Buprenorphine dosing choices in specific populations: review of expert opinion

Successful administration of extended-release buprenorphine in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

The ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States has resulted in a substantial increase in overdose deaths and related morbidity and mortality. Given that emergency departments (ED) frequently serve as the initial point of contact for individuals experiencing opioid overdose or seeking treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), ED clinicians have a pivotal role to play in providing prompt and effective treatment for OUD. While ED clinicians routinely administer sublingual and other transmucosal formulations of buprenorphine, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) remains underutilized in the ED.

CASE REPORT

We present a case involving the successful administration of BUP-XR in the ED to a patient experiencing spontaneous opioid withdrawal. The patient tolerated test dosing of sublingual buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and subsequently received BUP-XR in the ED. Following this intervention, the patient was referred to the hospital-affiliated substance use disorder outpatient clinic, where he has since demonstrated successful follow-up and retention in treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our report adds to the existing limited literature on the administration of BUP-XR in the ED and highlights the need for more comprehensive clinician teaching and guidance, as well as the establishment of in-hospital protocols for BUP-XR. Despite these challenges, our case indicates that initiating BUP-XR could be a viable and effective option for ED patients with OUD.

Multicenter Observational/Exploratory Study Addressed to the Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Safety of Pharmacological Therapy in Opioid-Dependent Patients in Maintenance Therapy in Southern Italy

A multicenter-observational study was performed to assess the effectiveness of rac-methadone, levomethadone, and buprenorphine in opioid-dependent patients in polytherapy in Southern Italy. The primary endpoint was the reduction of urinary positivity to the substances and the maintaining doses. Patients (N = 266, age = 44.80 ± 5.65, male = 79.70%, female = 20.30%) have been recruited. At recruitment, 75% of them were on treatment with rac-methadone, levomethadone, and buprenorphine/naloxone. The patients were grouped into three clusters. The levomethadone patients of Cluster A (N patients = 211), after 180 days, showed stability in urinary methadone positivity, with a marked decrease in heroin −53 ± 4%, cannabinol’s −48 ± 2%, and cocaine −37 ± 6% positivity, with no differences between treatments. A lower QTcF value of 426 ± 8.4 ms was recorded in the levomethadone patients (delta = −19 ms) vs. rac-methadone, at significantly lower doses of levomethadone (−34%, −50.2% in males) (p < 0.05). The Cluster B data were collected from 37 patients, with a high prevalence of comorbidity infections (HIV/HCV/HPV), monitored for 21 months during COVID-19. High doses of levomethadone (58.33 ± 31.58 mg/day) were needed to stabilize those that were negative for opioids and cannabinoids, in contrast to the rac-methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone patients that showed positive toxicology. Eighteen patients of the Cluster C in double diagnosis (major depressive 38.90%, bipolar 27.78%, and schizophrenia 16.67%) were stabilized with high doses of racemate 97.5 ± 8 mg/day, 51.8 ± 5 mg/day of levomethadone (−46.8% vs. rac-methadone; −71% in men), and 2.5 ± 1 mg/day of buprenorphine/naloxone. Three patients in remission were treated with tapering doses of levomethadone. Significantly reduced QTcF values were recorded with levomethadone (delta −32 ms vs. rac-methadone) in the bipolar patients, as well as the schizophrenia patients in remission (delta −45.19 ms vs. rac-methadone). Our patients were safely stabilized. Levomethadone, compared to the racemate, contributes to reducing the illicit use, especially of opioids and cannabinoids at significantly lower doses with cardiovascular safety, which, in bipolar patients, is clinically significant.

Factors That Affect Patient Attrition in Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Retrospective Real-World Study Using Electronic Health Records

PURPOSE

To describe attrition patterns of opioid use disorder (OUD) patients treated with buprenorphine (BUP) and to assess how clinical, sociodemographic, or BUP medication dosing features are associated with attrition.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Electronic health records of adults (16+ year-olds) with OUD treated with BUP from 23 different substance use or mental health care programs across 11 US states were examined for one year following BUP initiation in inpatient (IP), intensive outpatient (IOP), or outpatient (OP) settings. Treatment attrition was declared at >37 days following the last recorded visit. Survival analyses and predictive modelling were used.

