most patients were able to convert directly from their long-acting opioid to buprenorphine buccal film and stabilized without the use of concomitant opioids for breakthrough pain. Aggressive titration strategies were associated with greater success.

Is Buprenorphine Effective for Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the effects of buprenorphine on chronic pain outcomes (i.e., patient-reported pain intensity) in patients with and without opioid use disorder (OUD).

DESIGN

Ovid/Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies that explored the effectiveness (in reducing pain) of buprenorphine treatment for chronic pain patients with and without a history of OUD. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included in the review.

METHODS

Two separate searches were conducted to identify buprenorphine trials that included chronic pain patients either with or without OUD. Five studies used validated pain report measures and included a chronic pain population with OUD. Nine studies used validated report measures and included chronic pain patients without OUD. Meta-analysis was performed using the R, version 3.2.2, Metafor package, version 1.9-7.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis revealed that buprenorphine has a beneficial effect on pain intensity overall, with a small mean effect size in patients with comorbid chronic pain and OUD and a moderate- to large-sized effect in chronic pain patients without OUD.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that buprenorphine is modestly beneficial in reducing pain intensity in patients without OUD. Although informative, these findings should be carefully interpreted due to the small amount of data available and the variation in study designs.

Transmucosal Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Dyspnea: Case Series and Review of the Literature

Full μ-opioid agonists are commonly employed in advanced disease to relieve dyspnea of various etiologies. Although there are ongoing debates and studies regarding the relative efficacy of different agents, a factor limiting more general use is a concern about side effects, in particular respiratory depression. Buprenorphine is a partial μ receptor agonist and a κ-opioid receptor antagonist, with a better safety profile than full μ receptor agonists. We conducted a literature search, which did not reveal any studies looking at the use of buprenorphine to treat dyspnea. We also report a case series of three patients with dyspnea of various etiologies treated with buprenorphine, with an apparent excellent response of dyspnea to treatment, without any significant side effects. Given those results, as well as the potential impact of κ-opioid receptor antagonism on dyspnea-associated anxiety, we conclude that there is a need for controlled studies of buprenorphine against full μ-opioid agonists for the symptomatic treatment of dyspnea in palliative care.

Safety of tapentadol compared with other opioids in chronic pain treatment: network meta-analysis of randomized controlled and withdrawal trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative safety of oral tapentadol PR and other opioid analgesics for moderate or severe chronic pain in adults, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized withdrawal trials of tapentadol with other WHO stage II and III opioid analgesics in patients with moderate or severe chronic pain. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane databases and trial registries. Feasibility assessment evaluated the trials' suitability for NMA. Outcomes assessed were overall AEs, overall serious adverse events, constipation, nausea, dizziness, somnolence, headache, and discontinuation due to AEs. Randomized withdrawal trials were analyzed separately to other RCTs.

RESULTS

Searches conducted in April 2019 identified 16,604 records. Following screening and feasibility assessment, 29 RCTs and 19 randomized withdrawal trials were identified and included in the NMA. Consistent with existing research, evidence from RCTs suggested that tapentadol is associated with relatively lower odds of adverse events occurring than most active comparators. The withdrawal trial data were less clear, with higher uncertainty around the results, and results that appear to contradict the RCT evidence. There are a number of trial design factors that may be affecting these results.

CONCLUSIONS

RCT evidence suggests that tapentadol can be a useful treatment option for patients suffering from chronic pain and in need of an opioid analgesic. Opioids should be prescribed by a qualified physician only after other analgesics have been considered, taking side effects and misuse risk into account.

Pain management in patients with chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review evaluates current recommendations for pain management in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with a specific focus on evidence for opioid analgesia, including the partial agonist, buprenorphine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent evidence supports the use of physical activity and other nonpharmacologic therapies, either alone or with pharmacological therapies, for pain management. Nonopioid analgesics, including acetaminophen, topical analgesics, gabapentinoids, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and TCA may be considered based on pain cause and type, with careful dose considerations in kidney disease. NSAIDs may be used in CKD and ESKD for short durations with careful monitoring. Opioid use should be minimized and reserved for patients who have failed other therapies. Opioids have been associated with increased adverse events in this population, and thus should be used cautiously after risk/benefit discussion with the patient. Opioids that are safer to use in kidney disease include oxycodone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, methadone, and buprenorphine. Buprenorphine appears to be a promising and safer option due to its partial agonism at the mu opioid receptor.

