Slow-release oral morphine versus methadone: a crossover comparison of patient outcomes and acceptability as maintenance pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence

Factors influencing engagement and utilisation of opium tincture-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder: A qualitative study in Tehran, Iran

INTRODUCTION

In response to a high burden of opioid use disorder (OUD), Iran established a network of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) centres beginning in 2002. To increase treatment diversity, particularly for patients who use opium as their drug of choice, opium tincture (OT)-assisted treatment was introduced to the network. This study aimed to explore factors influencing OT-assisted treatment selection for OUD in Tehran, Iran.

METHODS

We conducted 54 in-depth interviews with patients with OUD (n = 33), family members of patients (n = 9) and drug treatment providers (n = 12). Participants were recruited from 12 drug treatment centres across Tehran, between September and November 2019. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded in OpenCode 4.02 software and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Study participants more commonly reported individual-level factors as facilitators (e.g. to reduce harms associated with illicit opioid use, achieve recovery through a gradual dose reduction regimen combined with Congress 60 recovery program) and structural level factors (e.g. low adoption by OAT system and lack of familiarity of treatment providers) as barriers for utilisation of OT-assisted treatment regimens. OT was perceived to produce lower levels of physiological dependence than methadone, but the requirement for twice supervised dosing was restrictive. Low familial and community acceptance were also seen as barriers to access.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This research identified a range of perceived benefits for OT-assisted treatment ranging from harm reduction to an intermediate step to achieve recovery. However, several structural-, individual-, familial- and community-level barriers impede its availability and acceptability.

Subjective symptoms and serum methadone concentrations: what should guide dose adjustments in methadone maintenance treatment? A naturalistic cohort study from Norway

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence-based guidance on how to optimize methadone dosages among patients with opioid addiction undergoing methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). This study aims to investigate whether self-perceived opioid withdrawal symptoms, adverse effects, and self-reported substance use in patients on MMT are related to serum methadone concentrations and the role that these variables could play in clinical decisions on dose adjustments.

METHODS

This naturalistic prospective cohort study included clinical and laboratory measurements from 83 patients undergoing MMT in outpatient clinics in Bergen, Norway, from May 2017 to January 2020. Information on age, gender, methadone daily doses and serum concentrations, subjective opioid withdrawal symptoms using 16 items Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale (SOWS) questionnaire, self-reported adverse effects, and substance use was obtained. Linear mixed modelling was used for analyzing the data.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 45 years, and 33% were women. Almost half reported mild to moderate subjective opioid withdrawal symptoms, and all had experienced at least one subjective adverse effect. The use of at least one substance was reported by 88% of the participants. Serum concentration-to-dose ratios were lower among those who had reported subjective opioid withdrawal symptoms (p) = 0.039). The total SOWS score (p < 0.001); the specific subjective withdrawal symptoms of anxiety (p = 0.004), bone and muscle aches (p = 0.003), restlessness (p = 0.017), and (slightly) shaking (p = 0.046), also use of heroin (p = 0.015) and alcohol (p = 0.011) were associated with lower methadone concentrations. Cannabis use was slightly related to higher methadone concentrations (p = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the patient's self-perceived symptoms and current clinical condition are related to the serum concentrations of methadone. This interpretation supports dose adjustments based on patient-reported symptoms. In some aberrant cases, measurement of serum concentrations together with other individual assessments may be considered to support the clinical decision.

Reducing the use of opioids by patients with chronic pain: an effectiveness study with long-term follow-up

This study addresses the problem of long-term opioid use by chronic pain patients. The study involved a secondary analysis of unanalyzed data from a published study of 2 versions of cognitive-behavioural therapy-based interdisciplinary treatment for chronic pain. In this study, we examined whether the use of opioids by 140 chronic pain patients could be ceased sustainably over 12 months after participation in the comprehensive interdisciplinary pain management program aimed at enhancing pain self-management. On admission to the treatment, there were no significant differences between those patients taking or not taking opioids on usual pain, pain interference in daily activities, pain-related disability, depression severity, as well as in pain cognitions. After the treatment, the use of opioids was significantly reduced, both in numbers taking any and in mean doses, and these gains were maintained over the 12-month follow-up. Finally, cessation of opioids during treatment was associated with more substantial and consistent improvements in usual pain, depression severity, pain interference, pain-related disability, and pain cognitions, relative to those who reduced their opioids but did not cease them. These findings support the idea of using training in pain self-management strategies as a viable alternative to long-term opioid use by patients with chronic pain.

Risk assessment of using off-label morphine sulfate in a population-based retrospective cohort of opioid-dependent patients

AIMS

Several addictovigilance studies have described the off-label use of morphine sulfate (MS) for nonchronic pain in opioid use disorder (OUD) patients as an alternative to conventional opioid substitution treatments (OSTs). This study primarily sought to compare the incidence of unintentional opioid-related overdose in the year following the prescription initiation in off-label MS users, compared to OST-maintained patients.

METHODS

Sequential cohorts of OUD patients who were regularly dispensed MS, buprenorphine, or methadone, between 1 April 2012 and 31 December 2014, were retrospectively identified using the French nationwide healthcare data system. The incidence of overdoses, deaths, doctor shopping, and complications of a viral, bacterial or thrombotic nature, was compared using the Cox regression method.

RESULTS

Overall, 1075, 20 834 and 9778 OUD patients without chronic-pain were included in the MS, buprenorphine, and methadone cohorts, respectively. Overdose incidence was 3.8 (P < .01 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1-6.8]) and 2.0 (P = .02 [95%CI: 1.1-3.6]) higher in the MS cohort vs buprenorphine and methadone, respectively. Death incidence was 9.1 (P < .01 [95%CI: 3.2-25.9]) and 3.9 (P < .01 [95%CI: 1.4-10.7]) higher in the MS cohort vs buprenorphine and methadone, respectively. The incidences of other associated risks were significantly higher in the MS group vs OSTs, except for hepatitis C viral infection and thrombotic complications.

CONCLUSION

This first French comprehensive nationwide study reveals increasing overdose, death, bacterial infection, abuse and diversion risks when off-label MS is initiated as alternative to OST. These results question the relevance of prescribing MS as a safe opioid maintenance treatment, considering its health risk profile.