RESULTS

Retention was consistently 2-3 times higher following BUP initiation in OP (n = 2409) than in IP/IOP (n = 2749) settings after 2 (50% vs 25%), 6 (27% vs 9%) and 12 months (14% vs 4%). Retention was higher for females, whites (vs blacks), and those with less severe OUD, better global function, or not using non-psychotropic medications. Comorbid substance use, other psychiatric disorders, and the number of psychotropic medications were variously related to retention depending on the setting in which BUP was initiated. Predictive modelling revealed that a higher global assessment of functioning and a smaller OUD severity based on the Clinical Global Impression - Severity led to longer retentions, a higher initial BUP dose led to higher retention in a few cases, an OP setting of BUP initiation led to longer retentions, and a lower total number of psychotropic and non-psychotropic medications led to longer retentions. These were the most important parameters in the model, which identified 75.2% of patients who left BUP treatment within three months post-initiation, with a precision of 90.5%.

CONCLUSION

Of all the OUD patients who began BUP, 50-75% left treatment within three months, and most could be accurately identified. This could facilitate patient-centered management to better retain OUD patients in BUP treatment.

The Conceptual Framework of Dual Disorders and Its Flaws

When psychiatric illness and substance use disorder coexist, the clinical approach to the patient is, unsurprisingly, awkward. This fact is due to a cultural context and, more directly, to the patient's psychiatric condition and addiction behaviors-a situation that does not favor a scientific approach. In dual disorder facilities, several types of professionals work together: counselors, social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists. Treatment approaches vary from one service to another and even within the same service. It is crucial to provide dual disorder patients with multiple treatments, comprising hospitalization, rehabilitative and residential programs, case management, and counselling. Still, when treating dual disorder (DD) heroin use disorder (HUD) patients, it is advisable to follow a hierarchical algorithm. First, we must deal with addiction: by detoxification, whenever possible. This means starting most patients on anti-craving pharmacological maintenance, though aversion therapy may be appropriate for a few of them. Opiate antagonists may be used with heroin-addicted patients as long as those patients are only mildly ill. In contrast, agonist opioid medications, i.e., buprenorphine and methadone suit moderately and severely ill patients, respectively. Achieving control of mood instability or psychotic episodes is the next step, to be followed by a prevention strategy to counteract residual cravings and dominate mood disorders or psychotic episodes through long-term pharmacological maintenance that is focused on a double target.

[Prolonged-release buprenorphine formulations: Perspectives for clinical practice]

Buprenorphine and methadone are the two main opioids agonist treatments approved for opioid use disorder. Buprenorphine is a partial agonist of the mu-opioid receptors, which has been merely available through sublingual form until now. In practice, the use of buprenorphine is smoother than that of methadone, and it induces reduced risks of overdose. However, sublingual buprenorphine also exposes to risks (e.g., withdrawal, misuse) and constraints (e.g., daily intake). Three new galenic formulations of prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB) are being commercialized and should allow some improvements in patients' comfort and safety. This narrative review aims to describe the main technical features and efficacy and safety data of these PRBs, as well as patients' and professionals' expectancies and concerns, using data of the scientific literature and the regulatory texts. PRBs consist of one subcutaneous implant and two subcutaneous injection depots. Sixmo®/Probuphine® is a six-month-long implant which needs to be surgically placed and removed and is approved for subjects previously treated with a maximum daily dose of 8mg of sublingual buprenorphine, and can be used only for two successive periods of six months before the subject needs to be switched back to sublingual form. Sublocade® is a one-month-long depot formulation that is indicated in switch from sublingual buprenorphine, and which proposes only two dose schemes, i.e., 100 and 300mg monthly. Buvidal®/Brixadi® is a one-week- or one-month-long depot formulation with multiple dosages, which can be used in initiation or in switched from sublingual formulations. While opioid users report some concerns with a risk of coercive use of long-acting forms of buprenorphine, both users and professionals deem that these new specialties could be particularly appreciated in stabilized patients bothered with the daily intake of the treatments, or specific situations at risk of treatment dropout (e.g., following hospital discharge or prison release).