SUMMARY

Pain is poorly managed in patients with kidney disease. Nonpharmacological and nonopioid analgesics should be first-line approaches for pain management. Opioid use should be minimized with careful monitoring and dose adjustment.

A Phase I Placebo-Controlled Trial Comparing the Effects of Buprenorphine Buccal Film and Oral Oxycodone Hydrochloride Administration on Respiratory Drive

Introduction

Buprenorphine is a partial μ-opioid receptor agonist that, unlike full μ-opioid receptor agonists, has been shown to have a ceiling effect on respiratory depression. Buprenorphine buccal film (BBF) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with chronic pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for whom alternative treatment options are inadequate. This study was conducted to compare the effects of BBF and immediate-release oral oxycodone hydrochloride administration on respiratory drive, as measured by the ventilatory response to hypercapnia (VRH) after drug administration.

Methods

Subjects (N = 19) were men and women, ages 27–41 years, self-identifying as recreational opioid users who were not physically dependent on opioids as determined via a Naloxone Challenge Test. Respiratory drive was evaluated by measuring VRH through the assessment of the maximum decrease in minute ventilation (E_max) after administration of each treatment. The treatments utilized in this study included 300, 600, and 900 μg BBF; 30 and 60 mg orally administered oxycodone; and placebo (each separated by a 7-day washout period). Effects on respiratory drive were assessed using a double-blind, double-dummy, six-treatment, six-period, placebo-controlled, randomized crossover design. Statistical analyses were performed using a linear mixed-effects model.

Results

The least squares mean differences in minute volume E_max (L/min, versus placebo) were as follows: 300 μg BBF (+ 1.24, P = 0.529), 600 μg BBF (+ 0.23, P = 0.908), 900 μg BBF (+ 0.93, P = 0.637), 30 mg oxycodone (− 0.79, P = 0.687), and 60 mg oxycodone (− 5.23, P = 0.010).

Conclusions

BBF did not significantly reduce respiratory drive at any dose compared with placebo, including at the maximum available prescription dose of 900 μg. Administration of oxycodone resulted in a significant dose-dependent decrease in respiratory drive. These data suggest that BBF may be a safer treatment option than full μ-opioid receptor agonists for patients with chronic pain.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03996694.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01481-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The utilization of buprenorphine in chronic pain

Reclassification of chronic pain as a disease may be helpful because patients with chronic pain require significant treatment and rehabilitation with a clear diagnosis. This can help address critical factors including suffering, quality of life, participation, and with family and social life, which continue to become more important in evaluating the quality of the health care we give our patients today. During the past decade of the opioid epidemic, methadone was the primary treatment for opioid addiction until buprenorphine was approved. Buprenorphine's high-affinity partial agonist properties make it a good alternative to methadone due to lower abuse potential and safer adverse effect profile while maintaining significant efficacy. Expanded out-patient prescribing options have allowed physician and physician extenders such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners to treat these patients that otherwise would have been required to utilize methadone. With unique pharmacological properties, buprenorphine is a safe and effective analgesic for chronic pain. The literature for buprenorphine shows great potential for its utilization in the treatment of chronic pain.

Buprenorphine buccal film for chronic pain management

Buprenorphine is a Schedule III opioid with unique pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties that contribute to effective analgesia and fewer safety risks than other opioids. This review article focuses on the buccal film formulation, which is preferable to other buprenorphine formulations on the basis of bioavailability, safety and efficacy. The clinical studies reviewed here confirm that buprenorphine buccal film offers effective and continuous pain relief that is generally well tolerated, with no cases of respiratory depression reported in any of the studies. On the basis of these clinical data and individual patient risk/benefit assessments, clinicians should consider utilizing buprenorphine buccal film as a first-line opioid treatment for chronic pain over other buprenorphine formulations or other opioids.