Comparison of Treatment Options for Refractory Opioid Use Disorder in the United States and Canada: a Narrative Review

Amidst the opioid overdose crisis, there are increased efforts to expand access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Hospitalization for the complications of substance use in the United States (US) provides an opportunity to initiate methadone, buprenorphine, and extended release naltrexone and link high-risk, not otherwise engaged, patients into outpatient care. However, treatment options for patients are quickly exhausted when these medications are not desired, tolerated, or beneficial. As an example, we discuss the case of a man who was hospitalized 27 times over 2 years for complications related to his opioid use disorder (OUD), including recurring methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus vertebral osteomyelitis, increasing antimicrobial resistance, new infections, and multiple overdoses in and out of the hospital. The patient suffered these complications despite efforts to treat his OUD with methadone and buprenorphine while hospitalized, and repeated attempts to link him to outpatient care. We use this case to review evidence-based treatments for refractory OUD, which are not approved in the US, but are available in Canada. If hospitalized in Vancouver, Canada, this patient could have been offered slow-release oral morphine and injectable opioid agonist therapy, as well as access to sterile syringes and injection equipment at an in-hospital supervised injection facility. Each of these approaches is supported by evidence and has been implemented successfully in Canada, yet none are available in the US. In order to combat the multiple harms from opioids, it is critical that we consider every evidence-based tool.

Effects of periodic intake of drugs of abuse (morphine) on HIV dynamics: Mathematical model and analysis

Drugs of abuse, such as opiates, have been widely associated with diminishing host-immune responses, including suppression of HIV-specific antibody responses. In particular, periodic intake of the drugs of abuse can result in time-varying periodic antibody level within HIV-infected individuals, consequently altering the HIV dynamics. In this study, we develop a mathematical model to analyze the effects of periodic intake of morphine, a widely used opiate. We consider two routes of morphine intake, namely, intravenous morphine (IVM) and slow-release oral morphine (SROM), and integrate several morphine pharmacodynamic parameters into HIV dynamics model. Using our non-autonomous model system we formulate the infection threshold, R_i, for global stability of infection-free equilibrium, which provides a condition for avoiding viral infection in a host. We demonstrate that the infection threshold highly depends on the morphine pharmacodynamic parameters. Such information can be useful in the design of antibody-based vaccines. In addition, we also thoroughly evaluate how alteration of the antibody level due to periodic intake of morphine can affect the viral load and the CD4 count in HIV infected drug abusers.

Opioid maintenance, weaning and detoxification techniques; where we have been, where we are now and what the future holds: an update

In 2017, the US Department of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency on the opioid crisis. On average, 115 Americans die each day from an opioid overdose. The scope and breadth of this problem is continually evolving. In 2010, there was a shift in causes primarily due to the use of heroin, and currently the latest shift in opioid-related deaths involves a variety of synthetic opioids, particularly illicitly manufactured fentanyl. As the medical, sociological and political environments have drastically changed, especially in the USA, over the last 6 years with regard to opioid use and misuse, an updated review of the literature was necessary.

Profile, risk practices and needs of people who inject morphine sulfate: Results from the ANRS-AERLI study

AIMS

In France, a non-negligible proportion of opioid-dependent individuals inject morphine sulfate. Although it has not yet been officially approved as an opioid substitution treatment (OST), some physicians can prescribe its use for people in methadone or buprenorphine treatment failure. Longitudinal data from the ANRS-AERLI study, which evaluated an educational intervention for safer injection called AERLI, provided us the opportunity to better characterize the profile, risk practices and needs of people who inject morphine sulfate (MSI), through comparison with other injectors, and to identify correlates of HIV/HCV risk practices in this group.

METHODS

The national multisite ANRS-AERLI study assessed the impact of AERLI offered in volunteer harm reduction (HR) centers ("with intervention") (n = 113) through comparison with standard HR centers ("without intervention") (n = 127). All participants were scheduled to be followed up for 12 months and have 3 telephone interviews: at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. We compared MSI (n = 79) with other opioid injectors (n = 161) and then used a mixed logistic model to identify factors associated with HIV/HCV risk practices among MSI.

FINDINGS

Of the 240 eligible participants, 79 were regular MSI. They were less likely to use cocaine, crack or buprenorphine and to receive OST than other participants. Conversely, MSI were more likely to inject drugs more than three times a day and to report HIV/HCV risk practices. Among MSI, multivariate analysis showed that those receiving morphine sulfate as an OST were less likely to report such practices than other participants (aOR [95%CI] = 0.11 [0.02-0.61]).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that while MSI use fewer stimulants, they have more HIV/HCV risk practices than other injectors. However, when MSI are prescribed morphine sulfate as a treatment, these practices tend to decrease. Our findings suggest the importance of increasing access to morphine sulfate as a new OST in France.

Dissatisfaction with opioid maintenance treatment partly explains reported side effects of medications

BACKGROUND

Drop-out is a core problem in opioid maintenance treatment (OMT), but patients' reactions to and acceptance of the various OMT medications are insufficiently investigated. In Norway, there has been vocal patient resistance to the newest medication, buprenorphine-naloxone (BNX), and complaints have focused on the side effect profile. There has been no comparison of patient satisfaction and side effects of the three most common OMT medications.

AIM

To compare patient satisfaction with OMT and side effects of BNX, buprenorphine monopreparate (BUP), and methadone (MET) as reported by patients.

METHODS

Data were drawn from a national peer-to-peer survey developed by a patient advocacy group. The survey engaged more than 1000 OMT patients, corresponding to one seventh of OMT patients in Norway. The associations between side effects, treatment satisfaction, and patient characteristics were tested in multinomial logistic regressions.

RESULTS

High patient satisfaction with OMT overall was reported despite lower satisfaction with medication itself and widely prevalent side effects. Among each medication group, dissatisfaction with medications or OMT in general along with poor health status increased the relative risk ratio of reporting the heaviest side effect burden. MET users reported the highest side effect burden and BNX users the lightest, but BNX users were more dissatisfied with their medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Side effects are a concern for nearly all OMT patients, and they do not appear to accumulate with age or length of treatment. BNX users' dissatisfaction with their medication is of particular concern, and expectations and preferences of medication may be influencing their dissatisfaction.

Predictors of heroin abstinence in opiate substitution therapy in heroin-only users and dual users of heroin and crack

AIMS

To analyse predictors of heroin abstinence in opiate substitution therapy (OST) based on frequency of crack use and its interactions with other predictors in a clinical non-experimental setting.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

A community drug service in London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

325 clients starting OST between 2010 and 2014 (197 methadone and 128 buprenorphine).

