Rapid detoxification from opioid dependence under general anaesthesia versus standard methadone tapering: abstinence rates and withdrawal distress experiences

French-Canadian Translation and Cultural Adaptation of the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale: The COWS-FC

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of the present study was to develop a French-Canadian translation and adaptation of the COWS (i.e., the COWS-FC) for the assessment of opioid withdrawal symptoms in clinical and research settings.

METHODS

The French-Canadian translation and cultural adaptation of the COWS was performed following guidelines for the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. The steps consisted of (1) initial translation from English to French, (2) synthesis of the translation, (3) back-translation from French to English, (4) expert committee meeting, (5) test of the prefinal version among healthcare professionals and (6) review of final version by the expert committee. The expert committee considered four major areas where the French-Canadian version should achieve equivalence with the original English-version of the COWS. These areas were (1) semantic equivalence; (2) idiomatic equivalence; (3) experiential equivalence and (4) conceptual equivalence.

RESULTS

Rigorous steps based on the guidelines for the translation and cultural adaptation of assessment tools were followed, which led to a semantically equivalent version of the COWS. After a pretest among healthcare professionals, members from the expert committee agreed upon slight modifications to the French-Canadian version of the COWS to yield a final COWS-FC version.

CONCLUSIONS

A French-Canadian translation and adaptation of the COWS (i.e., the COWS-FC) was developed. The COWS-FC could be used for the assessment of opioid withdrawal symptoms in clinical and research settings.

Innovating for real-world care: A systematic review of interventions to improve post-detoxification outcomes for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Inpatient detoxification is a common health care entry point for people with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD). However, many patients return to opioid use after discharge and also do not access OUD treatment. This systematic review reports on the features and findings of research on interventions developed specifically to improve substance use outcomes and treatment linkage after inpatient detoxification for OUD.

METHODS

Of 6419 articles, 64 met inclusion criteria for the current review. Articles were coded on key domains including sample characteristics, study methods and outcome measures, bias indicators, intervention type, and findings.

RESULTS

Many studies did not report sample characteristics, including demographics and co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders, which may impact postdetoxification OUD treatment outcomes and the generalizability of interventions. Slightly more than half of studies examined interventions that were primarily medical in nature, though only a third focused on initiating medication treatment beyond detoxification. Medical and combination interventions that focused on initiating medications for OUD generally performed well, as did psychological interventions with one or more reinforcement-based components.

CONCLUSIONS

Research efforts to improve post-detoxification outcomes would benefit from clearer reporting of sample characteristics that are associated with treatment and recovery outcomes, including diagnostic comorbidities. Findings also support the need to identify ways to introduce medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and other effective treatments including reinforcement-based interventions during detoxification or soon after.

The effect of dose expectancies on caffeine withdrawal symptoms during tapered dose reduction

BACKGROUND

Negative expectancies can exacerbate withdrawal symptoms via the nocebo effect. As such, information provided about dose reductions during attempts to taper a drug could contribute to withdrawal symptoms and increase the likelihood of relapse. The current study tested whether blinding participants to dose reductions during a supervised caffeine dose taper reduced these nocebo-induced withdrawal symptoms.

METHODS

Three groups of moderate to heavy coffee drinkers had their dose of caffeine reduced (tapered) from 300 mg per day to 0 mg over the course of five days and reported withdrawal symptoms twice daily. Groups were given differing information about how much caffeine they were receiving. An Open Reduction group was given accurate information about dose reductions. A Blind Reduction group was given no dose information whatsoever. A Deceptive Reduction group was misinformed about dose, with instructions suggesting that the dose remained on 300 mg for three days then dropped to 0 mg.

RESULTS

The Open Reduction group reported more pronounced caffeine withdrawal symptoms than the Deceptive Reduction group on the days with the greatest discrepancy between actual dose and informed dose, indicating a nocebo effect of open versus deceptive reductions. In addition, the rate of increase in reported withdrawal symptoms in the Blind Reduction and Deceptive Reduction groups was less than that of the Open Reduction group.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that awareness of dose reductions during a dose taper can result in a nocebo withdrawal effect, and that removing this awareness can reduce withdrawal. This has important implications for standard supervised dose-tapering practice, where patients are aware of the timing and magnitude of dose reductions.

Guideline for Prescribing Opioids to Treat Pain in Injured Workers

Recently, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of opioids to treat chronic noncancer pain. Opioids are also being prescribed in stronger potencies and larger doses for musculoskeletal injuries. In some cases, the use of opioids for work-related injuries may actually increase the likelihood of disability. Chronic opioid use is associated with increased risk for overdose morbidity and mortality and other nonfatal adverse outcomes. The risk of dependence and addiction is much more common than previously thought. This guideline provides recommendations for prudent opioid prescribing and addresses issues critical to the care and rehabilitation of injured workers.