Are Opioids Needed to Treat Chronic Low Back Pain? A Review of Treatment Options and Analgesics in Development

The continued prevalence of chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a testament to our lack of understanding of the potential causes, leading to significant treatment challenges. CLBP is the leading cause of years lived with disability and the fifth leading cause of disability-adjusted life-years. No single non-pharmacologic, pharmacologic, or interventional therapy has proven effective as treatment for the majority of patients with CLBP. Although non-pharmacologic therapies are generally helpful, they are often ineffective as monotherapy and many patients lack adequate access to these treatments. Noninvasive treatment measures supported by evidence include physical and chiropractic therapy, yoga, acupuncture, and non-opioid and opioid pharmacologic therapy; data suggest a moderate benefit, at most, for any of these therapies. Until our understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment of CLBP advances, clinicians must continue to utilize rational multimodal treatment protocols. Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for opioid prescribing recommend that opioids not be utilized as first-line therapy and to limit the doses when possible for fear of bothersome or dangerous adverse effects. In combination with the current opioid crisis, this has caused providers to minimize or eliminate opioid therapy when treating patients with chronic pain, leaving many patients suffering despite optimal nonopioid therapies. Therefore, there remains an unmet need for effective and tolerable opioid receptor agonists for the treatment of CLBP with improved safety properties over legacy opioids. There are several such agents in development, including opioids and other agents with novel mechanisms of action. This review critiques non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment modalities for CLBP and examines the potential of novel opioids and other analgesics that may be a useful addition to the treatment options for patients with chronic pain.

A Narrative Pharmacological Review of Buprenorphine: A Unique Opioid for the Treatment of Chronic Pain

Buprenorphine is a Schedule III opioid analgesic with unique pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties that may be preferable to those of Schedule II full μ-opioid receptor agonists. The structure of buprenorphine allows for multimechanistic interactions with opioid receptors μ, δ, κ, and opioid receptor-like 1. Buprenorphine is considered a partial agonist with very high binding affinity for the μ-opioid receptor, an antagonist with high binding affinity for the δ- and κ-opioid receptors, and an agonist with low binding affinity for the opioid receptor-like 1 receptor. Partial agonism at the μ-opioid receptor does not provide partial analgesia, but rather analgesia equivalent to that of full μ-opioid receptor agonists. In addition, unlike full μ-opioid receptor agonists, buprenorphine may have a unique role in mediating analgesic signaling at spinal opioid receptors while having less of an effect on brain receptors, potentially limiting classic opioid-related adverse events such as euphoria, addiction, or respiratory depression. The pharmacokinetic properties of buprenorphine are also advantageous in a clinical setting, where metabolic and excretory pathways allow for use in patients requiring concomitant medications, the elderly, and those with renal or hepatic impairment. The unique pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of buprenorphine translate to an effective analgesic with a potentially favorable safety profile compared with that of full μ-opioid receptor agonists for the treatment of chronic pain.

Safety And Efficacy Of The Unique Opioid Buprenorphine For The Treatment Of Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is associated with decreased quality of life and is one of the most common reasons adults seek medical care, making treatment imperative for many aspects of patient well-being. Chronic pain management typically involves the use of Schedule II full μ-opioid receptor agonists for pain relief; however, the increasing prevalence of opioid addiction is a national crisis that is impacting public health and social and economic welfare. Buprenorphine is a Schedule III partial μ-opioid receptor agonist that is an equally effective but potentially safer treatment option for chronic pain than full μ-opioid receptor agonists. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the clinical efficacy and safety of the transdermal and buccal formulations of buprenorphine, which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chronic pain, compared with that of extended-release full μ-opioid receptor agonists.

METHODS

Controlled or randomized controlled clinical trial information was retrieved from EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed using the search terms "buprenorphine" AND "chronic" AND "pain."

RESULTS

A total of 33 clinical studies were ultimately used in this review, including 29 (88%) on transdermal buprenorphine and 4 (12%) on buprenorphine buccal film. Although the measure of pain intensity varied among studies, each of these 33 trials demonstrated efficacy for buprenorphine in pain relief. A total of 28 studies also assessed safety, with each concluding that buprenorphine was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of current clinical data along with results of responder and safety analyses support the use of buprenorphine over full μ-opioid receptor agonists for effective preferential treatment of chronic pain; however, head-to-head clinical studies are warranted.

Managing Pain in the Setting of Opioid Use Disorder

SPECIFIC CLINICAL ISSUE

Healthcare providers are challenged with managing pain and minimizing morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use disorder.