MEASUREMENTS

Logistic regression models (a general model and separate models for methadone and buprenorphine) assessed demographic and clinical data as predictors of heroin abstinence at one year after treatment start (or at the date of transfer to another service).

FINDINGS

For the general model participants choosing methadone were more likely to use heroin at follow up (OR=2.36, 95% CI: 1.40-3.17) as were daily crack users on methadone (OR=2.62, 95% CI: 0.96-7.16). For the methadone model only daily crack use predicted heroin use at follow up (OR=2.62, 95% CI: 0.96-7.16). For buprenorphine, higher amounts of baseline heroin use, lower buprenorphine dose and daily drinking predicted heroin use at follow up (OR=0.85, 95% CI: 0.75-0.95; OR=1.31, 95% CI: 1.06-1.60 and OR=6.04, 95% CI: 1.26-28.92). Both use of cannabis and depression increased likelihood of heroin abstinence for clients not using crack compared to occasional (OR=6.68, 95% CI: 0.37-119.59; OR=106.31, 95% CI: 3.41-3313.30) and daily (OR=57.49 (95% CI: 2.37-1396.46; OR=170.99 (95% CI: 4.61-6339.47) users.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the predictors in the general model were found significant only in the buprenorphine but not in the methadone model, suggesting that a general model has little predictive value. Crack use was a significant predictor of heroin abstinence at follow up in all models, however for buprenorphine only when depression or cannabis use was present. Further research is needed to assess effective treatment approaches for the growing population of dual users.

Perspectives on the Pharmacological Treatment of Heroin Addiction

Opioids are very addictive drugs because of their powerful effects on reward and pain pathways in the brain. Opioid addiction is currently a worldwide problem and injecting heroin presents serious health risks including death from overdose. The increase in the nonmedical use of prescription opioids and the increase in overdose deaths are worrying trends in North America. There is therefore an increasing need for access to effective treatments. The 2 major drug treatments, methadone and buprenorphine, have proven efficacy but are not necessarily administered in the most effective doses or under optimum conditions. Alternative approaches such as slow-release oral morphine, tincture of opium, and the use of the opioid antagonist naltrexone to maintain abstinence are used seemingly effectively in some countries but have yet to be fully evaluated in randomized controlled trials. Heroin-assisted treatment has proven to be a valuable and effective treatment when administered in specialized clinics but is only appropriate for those who have failed to improve on optimal methadone or buprenorphine maintenance. Recent innovations and substitution treatment as an alternative to incarceration are described. Drug treatment of opioid addiction is most effective when administered as part of a therapeutic program as demonstrated in the initial methadone evaluations and the more recent trials with heroin-assisted treatment.

A call for evidence-based medical treatment of opioid dependence in the United States and Canada

Despite decades of experience treating heroin or prescription opioid dependence with methadone or buprenorphine--two forms of opioid substitution therapy--gaps remain between current practices and evidence-based standards in both Canada and the United States. This is largely because of regulatory constraints and pervasive suboptimal clinical practices. Fewer than 10 percent of all people dependent on opioids in the United States are receiving substitution treatment, although the proportion may increase with expanded health insurance coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act. In light of the accumulated evidence, we recommend eliminating restrictions on office-based methadone prescribing in the United States; reducing financial barriers to treatment, such as varying levels of copayment in Canada and the United States; reducing reliance on less effective and potentially unsafe opioid detoxification; and evaluating and creating mechanisms to integrate emerging treatments. Taking these steps can greatly reduce the harms of opioid dependence by maximizing the individual and public health benefits of treatment.

Maintenance treatment for opioid dependence with slow-release oral morphine: a randomized cross-over, non-inferiority study versus methadone

AIMS

To compare the efficacy of slow-release oral morphine (SROM) and methadone as maintenance medication for opioid dependence in patients previously treated with methadone.

DESIGN

Prospective, multiple-dose, open label, randomized, non-inferiority, cross-over study over two 11-week periods. Methadone treatment was switched to SROM with flexible dosing and vice versa according to period and sequence of treatment.

SETTING

Fourteen out-patient addiction treatment centres in Switzerland and Germany.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with opioid dependence in methadone maintenance programmes (dose ≥50 mg/day) for ≥26 weeks.

MEASUREMENTS

The efficacy end-point was the proportion of heroin-positive urine samples per patient and period of treatment. Each week, two urine samples were collected, randomly selected and analysed for 6-monoacetyl-morphine and 6-acetylcodeine. Non-inferiority was concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) in the difference of proportions of positive urine samples was below the predefined boundary of 10%.

FINDINGS

One hundred and fifty-seven patients fulfilled criteria to form the per protocol population. The proportion of heroin-positive urine samples under SROM treatment (0.20) was non-inferior to the proportion under methadone treatment (0.15) (least-squares mean difference 0.05; 95% CI = 0.02, 0.08; P > 0.01). The 95% CI fell within the 10% non-inferiority margin, confirming the non-inferiority of SROM to methadone. A dose-dependent effect was shown for SROM (i.e. decreasing proportions of heroin-positive urine samples with increasing SROM doses). Retention in treatment showed no significant differences between treatments (period 1/period 2: SROM: 88.7%/82.1%, methadone: 91.1%/88.0%; period 1: P = 0.50, period 2: P = 0.19). Overall, safety outcomes were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Slow-release oral morphine appears to be at least as effective as methadone in treating people with opioid use disorder.

Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine maintenance treatment has been evaluated in randomised controlled trials against placebo medication, and separately as an alternative to methadone for management of opioid dependence.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate buprenorphine maintenance compared to placebo and to methadone maintenance in the management of opioid dependence, including its ability to retain people in treatment, suppress illicit drug use, reduce criminal activity, and mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to January 2013: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, PsycLIT, CORK, Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia, Australian Drug Foundation, Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol, Library of Congress, reference lists of identified studies and reviews. We sought published/unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of buprenorphine maintenance treatment versus placebo or methadone in management of opioid-dependent persons.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane Collaboration methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 31 trials (5430 participants), the quality of evidence varied from high to moderate quality.There is high quality of evidence that buprenorphine was superior to placebo medication in retention of participants in treatment at all doses examined. Specifically, buprenorphine retained participants better than placebo: at low doses (2 - 6 mg), 5 studies, 1131 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.88; at medium doses (7 - 15 mg), 4 studies, 887 participants, RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.87; and at high doses (≥ 16 mg), 5 studies, 1001 participants, RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.90. However, there is moderate quality of evidence that only high-dose buprenorphine (≥ 16 mg) was more effective than placebo in suppressing illicit opioid use measured by urinanalysis in the trials, 3 studies, 729 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.17; 95% CI -1.85 to -0.49, Notably, low-dose, (2 studies, 487 participants, SMD 0.10; 95% CI -0.80 to 1.01), and medium-dose, (2 studies, 463 participants, SMD -0.08; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.62) buprenorphine did not suppress illicit opioid use measured by urinanalysis better than placebo.There is high quality of evidence that buprenorphine in flexible doses adjusted to participant need,was less effective than methadone in retaining participants, 5 studies, 788 participants, RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95. For those retained in treatment, no difference was observed in suppression of opioid use as measured by urinalysis, 8 studies, 1027 participants, SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.02 or self report, 4 studies, 501 participants, SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07, with moderate quality of evidence.Consistent with the results in the flexible-dose studies, in low fixed-dose studies, methadone (≤ 40 mg) was more likely to retain participants than low-dose buprenorphine (2 - 6 mg), (3 studies, 253 participants, RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.87). However, we found contrary results at medium dose and high dose: there was no difference between medium-dose buprenorphine (7 - 15 mg) and medium-dose methadone (40 - 85 mg) in retention, (7 studies, 780 participants, RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.10) or in suppression of illicit opioid use as measured by urines, (4 studies, 476 participants, SMD 0.25; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.58) or self report of illicit opioid use, (2 studies, 174 participants, SMD -0.82; 95% CI -1.83 to 0.19). Similarly, there was no difference between high-dose buprenorphine (≥ 16 mg) and high-dose methadone (≥ 85 mg) in retention (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.20 to 3.16) or suppression of self-reported heroin use (SMD -0.73; 95% CI -1.08 to -0.37) (1 study, 134 participants).Few studies reported adverse events ; two studies compared adverse events statistically, finding no difference between methadone and buprenorphine, except for a single result indicating more sedation among those using methadone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is an effective medication in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, retaining people in treatment at any dose above 2 mg, and suppressing illicit opioid use (at doses 16 mg or greater) based on placebo-controlled trials.However, compared to methadone, buprenorphine retains fewer people when doses are flexibly delivered and at low fixed doses. If fixed medium or high doses are used, buprenorphine and methadone appear no different in effectiveness (retention in treatment and suppression of illicit opioid use); however, fixed doses are rarely used in clinical practice so the flexible dose results are more relevant to patient care. Methadone is superior to buprenorphine in retaining people in treatment, and methadone equally suppresses illicit opioid use.

Slow-release oral morphine as maintenance therapy for opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Opioid substitution treatments are effective in retaining people in treatment and suppressing heroin use. An open question remains whether slow-release oral morphine (SROM) could represent a possible alternative for opioid-dependent people who respond poorly to other available maintenance treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of SROM as an alternative maintenance pharmacotherapy for the treatment of opioid dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Register of Trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL - The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2013), MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2013) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials assessing efficacy of SROM compared with other maintenance treatment or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies with 195 participants were included in the review. Two were cross-over trials and one was a parallel group RCT. The retention in treatment appeared superior to 80% in all the three studies (without significant difference with controls). Nevertheless, it has to be underlined that the studies had different durations. One lasted six months, and the other two lasted six and seven weeks. The use of opioids during SROM provision varied from lower to non-statistically or clinically different from comparison interventions, whereas there were no differences as far as the use of other substances was concerned.SROM seemed to be equal to comparison interventions for severity of dependence, or mental health/social functioning, but there was a trend for less severe opiate withdrawal symptoms in comparison with methadone (withdrawal score 2.2 vs. 4.8, P value = 0.06). Morphine was generally well tolerated and was preferred by a proportion of participants (seven of nine people in one study). Morphine appeared to reduce cravings, depressive symptoms (measured using the Beck Depression Inventory; P value < 0.001), physical complaints (measured using the Beschwerde-Liste (BL); P value < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms (P value = 0.008). Quality of life in people treated with SROM resulted in no significant difference or a worst outcome than in those taking methadone and buprenorphine. Other social functioning measures, such as finances, family and overall satisfaction, scored better in people maintained with the comparison substances than in those maintained with SROM. In particular, people taking methadone showed more favourable values for leisure time (5.4 vs. 3.7, P value < 0.001), housing (6.1 vs. 4.7, P value < 0.023), partnerships (5.7 vs. 4.2, P value = 0.034), friend and acquaintances (5.6 vs. 4.4, P value = 0.003), mental health (5.0 vs. 3.4, P value = 0.002) and self esteem (8.2 vs. 5.7, P value = 0.002) compared to people taking SROM; while people taking buprenorphine obtained better scores for physical health.Medical adverse events were consistently higher in people in SROM than in the comparison groups. None of the studies included people with a documented poor response to other maintenance treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The present review did not identify sufficient evidence to assess the effectiveness of SROM for opioid maintenance because only three studies meeting our inclusion criteria have been identified. Two studies suggested a possible reduction of opioid use in people taking SROM. In another study, the use of SROM was associated with fewer depressive symptoms. Retention in treatment was not significantly different among compared interventions while the adverse effects were more frequent with the people given SROM.

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.

Agonist treatment in opioid use: advances and controversy

Opioid dependence is a chronic relapsing condition which requires comprehensive care; pharmacological agents form the mainstay of its long term treatment. The two most popular approaches are the harm reduction method using agonists and the complete abstinence method using antagonists. Currently, particularly from the harm minimization perspective and the low feasibility of an abstinence based approach, there is an increasing trend toward agonist treatment. The use of buprenorphine has gained popularity in view of its safety profile and the availability of the buprenorphine-naloxone combination has made it popular as a take-home treatment. This review outlines the pharmacological advances and controversies in this area.

Heroin maintenance for chronic heroin-dependent individuals

BACKGROUND

Several types of medications have been used for stabilizing heroin users: Methadone, Buprenorphine and levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol (LAAM.) The present review focuses on the prescription of heroin to heroin-dependent individuals.

OBJECTIVES

To compare heroin maintenance to methadone or other substitution treatments for opioid dependence regarding: efficacy and acceptability, retaining patients in treatment, reducing the use of illicit substances, and improving health and social functioning.

