Buprenorphine and carbamazepine as a treatment for detoxification of opiate addicts with multiple drug misuse: a pilot study

Use and safety of antiepileptic drugs in psychiatric inpatients-data from the AMSP study

The psychiatric utilization patterns and risks of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were assessed by using data from the drug safety programme Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie over the time period 1993-2013. In a total of 432,215 patients, the main indications for AED use were acute mania, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophrenic and organic psychoses. Valproic acid (VPA) was the most common substance across all of those groups, reaching administration rates of up to 50% since 2005, at which time carbamazepine (CBZ) administration consistently dropped below a rate of 10%. Lamotrigine (LTG) and pregabalin (PGB) increased in relevance after 2005 and 2010, respectively (with administration rates of up to 9%), whereas oxcarbazepine (OXC) was least prevalent (<3%). The mean rates of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) ranged from 6 cases per 1000 patients treated (VPA) to 19/1000 (OXC) and were significantly lower with treatment with VPA compared to OXC and CBZ. Hyponatremia was the leading ADR during treatment with OXC; severe allergic skin reactions were most often observed during treatment with CBZ and LTG, and severe oedema was most common during treatment with PGB. Severe hyponatremia induced by OXC was observed significantly more often in female patients than in male patients.

Buprenorphine for managing opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of buprenorphine versus tapered doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine regimens for managing opioid withdrawal, in terms of the intensity of the withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration and completion of treatment, and adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 11, 2016), MEDLINE (1946 to December week 1, 2016), Embase (to 22 December 2016), PsycINFO (1806 to December week 3, 2016), and the Web of Science (to 22 December 2016) and handsearched the reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions using buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine or lofexidine), symptomatic medications or placebo, and different buprenorphine-based regimens.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies involving 3048 participants. The main comparators were clonidine or lofexidine (14 studies). Six studies compared buprenorphine versus methadone, and seven compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction. We assessed 12 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one of seven domains of methodological quality. Six of these studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine or lofexidine and two with methadone; the other four studies compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction.For the comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in tapered doses, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of intensity of withdrawal or adverse effects. However, information reported by the individual studies was suggestive of buprenorphine and methadone having similar capacity to ameliorate opioid withdrawal, without clinically significant adverse effects. The meta-analyses that were possible support a conclusion of no difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of average treatment duration (mean difference (MD) 1.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.11 to 10.72; N = 82; studies = 2; low quality) or treatment completion rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; N = 457; studies = 5; moderate quality).Relative to clonidine or lofexidine, buprenorphine was associated with a lower average withdrawal score (indicating less severe withdrawal) during the treatment episode, with an effect size that is considered to be small to moderate (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.28; N = 902; studies = 7; moderate quality). Patients receiving buprenorphine stayed in treatment for longer, with an effect size that is considered to be large (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; N = 558; studies = 5; moderate quality) and were more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.06; N = 1264; studies = 12; moderate quality). At the same time there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but dropout due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.15; N = 134; studies = 3; low quality). The difference in treatment completion rates translates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), indicating that for every four people treated with buprenorphine, we can expect that one additional person will complete treatment than with clonidine or lofexidine.For studies comparing different rates of reduction of the buprenorphine dose, meta-analysis was possible only for treatment completion, with separate analyses for inpatient and outpatient settings. The results were diverse, and we assessed the quality of evidence as being very low. It remains very uncertain what effect the rate of dose taper has on treatment outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine or lofexidine for managing opioid withdrawal in terms of severity of withdrawal, duration of withdrawal treatment, and the likelihood of treatment completion.Buprenorphine and methadone appear to be equally effective, but data are limited. It remains possible that the pattern of withdrawal experienced may differ and that withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine.It is not possible to draw any conclusions from the available evidence on the relative effectiveness of different rates of tapering the buprenorphine dose. The divergent findings of studies included in this review suggest that there may be multiple factors affecting the response to the rate of dose taper. One such factor could be whether or not the initial treatment plan includes a transition to subsequent relapse prevention treatment with naltrexone. Indeed, the use of buprenorphine to support transition to naltrexone treatment is an aspect worthy of further research.Most participants in the studies included in this review were male. None of the studies reported outcomes on the basis of sex, preventing any exploration of differences related to this variable. Consideration of sex as a factor influencing response to withdrawal treatment would be relevant research for selecting the most appropriate type of intervention for each individual.