MAJOR PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON BEST EVIDENCE

The purpose of this article is to guide acute and ambulatory care clinicians in managing pain in patients with opioid use disorder. Included in this article is a review of medications used for opioid use disorder, a discussion of the management of patients with active opioid use disorder and acute or chronic pain, and a discussion of the management of acute and chronic pain in people in recovery both on and off medications for opioid use disorder.

Pearls for opioid use in seriously ill patients

Opioids are often the foundation of pain management in seriously ill patients. Unfortunately, even experienced providers carry with them information that they consider "fact", when this information is not based on scientific evidence, but on "myth". Several topics were elicited based on common beliefs and misconceptions in clinical practice. These were identified via a survey of pharmacist pain and palliative care providers. Pearls from these topics were chosen that were based on evidence and would have the greatest bearing on clinical practice. The pearls address topics such as not using opioids as first-line analgesics for all types of pain, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, opioid risk management in cancer patients, use of buprenorphine in hospice and palliative care settings and use of naloxone in seriously ill patients. The pearls are supported by clinical evidence extracted from several references. They are intended to make readers give thought to opioid therapy which is strictly evidence-based, and not historical or anecdote-based. Practical recommendations are provided to give readers a starting point to base clinical decisions going forward. Readers may discover that "facts" they once learned about opioid use in seriously ill patients are actually "myths" that are a figment of the past.

Converting from Transdermal to Buccal Formulations of Buprenorphine: A Pharmacokinetic Meta-Model Simulation in Healthy Volunteers

Objective

To develop a model to predict buprenorphine plasma concentrations during transition from transdermal to buccal administration.

Design

Population pharmacokinetic model-based meta-analysis of published data.

Methods

A model-based meta-analysis of available buprenorphine pharmacokinetic data in healthy adults, extracted as aggregate (mean) data from published literature, was performed to explore potential conversion from transdermal to buccal buprenorphine. The time course of mean buprenorphine plasma concentrations following application of transdermal patch or buccal film was digitized from available literature, and a meta-model was developed using specific pharmacokinetic parameters (e.g., absorption rate, apparent clearance, and volumes of distribution) derived from analysis of pharmacokinetic data for intravenously, transdermally, and buccally administered buprenorphine.

Results

Data from six studies were included in this analysis. The final transdermal absorption model employed a zero-order input rate that was scaled to reflect a nominal patch delivery rate and time after patch application (with decline in rate over time). The transdermal absorption rate constant became zero following patch removal. Buccal absorption was a first-order process with a time lag and bioavailability term. Simulations of conversion from transdermal 20 mcg/h and 10 mcg/h to buccal administration suggest that transition can be made rapidly (beginning 12 hours after patch removal) using the recommended buccal formulation titration increments (75-150 mcg) and schedule (every four days) described in the product labeling.

Conclusions

Computer modeling and simulations using a meta-model built from data extracted from publications suggest that rapid and straightforward conversion from transdermal to buccal buprenorphine is feasible.

Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Harms and benefits of opioids for chronic noncancer pain remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

The databases of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2018 for RCTs of opioids for chronic noncancer pain vs any nonopioid control.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were pain intensity (score range, 0-10 cm on a visual analog scale for pain; lower is better and the minimally important difference [MID] is 1 cm), physical functioning (score range, 0-100 points on the 36-item Short Form physical component score [SF-36 PCS]; higher is better and the MID is 5 points), and incidence of vomiting.

RESULTS

Ninety-six RCTs including 26 169 participants (61% female; median age, 58 years [interquartile range, 51-61 years]) were included. Of the included studies, there were 25 trials of neuropathic pain, 32 trials of nociceptive pain, 33 trials of central sensitization (pain present in the absence of tissue damage), and 6 trials of mixed types of pain. Compared with placebo, opioid use was associated with reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.69 cm [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.56 cm] on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.7% to 14.1%]), improved physical functioning (WMD, 2.04 points [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.68 points] on the 100-point SF-36 PCS; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 8.5% [95% CI, 5.9% to 11.2%]), and increased vomiting (5.9% with opioids vs 2.3% with placebo for trials that excluded patients with adverse events during a run-in period). Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested similar associations of opioids with improvements in pain and physical functioning compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pain: WMD, -0.60 cm [95% CI, -1.54 to 0.34 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -0.90 points [95% CI, -2.69 to 0.89 points]), tricyclic antidepressants (pain: WMD, -0.13 cm [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.74 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -5.31 points [95% CI, -13.77 to 3.14 points]), and anticonvulsants (pain: WMD, -0.90 cm [95% CI, -1.65 to -0.14 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, 0.45 points [95% CI, -5.77 to 6.66 points]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with chronic noncancer pain, evidence from high-quality studies showed that opioid use was associated with statistically significant but small improvements in pain and physical functioning, and increased risk of vomiting compared with placebo. Comparisons of opioids with nonopioid alternatives suggested that the benefit for pain and functioning may be similar, although the evidence was from studies of only low to moderate quality.