SEARCH METHODS

A review of the Cochrane Central Register of Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to november 2009), EMBASE (1980 to 2005) and CINAHL until 2005 (on OVID) was conducted. Personal communications with researchers in the field of heroin prescription identified ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of heroin maintenance treatment (alone or combined with methadone) compared with any other pharmacological treatment for heroin-dependent individuals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies involving 2007 patients met the inclusion criteria. Five studies compared supervised injected heroin plus flexible dosages of methadone treatment to oral methadone only and showed that heroin helps patients to remain in treatment (valid data from 4 studies, N=1388 Risk Ratio 1.44 (95%CI 1.19-1.75) heterogeneity P=0.03), and to reduce use of illicit drugs. Maintenance with supervised injected heroin has a not statistically significant protective effect on mortality (4 studies, N=1477 Risk Ratio 0.65 (95% CI 0.25-1.69) heterogeneity P=0.89), but it exposes at a greater risk of adverse events related to study medication (3 studies N=373 Risk Ratio 13.50 (95% CI 2.55-71.53) heterogeneity P=0.52). Results on criminal activity and incarceration were not possible to be pooled but where the outcome were measured results of single studies do provide evidence that heroin provision can reduce criminal activity and incarceration/imprisonment. Social functioning improved in all the intervention groups with heroin groups having slightly better results. If all the studies comparing heroin provision in any conditions vs any other treatment are pooled the direction of effect remain in favour of heroin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests an added value of heroin prescribed alongside flexible doses of methadone for long-term, treatment refractory, opioid users, to reach a decrease in the use of illicit substances, involvement in criminal activity and incarceration, a possible reduction in mortaliity; and an increase in retention in treatment. Due to the higher rate of serious adverse events, heroin prescription should remain a treatment for people who are currently or have in the past failed maintenance treatment, and it should be provided in clinical settings where proper follow-up is ensured.

Slow-release oral morphine for opioid maintenance treatment: a systematic review

This review article summarizes the results of all available clinical trials considering the use of slow-release oral morphine (SROM) for opioid maintenance treatment (OMT). All studies published up to October 2010 and assessing SROM for OMT in adult patients are included. Three independent reviewers assessed the selected articles using a standardized checklist. Study design, study length and number of subjects included were recorded. Data about retention rate (proportion of participants remaining under maintenance treatment at the end of the study), quality of life, withdrawal symptoms, craving, additional drug consumption, driving capacity and adverse events were collected. We identified 13 articles corresponding to nine clinical trials considering the use of SROM for OMT. Among them, only one was a randomized trial and one was a controlled not randomized trial. All other studies were uncontrolled. Retention rates were good (from 80.6 to 95%) with SROM maintenance, but similar retention rates were obtained with methadone. Most of the studies showed that quality of life, withdrawal symptoms, craving and additional drug consumption improved with SROM. However, there was no comparison with other maintenance drugs. As most of the studies assessing SROM efficacy were uncontrolled, there is no definite evidence that SROM is an effective alternative to methadone for OMT.

The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for the biological treatment of substance use and related disorders. Part 2: Opioid dependence

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based practice guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of opioid abuse and dependence.

METHODS

An international task force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) developed these practice guidelines after a systematic review of the available evidence pertaining to the treatment of opioid dependence. On the basis of the evidence, the Task Force reached a consensus on practice recommendations, which are intended to be clinically and scientifically meaningful for physicians who treat adults with opioid dependence. The data used to develop these guidelines were extracted primarily from national treatment guidelines for opioid use disorders, as well as from meta-analyses, reviews, and publications of randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of pharmacological and other biological treatments for these disorders. Publications were identified by searching the MEDLINE database and the Cochrane Library. The literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for efficacy, which was categorized into one of six levels (A-F).

RESULTS

There is an excellent evidence base supporting the efficacy of methadone and buprenorphine or the combination of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of opioid withdrawal, with clonidine and lofexidine as secondary or adjunctive medications. Opioid maintenance with methadone and buprenorphine is the best-studied and most effective treatment for opioid dependence, with heroin and naltrexone as second-line medications.

CONCLUSIONS

There is enough high quality data to formulate evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of opioid abuse and dependence. This task force report provides evidence for the efficacy of a number of medications to treat opioid abuse and dependence, particularly the opioid agonists methadone or buprenorphine. These medications have great relevance for clinical practice.

Heroin maintenance for chronic heroin-dependent individuals

BACKGROUND

Several types of medications have been used for stabilizing heroin users: Methadone, Buprenorphine and levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol (LAAM.) The present review focuses on the prescription of heroin to heroin-dependent individuals.

OBJECTIVES

To compare heroin maintenance to methadone or other substitution treatments for opioid dependence regarding: efficacy and acceptability, retaining patients in treatment, reducing the use of illicit substances, and improving health and social functioning.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A review of the Cochrane Central Register of Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 2008), EMBASE (1980 to 2005) and CINAHL until 2005 (on OVID) was conducted. Personal communication with researchers in the field of heroin prescription identified other ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of heroin maintenance treatment (alone or combined with methadone) were compared with any other pharmacological treatment for heroin-dependent individuals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies involving 2007 patients were included. Results show marginal significance in favour of heroin for remaining in treatment until the end of the study (8 studies, N= 2007, RR=1.23, 95%CI=0.96-1.57; heterogeneity P < 0.01). Adverse events are significantly more frequent in the heroin group. Heroin plus methadone prescription for maintenance treatment in adult chronic opioid users who failed previous methadone treatment attempts decreases the use of other illicit substances (3 Studies, N=1289, RR=0.63, 95%CI=0.49, 0.81, heterogeneity P=0.21), and reduces the risk of being incarcerated (2 studies, N=1103, RR=0.64, 95%CI=0.51-0.79, heterogeneity P=0.31). In addition, we also found a marginally significant protective effect of heroin prescription plus methadone for the use of street heroin (3 studies, N=1512, RR=0.70, 95%CI=0.49-1.00, heterogeneity P < 0.01) and for criminal activity (4 studies, N=1377, RR=0.80, 95%CI=0.61-1.04, heterogeneity P=0.31). There was not enough power to detect statistically significant results for the risk of death (5 studies, N=1817, RR=0.77, 95%CI=0.32-1.87, heterogeneity P=0.79).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests a small added value of heroin prescribed alongside flexible doses of methadone for long-term, treatment-refractory opioid users, considering a decrease in the use of street heroin and other illicit substances, and in the probability of being imprisoned; and an increase in retention in treatment. Due to the higher rate of serious adverse events, heroin prescription should remain a treatment of last resort for people who are currently or have in the past failed maintenance treatment.