Prolonged-release buprenorphine formulations: Perspectives for clinical practice

Buprenorphine and methadone are the two main opioid agonist treatments approved for opioid use disorder. Buprenorphine is a partial agonist of the mu opioid receptors, which has been merely available through sublingual form until now. In practice, the use of buprenorphine is smoother than that of methadone, and it induces reduced risks of overdose. However, sublingual buprenorphine also exposes to risks (e.g., withdrawal, misuse) and constraints (e.g., daily intake). Three new galenic formulations of prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB) are being commercialized and should allow some improvements in patients' comfort and safety. This narrative review aims to describe the main technical features and efficacy and safety data of these PRBs, as well as patients' and professionals' expectancies and concerns, using data of the scientific literature and the regulatory texts. PRBs consist of one subcutaneous implant and two subcutaneous injection depots. Sixmo®/Probuphine® is a six-month-long implant which needs to be surgically placed and removed and is approved for subjects previously treated with a maximum daily dose of 8mg of sublingual buprenorphine, and can be used only for two successive periods of six months before the subject needs to be switched back to sublingual form. Sublocade® is a one-month-long depot formulation that is indicated in switch from sublingual buprenorphine, and which proposes only two dose schemes, i.e., 100 and 300mg monthly. Buvidal®/Brixadi® is a one-week- or one-month-long depot formulation with multiple dosages, which can be used in initiation or in switched from sublingual formulations. While opioid users report some concerns with a risk of coercive use of long-acting forms of buprenorphine, both users and professionals deem that these new specialties could be particularly appreciated in stabilized patients bothered with the daily intake of the treatments, or specific situations at risk of treatment dropout (e.g., following hospital discharge or prison release).

Drug Use Disorders and Violence: Associations With Individual Drug Categories

We conducted a systematic review that examined the link between individual drug categories and violent outcomes. We searched for primary case-control and cohort investigations that reported risk of violence against others among individuals diagnosed with drug use disorders using validated clinical criteria, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We identified 18 studies published during 1990–2019, reporting data from 591,411 individuals with drug use disorders. We reported odds ratios of the violence risk in different categories of drug use disorders compared with those without. We found odds ratios ranging from 0.8 to 25.0 for most individual drug categories, with generally higher odds ratios among individuals with polydrug use disorders. In addition, we explored sources of between-study heterogeneity by subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Cohort investigations reported a lower risk of violence than case-control reports (odds ratio =  2.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1, 3.5) vs. 6.6 (95% CI: 5.1, 8.6)), and associations were stronger when the outcome was any violence rather than intimate partner violence (odds ratio = 5.7 (95% CI: 3.8, 8.6) vs. 1.7 (95% CI: 1.4, 2.1)), which was consistent with results from the meta-regression. Overall, these findings highlight the potential impact of preventing and treating drug use disorders on reducing violence risk and associated morbidities.

A Retrospective Survey of Buprenorphine Substitute Treatment With Minimal Dosage in Heroin Use Disorder