Treating Chronic Pain: An Overview of Clinical Studies Centered on the Buprenorphine Option

The buprenorphine receptor binding profile is unique in that it binds to all three major opioid receptors (mu, kappa, delta), and also binds to the orphan-like receptor, the receptor for orphanin FQ/nociceptin, with lower affinity. Within the mu receptor group, buprenorphine analgesia in rodents is dependent on the recently discovered arylepoxamide receptor target in brain, which involves a truncated 6-transmembrane mu receptor gene protein, distinguishing itself from morphine and most other mu opioids. Although originally designed as an analgesic, buprenorphine has mainly been used for opioid maintenance therapy and only now is increasingly recognized as an effective analgesic with an improved therapeutic index relative to certain potent opioids. Albeit a second-, third-, or fourth-line analgesic, buprenorphine is a reasonable choice in certain clinical situations. Transdermal patches and buccal film formulations are now commercially available as analgesics. This review discusses buprenorphine pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, use in certain populations, and provides a synopsis of systematic reviews and randomized analgesic trials. We briefly discuss postoperative management in patients receiving buprenorphine maintenance therapy, opioid equivalence to buprenorphine, rotations to buprenorphine from other opioids, and clinical relevance of buprenorphine-related QTc interval changes.

Efficacy of opioids versus placebo in chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal trials

Introduction

Opioids have been used for millennia for the treatment of pain. However, the long-term efficacy of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain continues to be debated. To evaluate opioids’ efficacy in chronic non-cancer pain, we performed a meta-analysis of published clinical trials for μ-opioid receptor agonists performed for US Food and Drug Administration approval.

Methods

MEDLINE and Cochrane trial register were searched for enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal studies (before June 2016). Selection criteria included: adults, ≥10 subjects per arm, any chronic pain condition, double-blind treatment period lasting ≥12 weeks, and all μ-agonist opioids approved in the USA.

Results

Fifteen studies met criteria. Opioid efficacy was statistically significant (p<0.001) versus placebo for pain intensity (standardized mean difference: −0.416), ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in pain (risk difference: 0.166 and 0.137), patient global impression of change (0.163), and patient global assessment of study medication (0.194). There were minor benefits on physical function and no effect on mental function.

Conclusion

Opioids are efficacious in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain for up to 3 months in randomized controlled trials. This should be considered, alongside data on opioid safety, in the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain.

Efficacy and tolerability of buccal buprenorphine in opioid-experienced patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain: results of a phase 3, enriched enrollment, randomized withdrawal study

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

In opioid-experienced patients (30-160 mg MSE/d), buccal buprenorphine was superior to placebo in 30%-50% pain reductions and PGIC, with similar constipation incidence.

A buccal film of buprenorphine (BBUP) was evaluated for safety and efficacy in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, enriched-enrollment, randomized-withdrawal study in opioid-experienced patients (30 to ≤160 mg/d morphine sulfate equivalent) with moderate to severe chronic low back pain taking around-the-clock opioid analgesics. Patients' opioid doses were tapered to ≤30 mg morphine sulfate equivalent before open-label titration with BBUP (range, 150-900 μg every 12 hours). Patients who responded (received adequate analgesia that was generally well tolerated for 14 days) were randomized to receive buprenorphine (n = 254) or placebo (n = 257) buccal film. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline to week 12 of double-blind treatment in mean average daily pain-intensity scores using a rating scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). In the intent-to-treat population, mean pain scores were 6.7 after opioid taper and declined to 2.8 after the BBUP titration period. After randomization, mean pain scores were lower in the BBUP group than in the placebo group; the difference between groups in the mean change from baseline to week 12 was −0.98 (95% CI, −1.32 to −0.64; P < 0.001). A significantly larger percentage of patients receiving BBUP than placebo had pain reductions ≥30% and ≥50% (P < 0.001 for both). In the double-blind portion of the study, the only adverse event reported more frequently with BBUP than placebo and in ≥5% of patients was vomiting (5.5% vs 2.3%). These findings demonstrate the efficacy and tolerability of BBUP in opioid-experienced patients taking around-the-clock opioid treatment for chronic low back pain.