The pharmacological treatment of opioid addiction--a clinical perspective

This article reviews the main pharmacotherapies that are currently being used to treat opioid addiction. Treatments include detoxification using tapered methadone, buprenorphine, adrenergic agonists such as clonidine and lofexidine, and forms of rapid detoxification. In opioid maintenance treatment (OMT), methadone is most widely used. OMT with buprenorphine, buprenorphine-naloxone combination, or other opioid agonists is also discussed. The use of the opioid antagonists naloxone (for the treatment of intoxication and overdose) and oral and sustained-release formulations of naltrexone (for relapse prevention) is also considered. Although recent advances in the neurobiology of addictions may lead to the development of new pharmacotherapies for the treatment of addictive disorders, a major challenge lies in delivering existing treatments more effectively. Pharmacotherapy of opioid addiction alone is usually insufficient, and a complete treatment should also include effective psychosocial support or other interventions. Combining pharmacotherapies with psychosocial support strategies that are tailored to meet the patients' needs represents the best way to treat opioid addiction effectively.

A double-blind, randomized, parallel group study to compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of slow-release oral morphine versus methadone in opioid-dependent in-patients willing to undergo detoxification

AIMS

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of slow-release oral morphine (SROM) compared with methadone for detoxification from methadone and SROM maintenance treatment.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, comparative multi-centre study with parallel groups.

SETTING

Three psychiatric hospitals in Austria specializing in in-patient detoxification.

PARTICIPANTS

Male and female opioid dependents (age > 18 years) willing to undergo detoxification from maintenance therapy in order to reach abstinence.

INTERVENTIONS

Abstinence was reached from maintenance treatment by tapered dose reduction of either SROM or methadone over a period of 16 days.

MEASUREMENTS

Efficacy analyses were based on the number of patients per treatment group completing the study, as well as on the control of signs and symptoms of withdrawal [measured using Short Opioid Withdrawal Scale (SOWS)] and suppression of opiate craving. In addition, self-reported somatic and psychic symptoms (measured using Symptom Checklist SCL-90-R) were monitored.

FINDINGS

Of the 208 patients enrolled into the study, 202 were eligible for analysis (SROM: n = 102, methadone: n = 100). Completion rates were 51% in the SROM group and 49% in the methadone group [difference between groups: 2%; 95% confidence interval (CI): -12% to 16%]. The rate of discontinuation in the study was high mainly because of patients voluntarily withdrawing from treatment. No statistically significant differences between treatment groups were found in terms of signs and symptoms of opiate withdrawal, craving for opiates or self-reported symptoms. SROM and methadone were both well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Detoxification from maintenance treatment with tapered dose reduction of SROM is non-inferior to methadone.

Long-acting opioid-agonists in the treatment of heroin addiction: why should we call them "substitution"?

Many studies have documented the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of long-acting opioids (L-AOs), such as methadone and buprenorphine, in the treatment of heroin addiction. This article reviews the pharmacological differences between L-AO medications and short-acting opioids (heroin) in terms of reinforcing properties, pharmacokinetics, effects on the endocrine and immune systems. Given their specific pharmacological profile, L-AOs contribute to control addictive behavior, reduce craving, and restore the balance of disrupted endocrine function. The use of the term "substitution," referring to the fact that methadone or buprenorphine replace heroin in binding to brain opioid receptors, has been generalized to consider L-AOs as simple replacement of street drugs, thus contributing to the widespread misunderstanding of this treatment approach.

Slow-release oral morphine for maintenance treatment of opioid addicts intolerant to methadone or with inadequate withdrawal suppression

AIMS

Evaluation of the efficacy, safety and acceptability of slow-release oral morphine (SROM) in opioid addicts intolerant to methadone or with inadequate withdrawal suppression.

DESIGN

Prospective, open, non-comparative multi-centre study.

SETTING

Twelve out-patient Centres for Prevention and Treatment of Drug Addiction in Slovenia.

PARTICIPANTS

Male and female opioid addicts (age>18 years) under methadone maintenance therapy requiring a change of treatment in order to continue more effectively with maintenance.

INTERVENTIONS

Maintenance therapy with methadone was switched to once-daily SROM.

MEASUREMENTS

Efficacy evaluations were based on the reduction of side effects and on the degree of suppression of opiate craving, signs and symptoms of withdrawal. In addition, self-reported somatic and psychic symptoms (SCL-27) as well as World Health Organization quality of life-related (WHO QOL) parameters were monitored.

FINDINGS

Thirty-nine subjects intolerant to methadone and 28 subjects showing inadequate withdrawal suppression under methadone>or=90 mg/day were included as two separate groups in the efficacy analyses. Treatment was switched easily from methadone to SROM on a 1:8 ratio. Four-week SROM treatment resulted in significant reduction of side effects reported under methadone. Signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal as well as craving for opiates were improved significantly in patients with inadequate response to methadone. Physical and psychological wellbeing improved significantly under SROM treatment. SROM was tolerated very well.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance treatment with SROM appears to be a clinically useful alternative treatment in subjects not tolerating methadone or with inadequate withdrawal suppression.

Quality of life in patients receiving opioid maintenance therapy. A comparative study of slow-release morphine versus methadone treatment

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In recent years, quality of life (QoL) assessments have proved useful for evaluating and comparing drug treatment programs. To compare QoL of patients maintained on methadone versus slow-release morphine, a prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, cross-over study was conducted.

METHODS

Over two 7-week study phases, participants received either oral slow-release morphine capsules followed by methadone oral solution or vice versa. QoL status was assessed at baseline, week 7, and week 14 using the German version of the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found between methadone and slow-release morphine in any QoL domain. A significant time effect for nearly all QoL domains was observed after 14 weeks of opioid medication, independent of the chosen drug (general well-being, p < 0.001; mental health, p = 0.001; general state of health, p = 0.018; leisure time at home, p = 0.034; leisure time out of the home, p = 0.008). Furthermore, this study revealed that even short-term maintenance yields significantly higher QoL scores in the important domain of general well-being.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that slow-release morphine has effects comparable to methadone on patient-reported QoL data and is thus a promising option for treatment of opioid-dependent subjects.