Comparative trial to study the effectiveness of clonidine hydrochloride and buprenorphine-naloxone in opioid withdrawal - a hospital based study

OBJECTIVES

Prevalence of opioid addiction has alarmingly increased over the recent years. In South Asian region alone there are more than 10 million opioid abusers amounting to 2% of world population. Detoxification remains to be the first step for the successful treatment of opioid addiction. The present study was carried out to compare the relative efficacy and safety of buprenorphine -naloxone and clonidine hydrochloride in the detoxification of opioid-dependents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Present trial was conducted at De- addiction centre of Institute of Mental and Neurosciences (IMNS), GMC Srinagar. Fifty four (54) treatment seeking subjects, 15-50 years of age, fulfilling DSM-1V TR (American Psychiatric association`s Mental Disorders-1V text revision) criteria for opioid dependence were included and randomized into two groups. The groups received either clonidine hydrochloride (Group A) or buprenorphine- naloxone (Bup-Nax) (Group B) for the duration of 10 days. The efficacy of the two drugs in controlling the opioid withdrawal was evaluated by Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS) and their effect on the desire for the abused substance was measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The safety of the two drugs was measured by taking the side effect profile of the two compared drugs into consideration.

RESULTS

There was significant difference of COWS-score between the two groups which was evident from day 3 (14.85 ± 3.43 vs. 11.67 ± 2.40, p<0.005) and continued till day 6 (2.56 ± 1.40 vs. 0.30 ± 0.61, p<0.005), for Group A and group B respectively. The effect of two drugs in controlling the craving for the abused substance also showed significant difference from day 2 (66.30 ± 10.80 vs. 47.40 ± 12.90, p<0.005) till day 5 (7.78 ± 6.41 vs. 1.85 ± 6.22, p<0.005), for Group A and Group B respectively.

CONCLUSION

Administration of buprenorphine-naloxone was more efficient in reducing the signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal and in controlling the craving for the abused substance during the first few days of detoxification.

BAP updated guidelines: evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological management of substance abuse, harmful use, addiction and comorbidity: recommendations from BAP

The British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines for the treatment of substance abuse, harmful use, addiction and comorbidity with psychiatric disorders primarily focus on their pharmacological management. They are based explicitly on the available evidence and presented as recommendations to aid clinical decision making for practitioners alongside a detailed review of the evidence. A consensus meeting, involving experts in the treatment of these disorders, reviewed key areas and considered the strength of the evidence and clinical implications. The guidelines were drawn up after feedback from participants. The guidelines primarily cover the pharmacological management of withdrawal, short- and long-term substitution, maintenance of abstinence and prevention of complications, where appropriate, for substance abuse or harmful use or addiction as well management in pregnancy, comorbidity with psychiatric disorders and in younger and older people.

Buprenorphine for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the end point of substitution treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of buprenorphine to manage opioid withdrawal, for withdrawal signs and symptoms, completion of withdrawal and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2008), EMBASE (January 1985 to 2008 Week 31), PsycINFO (1967 to 7 August 2008) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions involving the use of buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha(2)-adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine-based regimes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author assessed studies for inclusion and methodological quality, and undertook data extraction. Inclusion decisions and the overall process was confirmed by consultation between all authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies involving 1736 participants were included. The major comparisons were with methadone (5 studies) and clonidine or lofexidine (12 studies). Five studies compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction.Severity of withdrawal is similar for withdrawal managed with buprenorphine and withdrawal managed with methadone, but withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine. It appears that completion of withdrawal treatment may be more likely with buprenorphine relative to methadone (RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.49, P = 0.18) but more studies are required to confirm this.Relative to clonidine or lofexidine, buprenorphine is more effective in ameliorating the symptoms of withdrawal, patients treated with buprenorphine stay in treatment for longer (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27, P < 0.001), and are more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.64; 95% CI 1.31 to 2.06, P < 0.001). At the same time there is no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but drop-out due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine or lofexidine for the management of opioid withdrawal. Buprenorphine may offer some advantages over methadone, at least in inpatient settings, in terms of quicker resolution of withdrawal symptoms and possibly slightly higher rates of completion of withdrawal.

Treatment of polydrug-using opiate dependents during withdrawal: towards a standardisation of treatment

BACKGROUND

The growing tendency among opioid addicts to misuse multiple other drugs should lead clinicians and researchers to search for new pharmacological strategies in order to prevent life-threatening complications and minimize withdrawal symptoms during polydrug detoxification.

METHODS

A non-randomised, open-label in-patient detoxification study was used to compare the short-time efficacy of a standardised regimen comprising 6 days Buprenorphine and 10 days Valproate (BPN/VPA) (n = 12) to a control group (n = 50) who took a 10-day traditional Clonidine/Carbamazepine (CLN/CBZ) regimen. Sixty-two dependent subjects admitted to a detoxification unit were included, all dependent on at least opioids and benzodiazepines. Other dependencies were not excluded.