Buccal Dosage Forms: General Considerations for Pediatric Patients

The development of an appropriate dosage form for pediatric patients needs to take into account several aspects, since adult drug biodistribution differs from that of pediatrics. In recent years, buccal administration has become an attractive route, having different dosage forms under development including tablets, lozenges, films, and solutions among others. Furthermore, the buccal epithelium can allow quick access to systemic circulation, which could be used for a rapid onset of action. For pediatric patients, dosage forms to be placed in the oral cavity have higher requirements for palatability to increase acceptance and therapy compliance. Therefore, an understanding of the excipients required and their functions and properties needs to be particularly addressed. This review is focused on the differences and requirements relevant to buccal administration for pediatric patients (compared to adults) and how novel dosage forms can be less invasive and more acceptable alternatives.

Long-term safety and analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine buccal film in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain requiring around-the-clock opioids

Background

This open-label, single-arm study was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of a novel buprenorphine formulation, buprenorphine buccal film, in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic pain requiring around-the-clock opioids.

Methods

The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of buprenorphine buccal film. Five hundred and six patients who completed previous studies with buprenorphine buccal film (n=445; rollover patients) or were recruited de novo for this study (n=61) were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent a dose titration period of ≤6 weeks, during which doses of buprenorphine buccal film were adjusted to a maximum 900 µg every 12 hours, depending on tolerability and the need for rescue medication. An optimal dose was defined as the dose that the patient found satisfactory for both pain relief and tolerability, without the need for rescue medication or with ≤2 tablets of rescue medication per day. Once the optimal dose was reached, treatment was continued for ≤48 weeks. Pain intensity was measured throughout the study using a 0–10 numerical rating scale.

Results

Of 435 patients achieving an optimal dose of buprenorphine buccal film who commenced long-term treatment, 158 (36.3%) completed 48 weeks of treatment. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 116 patients (22.9%) during the titration phase and 61 patients (14.0%) during the long-term treatment phase, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment occurred in 14 (2.8%) and 14 (3.2%) patients, respectively. The most common adverse events were those typically associated with opioids, such as nausea, constipation, and headache. In both rollover and de novo patients, pain intensity scores remained constant at approximately 3–4 during long-term treatment, and the dose of buprenorphine buccal film remained unchanged in 86.2% of patients.

Conclusion

In appropriate patients, buprenorphine buccal film demonstrated tolerability and efficacy in the long-term management of chronic pain.

Management of moderate to severe chronic low back pain with buprenorphine buccal film using novel bioerodible mucoadhesive technology

With a global prevalence of ~9%-12%, low back pain (LBP) is a serious public health issue, associated with high costs for treatment and lost productivity. Chronic LBP (cLBP) involves central sensitization, a neuropathic pain component, and may induce maladaptive coping strategies and depression. Treating cLBP is challenging, and current treatment options are not fully satisfactory. A new BioErodible MucoAdhesive (BEMA®) delivery system for buprenorphine has been developed to treat cLBP. The buccal buprenorphine (BBUP) film developed for this product (Belbuca™) allows for rapid delivery and titration over a greater range of doses than was previously available with transdermal buprenorphine systems. In clinical studies, BBUP was shown to effectively reduce pain associated with cLBP at 12 weeks with good tolerability. The most frequently reported side effects with the use of BBUP were nausea, constipation, and vomiting. There was no significant effect on the QT interval vs placebo. Chronic pain patients using other opioids can be successfully rotated to BBUP without risk of withdrawal symptoms or inadequate analgesia. The role of BBUP in managing cLBP remains to be determined, but it appears to be a promising new product in the analgesic arsenal in general.