A primary care/multidisciplinary harm reduction clinic including opiate bridging

Wait times for methadone maintenance programs are associated with significant dropout rates. This puts the substance user at risk of continued illegal and high-risk behavior. We describe a unique model of daily dispensing opiates other than methadone to "bridge" clients awaiting methadone management. The Health and Harm Reduction Clinic is a community-based, primary care health clinic in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, an urban city of 1 million. The team is comprised of a family physician, nurse practitioner, social/mental health worker and addictions counsellor. Descriptive data utilizing chart reviews from 2001 to 2005 are presented: one hundred four noninjection drug users and 86 injection drug users, with 43 of the latter being "bridged." This team model, which includes opiate bridging to a methadone program, appears to provide a reasonable approach for community-based practices to offer quality care for substance-abusing patients. Further clarification of the impact on health outcomes and health service utilization is suggested.

Office-based treatment in opioid dependence: a critical survey of prescription practices for opioid maintenance medications and concomitant benzodiazepines in Vienna, Austria

BACKGROUND

The success of maintenance treatment for opioid dependence in office-based settings is influenced by the extent of treatment coverage, the availability of effective medications and the capacity of general practitioners to prescribe opioids in adequate doses with a minimum of concomitant benzodiazepine prescriptions.

METHODS

This study compares prescriptions for opioid maintenance and concomitant benzodiazepine from Viennese physicians in 2002 and 2005 using health insurance prescription records (n = 30,309).

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2005, the number of patients prescribed opioids more than doubled (ratio 1:2.3), slow-release oral morphine replaced methadone as the most frequently prescribed medication (57.1 vs. 23.4%; buprenorphine 19.5%), and the ratio of benzodiazepine to opioid prescriptions significantly declined (0.76:1 vs. 0.42:1). Many patients were prescribed concomitant benzodiazepines (27%), in some cases from a secondary physician.

CONCLUSION

Increased utilization of opioid medications in office-based settings will facilitate better treatment coverage. However, safeguards are necessary to ensure that general practitioners have sufficient training and support to safely and appropriately provide treatment, including the reduction in concomitant benzodiazepine use.

Switching between methadone and morphine for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence: impact on pain sensitivity and mood status

Methadone maintenance is associated with hyperalgesia and elevated mood disturbance-effects opposite to those induced by acute opioid administration, which may undermine outcomes during substitution therapy. This study examined the impact of switching between methadone and slow-release morphine on pain sensitivity and mood status in 14 methadone maintenance patients using an open-label crossover design. Pain responses were nearly identical for each drug. Patients reporting inadequate withdrawal suppression on methadone showed greater mood stability when transferred to morphine, but overall mood disturbance levels did not differ between drugs. Hyperalgesia and mood disturbance cannot be resolved by changing from methadone to morphine maintenance.

Tratamiento con morfina en la dependencia de opiáceos

Morphine is an opiate drug widely used as an analgesic in multiple medical diseases. Currently, its management in the maintenance treatment of opiate dependent patients is being studied. The most significant studies are described. In these, its usefulness has been assessed in comparison with other treatments, such as methadone, buprenorphine. Morphine has shown efficacy and tolerability. Its management is easy both in patients who consume heroin as well as those who have received other opiate drugs. Thus, it is a drug that may extend the therapeutic armamentarium in patients who begin with treatment with other opiates for the first time or who have previously received them. However, new studies must be conducted to adequately characterize its clinical use.

Opioid maintenance: a comparative review of pharmacological strategies

The use of opioids outside of medical practice is a significant health problem with important social and political implications. Although treatment of opioid dependence is traditionally focused on heroin users, there is increasing recognition that a large number of people become dependent through the use of prescription opioids. The necessity for long-term treatment has also been increasingly recognised. At present, there are several pharmacotherapies available for maintenance treatment, including drugs that are full agonists at the opioid receptor (e.g., methadone, slow-release oral morphine), a partial agonist (buprenorphine) and an opioid antagonist (naltrexone). This review examines the existing strategies, highlights problems associated with their use and discusses the opportunities for new treatment approaches, particularly the use of long-acting formulations.

Innovations in agonist maintenance treatment of opioid-dependent patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an overview of published studies on agonist maintenance treatment options for opioid-dependent patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent publication of controlled trials confirms earlier clinical evidence of the efficacy of diamorphine (heroin) in the treatment of opioid dependence. Findings show not only efficacy with respect to improvement of health, reduction of illicit drug use, reduction of criminality and stabilization of social conditions, but also cost effectiveness in the treatment of chronic treatment-resistant heroin addicts.

SUMMARY

Agonist maintenance treatment has become the first-line treatment for chronic opioid dependence. High-quality studies demonstrate the effectiveness of a growing number of different agonist maintenance treatments for opioid dependence such as methadone and buprenorphine. In addition, there is new evidence for the effectiveness of other agonists, mainly slow-release morphine, intravenous and inhalable diamorphine and possibly oral diamorphine. Maintenance treatment with intravenous or inhalable diamorphine should be implemented into the healthcare system to treat a group of severely dependent treatment-resistant patients. Furthermore, the opioid-dependent patients not under treatment need to be engaged in maintenance treatments through other harm reduction measures. Agonist maintenance treatment is very effective in stabilizing the health condition and social situation, while also reducing harm, thereby increasing life expectancy and quality of life.

Evidenced-based treatment of opioid-dependent patients

OBJECTIVE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Within- and between- subject variability in methadone pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in methadone maintenance subjects

AIMS

To investigate within- and between-subject variability of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of (R)- and (S)-methadone in methadone maintenance subjects at steady-state.

METHODS

Six non-holder subjects were studied on three occasions at 7-16 day intervals; doses (20-170 mg/day) remained unchanged. Blood samples and pharmacodynamic data were collected 10-12 times over a 24-h inter-dosing interval. All pharmacodynamic data were expressed as the area under the end-point versus time curve. Using analyses of variance with mixed effects, best estimates were made of the ratio of between- to within-subject variation, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for within-subject variation at the average value.

RESULTS

Subjects were relatively consistent between occasions, whereas there was much greater between-subject variability (P < 0.02) for all measures. Estimates of the ratio of between- to within-subject variation ranged from 2.2-12.8 for pharmacodynamic measures, and 1.3-7.9 for pharmacokinetic parameters. For pain, total mood disturbance, withdrawal, pupil size and respiration rate, 95% CI for within-subject measures ranged < or = 2-fold, while this was greater for subjective direct opioid effects (4.2-fold). For CL/F of the active (R)-methadone, the variance ratio was 4.9 (P < 0.0003), with 95% CI for within-subject measures ranging < or = 2-fold. (S)-methadone CL/F demonstrated greater within-subject variability (3.4-fold), possibly contributing to a smaller (2.7; P < 0.0003) ratio of between- to within-subject variance.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-holder methadone maintenance treatment participants appear to respond consistently with respect to pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics over a 1-2 month period. Such knowledge may help prescribers to determine whether alternative dosing regimens or treatments might be more appropriate in this population.