Rapid opiate detoxification and antagonist induction under general anaesthesia or intravenous sedation is humane, sometimes essential and should always be an option. Three illustrative case reports involving diabetes and epilepsy and a review of the literature

When abstinence is an appropriate goal, controlled studies and systematic reviews confirm that rapid, antagonist-precipitated opiate withdrawal procedures are the most effective and cost effective methods of initiating abstinence, and naltrexone (NTX) maintenance. While 'rapid' withdrawal, better conceptualised as Rapid Antagonist Induction (RAI), can often be humanely achieved with modest sedation levels, we present three case histories to support our argument that for some patients, general anaesthesia (GA), or techniques of intravenous sedation (IVS) that approach GA, are essential for safety and success. This includes patients with intercurrent disease (e.g. epilepsy or insulin-dependent diabetes) but also those with severe withdrawal phobia after previous distressing experiences. We discuss the history of the procedure. The dangers of RAI under GA or IVS in experienced hands have been exaggerated and the appropriate expertise should be more easily available. Patients and clinicians readily accept risks of major surgery for the excessive intake of food that causes most obesity. Similar risk-acceptance exists in cosmetic surgery and obstetrics. The increasing use and effectiveness of long-acting implants or depot-injections of NTX for relapse-prevention have largely solved compliance problems that undermined the potential of oral NTX. Their ability to prevent opiate overdose in abstinent, non-tolerant patients also strengthens arguments both for offering RAI as a therapeutic option and for reducing psychological, professional and practical barriers to using it.

Methadone at tapered doses for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Opioid antagonists under heavy sedation or anaesthesia for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal (detoxification) is necessary prior to drug-free treatment or as the end point of long-term substitution treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of opioid antagonists to induce opioid withdrawal with concomitant heavy sedation or anaesthesia, in terms of withdrawal signs and symptoms, completion of treatment and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2009), Medline (January 1966 to 11 August 2009), Embase (January 1985 to 2009 Week 32), PsycINFO (1967 to July 2009), and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled studies of antagonist-induced withdrawal under heavy sedation or anaesthesia in opioid-dependent participants compared with other approaches, or a different regime of anaesthesia-based antagonist-induced withdrawal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (eight randomised controlled trials) involving 1109 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review.Antagonist-induced withdrawal is more intense but less prolonged than withdrawal managed with reducing doses of methadone, and doses of naltrexone sufficient for blockade of opioid effects can be established significantly more quickly with antagonist-induced withdrawal than withdrawal managed with clonidine and symptomatic medications. The level of sedation does not affect the intensity and duration of withdrawal, although the duration of anaesthesia may influence withdrawal severity. There is a significantly greater risk of adverse events with heavy, compared to light, sedation (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 9.12, P = 0.03) and probably with this approach compared to other forms of detoxification.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heavy sedation compared to light sedation does not confer additional benefits in terms of less severe withdrawal or increased rates of commencement on naltrexone maintenance treatment. Given that the adverse events are potentially life-threatening, the value of antagonist-induced withdrawal under heavy sedation or anaesthesia is not supported. The high cost of anaesthesia-based approaches, both in monetary terms and use of scarce intensive care resources, suggest that this form of treatment should not be pursued.

The place of detoxification in treatment of opioid dependence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes current research on the management of opioid withdrawal and considers the selection of the approach in different situations.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent publication of three controlled trials makes firm conclusions about the relative effectiveness of newer approaches (antagonist-induced withdrawal under anaesthesia or with minimal sedation; buprenorphine) to the management of opioid withdrawal possible.

SUMMARY

Antagonist-induced withdrawal under anaesthesia should not be pursued as it has an increased risk of life-threatening adverse events and has no additional benefits relative to antagonist-induced withdrawal under minimal sedation. Antagonist-induced withdrawal with minimal sedation is feasible and may be suitable for those who intend to enter antagonist-maintenance treatment with a clear commitment to abstinence and good support. Buprenorphine is suitable for quick withdrawal, supports transition to naltrexone maintenance treatment, is safe and effective in outpatient settings and can be extended into maintenance treatment if the detoxification attempt is unsuccessful. Adrenergic agonists (clonidine and lofexidine) remain an effective option for those who do not want to use an opioid and do not intend to transfer to naltrexone maintenance treatment, with lofexidine being preferable for outpatient settings. Through appropriate choice of approach, detoxification can be a gateway to multiple, long-term treatment options.

Opioid antagonists under heavy sedation or anaesthesia for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal (detoxification) is necessary prior to drug-free treatment. It may also represent the end point of long-term opioid replacement treatment such as methadone maintenance. The availability of managed withdrawal is essential to an effective treatment system.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the administration of opioid antagonists to induce opioid withdrawal with concomitant heavy sedation or anaesthesia, in terms of withdrawal signs and symptoms, completion of treatment and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Drugs and Alcohol Group register (October 2003), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004), Medline (January 1966 to January 2005), Embase (January 1985 to January 2005), PsycINFO (1967 to January 2005), and Cinahl (1982 to December 2004) and reference lists of studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled trials comparing antagonist-induced withdrawal under heavy sedation or anaesthesia with another form of treatment, or a different regime of anaesthesia-based antagonist-induced withdrawal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies (five randomised controlled trials) involving 834 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review.Antagonist-induced withdrawal is more intense but less prolonged than withdrawal managed with reducing doses of methadone, and doses of naltrexone sufficient for blockade of opioid effects can be established significantly more quickly with antagonist-induced withdrawal than withdrawal managed with clonidine and symptomatic medications. The level of sedation does not affect the intensity and duration of withdrawal, although the duration of anaesthesia may influence withdrawal severity. There is a significantly greater risk of adverse events with heavy, compared to light, sedation (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 9.12, P = 0.03) and probably also other forms of detoxification.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heavy sedation compared to light sedation does not confer additional benefits in terms of less severe withdrawal or increased rates of commencement on naltrexone maintenance treatment. Given that the adverse events are potentially life-threatening, the value of antagonist-induced withdrawal under heavy sedation or anaesthesia is not supported. The high cost of anaesthesia-based approaches, both in monetary terms and use of scarce intensive care resources, suggest that this form of treatment should not be pursued.

Methadone at tapered doses for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.