Objectives: It is widely accepted that buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) with dosages above 8 mg daily is effective for patients with heroin use disorder. In this study, the authors evaluated the effectiveness of long-term BMT for heroin users in China, with dosages kept on a much smaller level. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study of 72 patients who had undergone detoxification and continued with buprenorphine maintenance between 2007 and 2016. Measurements such as self-reported relapse status, buprenorphine doses, protracted symptoms, general health condition, and self-reported side effects were included. Results: At the time of interview, 51 patients had remained abstinent at follow-up (including 13 who were opioid-free). The dosages of buprenorphine were 1.33 ± 0.88 (ranging 0.3-3.5) mg/day when maintenance treatment was initiated and 1.2 ± 0.8 (ranging 0.2-3.2) mg/day at the last follow-up. The remaining patients had either relapsed on heroin (n = 11) or switched to compulsory treatment (n=10). In general, abstinent patients had minimal protracted symptoms, especially in physical symptoms. Opioid-free abstainers were more likely to report good physical health than patients on buprenorphine. Predictors of worse outcomes (relapsed or switched to compulsory treatment) were lower education levels, younger age, and younger onset of illicit drug use. Conclusions: This study shows promising results of minimal-dosage BMT in treating heroin use disorder. We recommend further studies applying minimal-dosage BMT in China and worldwide.

Comorbid opioid use is undertreated among forensic patients with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorders are associated with poorer clinical outcomes in patients with schizophrenia. There is no specific treatment for amphetamine or cannabis use disorder, but methadone and buprenorphine are used as replacement therapy in the treatment of opioid dependence. Our aim was to study whether patients with schizophrenia have received opioid replacement therapy for their opioid use disorder.

METHODS

The study sample consisted of 148 individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia who were in involuntary psychiatric treatment as forensic patients in Finland in 2012. The proportion of the study sample with comorbid opioid use disorder having received opioid replacement therapy prior to their forensic psychiatric treatment was compared to the available information of opioid dependent patients in general. The data were collected from forensic examination statements, patient files and other medical registers retrospectively.

RESULTS

Of the study sample, 15.6% (23/148) had a history of opioid use disorder, of whom 8.7% (2/23) had received opioid replacement treatment (95% confidence interval (Cl): 1.1-28.0), even though opioid use disorder had been diagnosed in the treatment system. According the available information the corresponding proportion among patients with opioid use disorder and using substance use disorder services was 30.4% (565/1860, 95% Cl: 28.3-32.5). The fraction of patients receiving opioid replacement therapy was significantly lower among patients with schizophrenia (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid replacement therapy was seldom used among schizophrenia patients who were later ordered to involuntary forensic psychiatric treatment. More attention should be paid to the possible use of opioids when planning treatment for patients with schizophrenia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our study is not a randomized controlled trial (but a register-based study); thus the trial registration is not applicable.

A cluster-analytic profiling of heroin-dependent patients based on level, clinical adequacy, and patient-desired adjustment of buprenorphine dosage during buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance treatment in sixteen Spanish centers

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine dosage is a crucial factor influencing outcomes of buprenorphine treatment for heroin use disorders. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to identify naturally occurring profiles of heroin-dependent patients regarding individualized management of buprenorphine dosage in clinical practice of buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance treatment.

METHODS

316 patients receiving buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance treatment were surveyed at 16 Spanish centers during the stabilization phase of this treatment. Patients were grouped using cluster analysis based on three key indicators of buprenorphine dosage management: dose, adequacy according to physician, and adjustment according to patient. The clusters obtained were compared regarding different facets of patient clinical condition.

RESULTS

Four clusters were identified and labeled as follows (buprenorphine average dose and percentage of participants in each cluster are given in brackets): "Clinically Adequate and Adjusted to Patient Desired Low Dosage" (2.60 mg/d, 37.05%); "Clinically Adequate and Adjusted to Patient Desired High Dosage" (10.71 mg/d, 29.18%); "Clinically Adequate and Patient Desired Reduction of Low Dosage" (3.38 mg/d, 20.0%); and "Clinically Inadequate and Adjusted to Patient Desired Moderate Dosage" (7.55 mg/d, 13.77%). Compared to patients from the other three clusters, participants in the latter cluster reported more frequent use of heroin and cocaine during last week, lower satisfaction with buprenorphine-naloxone as a medication, higher prevalence of buprenorphine-naloxone adverse effects and poorer psychological adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show notable differences between clusters of heroin-dependent patients regarding buprenorphine dosage management. We also identified a group of patients receiving clinically inadequate buprenorphine dosage, which was related to poorer clinical condition.