RESULTS

In the BPN/VPA group, 8 out of 12 patients (67%) completed treatment compared with 25 of 50 patients (50%) in the CLN/CBZ group; this difference between the groups was non-significant (p = 0.15). Withdrawal symptoms were reduced in both groups, but only the BPN/VPA group achieved a reduction in withdrawal symptoms from day one. The difference between the two groups was significantly in favour of the BPN/VPA group for days 2 (p < 0.001), 3 (p < 0.05), 4 (p < 0.001), 5 (p < 0.01), 7 (p < 0.01) and 8 (p < 0.05). The BPN/VPA combination did not affect blood pressure, pulse or liver function, and the total burden of side-effects was experienced as modest. There appeared to be no pharmacological interactions of clinical concern, based on measurement of Buprenorphine and Valproate serum levels. Both the patients and the staff were satisfied with the standardised treatment combination.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the combination of Buprenorphine and Valproate seems to be a safe and promising method for treating multiple drug withdrawal symptoms. The results of this study suggest that the BPN/VPA combination is potentially a better detoxification treatment for polydrug withdrawal than the traditional treatment with Clonidine and Carbamazepine. However, a randomised, double-blind study with a larger sample size to confirm our results is recommended.

Buprenorphine for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment. It may also represent the end point of maintenance treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of buprenorphine to manage opioid withdrawal, for withdrawal signs and symptoms, completion of withdrawal and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Experimental interventions involved the use of buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha2 adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine-based regimes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer assessed studies for inclusion and methodological quality, and undertook data extraction. Inclusion decisions and the overall process was confirmed by consultation between all three reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen studies (14 randomised controlled trials), involving 1356 participants, were included. Ten studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine; four compared buprenorphine with methadone; one compared buprenorphine with oxazepam; three compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction; two compared different starting doses of buprenorphine. (Two studies included more than one comparison.)Relative to clonidine, buprenorphine is more effective in ameliorating the symptoms of withdrawal, patients treated with buprenorphine stay in treatment for longer, particularly in an outpatient setting (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.06, P < 0.001), and are more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.47, P = 0.003). At the same time there is no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but drop-out due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine. Severity of withdrawal is similar for withdrawal managed with buprenorphine and withdrawal managed with methadone, but withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine. There is a trend towards completion of withdrawal treatment being more likely with buprenorphine relative to methadone (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.73, P = 0.08).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine for the management of opioid withdrawal. There appears to be no significant difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of completion of treatment, but withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine.

Mood and affect during detoxification of opiate addicts: a comparison of buprenorphine versus methadone

Twenty-six in-patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version IV (DSM-IV) criteria for opioid dependence were selected at random to receive either a combination of an 11-day low-dose buprenorphine and a 14-day carbamazepine regimen (n = 14) or a combination of an 11-day methadone and a 14-day carbamazepine regimen (n = 12) in a double-blind, randomized 14-day in-patient detoxification treatment. Patients with buprenorphine and carbamazepine showed a significantly better psychological state after the first and second weeks of treatment. Above all, the buprenorphine-treated patients demonstrated a less marked tiredness, sensitiveness and depressive state as well as a more prominent elevated mood during the detoxification process. Seven non-completers (after 7 days: four of 12 = 33.3%; after 14 days: seven of 12 = 58.3%) were treated with methadone and carbamazepine and five non-completers (after 7 days: two of 14 = 14.3%; after 14 days: five of 14 = 35.7%) received buprenorphine and carbamazepine. The difference in the overall dropout rate after day 14 was not significant. The present study supports the hypothesis that the combination of buprenorphine and carbamazepine leads to a better clinical outcome than does a combination of methadone and carbamazepine in the detoxification of opioid addicts with additional multiple drug abuse. The buprenorphine and carbamazepine-regimen provides a more effective short-term relief of affective disturbances than does methadone and carbamazepine. No severe side effects occurred during the treatment period in both groups.

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.

Buprenorphine dosing regime for inpatient heroin withdrawal: a symptom-triggered dose titration study

The study aimed to identify the range of buprenorphine doses required to comfortably alleviate symptoms in patients undergoing inpatient heroin withdrawal using a symptom-triggered titration dosing regime, and to identify the patient characteristics that impact upon the buprenorphine dose requirements. The study was conducted in two Australian inpatient withdrawal units, recruiting 63 dependent, injecting heroin users with no recent methadone treatment, dependence on other drugs, or other active medical or psychiatric conditions. In a single (patient) blinded case series, placebo or 2 mg sublingual buprenorphine tablets was administered four times a day according to severity of withdrawal (assessed with Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale). Up to 16 mg buprenorphine was available over the first 4 days of the admission, up to 8 mg on day 5, and placebo continued until day 6. Thirty-two subjects completed the dosing regime, with mean (+/-S.D.) daily doses of 3.8+/-2.8 on day 1, 5.8+/-3.2 on day 2, 4.8+/-3.3 on day 3, 2.3+/-2.6 on day 4, 0.8+/-1.3 on day 5, and a total dose of 17.4+/-9.7. Higher buprenorphine doses were required by those patients with more severe psychosocial dysfunction, women, those with more frequent heroin use, and those with more severe dependence on heroin at intake. A dosing regime using sublingual buprenorphine tablets for short inpatient heroin withdrawal is proposed.

A randomized controlled trial of buprenorphine in the management of short-term ambulatory heroin withdrawal

AIM

To determine whether buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine and other symptomatic medications in managing ambulatory heroin withdrawal.

DESIGN

Open label, prospective randomized controlled trial examining withdrawal and 4-week postwithdrawal outcomes on intention-to-treat.

SETTING

Two specialist, out-patient drug treatment centres in inner city Melbourne and Sydney, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and fourteen dependent heroin users were recruited. Participants were 18 years or over, and with no significant other drug dependence, medical or psychiatric conditions or recent methadone treatment. One hundred and one (89%) participants completed a day 8 research interview examining withdrawal outcomes, and 92 (81%) completed day 35 research interview examining postwithdrawal outcomes.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants randomized to control (n = 56) (up to 8 days of clonidine and other symptomatic medications) or experimental (n = 58) (up to 5 days of buprenorphine) withdrawal groups. Following the 8-day withdrawal episode, participants could self-select from range of postwithdrawal options (naltrexone, substitution maintenance, or counselling).

MEASUREMENTS

Retention in withdrawal; heroin use during withdrawal; and retention in drug treatment 4 weeks after withdrawal.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Withdrawal severity; adverse events, and heroin use in the postwithdrawal period.

FINDINGS

The experimental group had better treatment retention at day 8 (86% versus 57%, P = 0.001, 95% CI for numbers needed to treat (NNT) = 3-8) and day 35 (62% versus 39%, P = 0.02, 95% CI for NNT = 4-18); used heroin on fewer days during the withdrawal programme (2.6 +/- 2.5 versus 4.5 +/- 2.3, P < 0.001, 95% CI = 1-2.5 days) and in the postwithdrawal period (9.0 +/- 8.2 versus 14.6 +/- 10, P < 0.01, 95% CI = 1.8-9.4); and reported less withdrawal severity. No severe adverse events reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is effective for short-term ambulatory heroin withdrawal, with greater retention, less heroin use and less withdrawal discomfort during withdrawal; and increased postwithdrawal treatment retention than symptomatic medications.

Buprenorphine dosing regime in the management of out-patient heroin withdrawal

This study aimed to establish a buprenorphine regime suitable for the short-term management of out-patient heroin withdrawal using an open-label, single-group case series. Eighteen dependent injecting heroin users underwent an 8-day withdrawal episode with supervised dosing of sublingual Subutex tablets. Buprenorphine doses were titrated daily over a 5-day period. Fifteen subjects (83%) completed the 5-day regime, and 14 (78%) completed the 8-day withdrawal episode. The mean doses ((SD) were 6.1 (1.2) mg on day 1; 9.6 (1.7) mg on day 2; 10.1 (1.9) mg on day 3; 8.9 (2.0) mg on day 4; 4.1 (1.5) mg on day 5; and a total regime dose of 38.9 (5.8) mg. Withdrawal severity was mild, with minimal rebound upon the cessation of dosing. Five subjects reported no heroin use, and five subjects reported using on only one occasion during the 8 days. An out-patient buprenorphine regime is recommended.

Endogenous opiates: 2000

This paper is the twenty-third installment of the annual review of research concerning the opiate system. It summarizes papers published during 2000 that studied the behavioral effects of the opiate peptides and antagonists, excluding the purely analgesic effects, although stress-induced analgesia is included. The specific topics covered this year include stress; tolerance and dependence; learning, memory, and reward; eating and drinking; alcohol and other drugs of abuse; sexual activity, pregnancy, and development; mental illness and mood; seizures and other neurological disorders; electrical-related activity; general activity and locomotion; gastrointestinal, renal, and hepatic function; cardiovascular responses; respiration and thermoregulation; and immunological responses.