Opioid addicts at admission vs. slow-release oral morphine, methadone, and sublingual buprenorphine maintenance treatment participants

With use of a randomized study design, quality of life (QOL) and physical symptoms of opioid addicts at admission were compared with slow-release oral morphine, methadone, and sublingual buprenorphine maintenance program participants after 6 months of treatment. The study was conducted from February to July 2004 in the outpatient drug user treatment center at University Department of Psychiatry at Innsbruck, providing maintenance treatment programs and detoxification in Tyrol, Austria. One hundred twenty opioid users seeking treatment were compared with 120 opioid-dependent patients retained for 6 months on a slow-release oral morphine, methadone, or sublingual buprenorphine maintenance program. The German version ("Berlin Quality of Life Profile") of the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile was used, and illicit opioid use was determined by urinalysis. Physical symptoms were measured by using the Opioid Withdrawal Scale. Urinalyses revealed a significantly lower consumption of cocaine and opioids in all three substitution groups than in patients at admission (p < 0.001 and p < or = 0.004, respectively). Both the buprenorphine and the methadone maintenance group showed significantly more favorable values than opioid clients at admission for stomach cramps (p < or = 0.002), muscular tension (p < or = 0.027), general pain (p < or = 0.001), feelings of coldness (p < or = 0.000), heart pounding (p < or = 0.008), runny eyes (p < or = 0.047), and aggressions (p < or = 0.009). Patients who received slow-release oral morphine treatment generally showed the least favorable QOL scores compared with patients at admission or sublingual buprenorphine and methadone clients. Patients in the sublingual buprenorphine or methadone program showed nearly the same QOL scores. The buprenorphine and the methadone maintenance group showed significantly more favorable values than opioid clients at admission regarding leisure time (p < or = 0.019), finances (p < or = 0.014), mental health (p < or = 0.010), and overall satisfaction (p < or = 0.010). Slow-release oral morphine is a well-established treatment for pain, but more research is required to evaluate it as a treatment for heroin dependence. The present data indicate that slow-release oral morphine could have some disadvantages compared with sublingual buprenorphine and methadone in QOL, physical symptoms, and additional consumption. The results further suggest that buprenorphine treatment is as effective as methadone in effects on quality of life and physical symptoms.

Safety and efficacy of oral slow release morphine for maintenance treatment in heroin addicts: a 6-month open noncomparative study

This open-label, noncomparative, single-center trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of once-daily treatment with slow release oral morphine (SROM) capsules for the maintenance treatment of 20 outpatients with heroin dependency over 6 months at the National Institute for Addictions in Sofia, Bulgaria. Doses were individually titrated up to a mean daily maintenance dose of 760 mg (range 440-1,200 mg). SROM was effective in significantly reducing the signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal and craving for heroin, with stabilization generally evident within two weeks. Nineteen patients completed 6 months of treatment and illicit opioid use was virtually eliminated. One patient withdrew voluntarily at 22 weeks. Validated questionnaires and tests indicated improvements in patients' well-being from baseline assessments. These included significant improvements with regard to suicidal depression (85%), anxiety and dysphoria (66%), general illness (58%), social dysfunction (54%), sense of hopelessness (34%), attention (25%), and self-reported typical depressive (27%) and disease-related (11%) symptoms. No deaths, serious adverse events, or withdrawals due to adverse events occurred. Five episodes of constipation and one episode of sweating (all nonserious and of mild or moderate severity) were reported. Vital signs were unaffected by SROM and no weight change was evident over the study period. The observations made in this study indicate a promising role for once-daily treatment with SROM in the clinical management of heroin dependency.

Validation of techniques to detect illicit heroin use in patients prescribed pharmaceutical heroin for the management of opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

The clinical implementation and evaluation of heroin substitution programmes have been confounded by the lack of objective and validated biomarkers for illicit heroin use in patients prescribed pharmaceutical heroin. This study examined the capacity to detect illicit heroin use by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis of urine samples for the presence of opium impurities common to illicit, but not pharmaceutical heroin.

AIMS

To characterize the diagnostic properties of the metabolites of noscapine and papaverine in comparison to morphine as a gold-standard marker of illicit heroin use; and to examine the relationships between the self-reported time since most recent heroin use and the detection of these opioids in urine.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study of 52 opioid-dependent patients in treatment (not prescribed heroin), who self-reported illicit heroin use within the preceding 2 weeks. Self-report data regarding recent drug use and a urine sample were collected. GC-MS analyses of urines were conducted and reported by laboratory staff blinded to self-report data.

FINDINGS

The metabolites of papaverine (hydroxypapaverine and dihydroxypapeverine) were found to have high sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive values as markers for illicit heroin use compared to the 'gold-standard' morphine. Other opioids, including 6-mono-acetylmorphine (6-MAM), codeine and noscapine metabolites (e.g. meconine) were less adequate in detecting heroin use.

CONCLUSIONS

GC-MS detection of papaverine metabolites in urine appears to be suitable method of identifying illicit heroin use for clinical and research purposes.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2004

This paper is the 27th consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, now spanning over 30 years of research. It summarizes papers published during 2004 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia; stress and social status; tolerance and dependence; learning and memory; eating and drinking; alcohol and drugs of abuse; sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology; mental illness and mood; seizures and neurologic disorders; electrical-related activity and neurophysiology; general activity and locomotion; gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions; cardiovascular responses; respiration and thermoregulation; and immunological responses.

Heroin maintenance for chronic heroin dependents

BACKGROUND

Many medications have been used for stabilizing heroin users: Methadone, Buprenorphine and LAAM. The present review focus on the prescription of heroin to heroin dependents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and acceptability of heroin maintenance versus methadone or other substitution treatments for opioid dependence, in retaining patients in treatment; reducing the use of illicit substances and improving health and social functioning.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL) issue 1, 2005; MEDLINE 1966-2005, EMBASE 1980-2005 and CINAHL till 2005 (on OVID) were searched. There was no language or publication year restrictions. Many researchers were contacted for information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of heroin (alone or combined with methadone) maintenance treatment compared with any other pharmacological treatments for heroin dependents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The trials were independently assessed for inclusion and methodological quality by the reviewers. Data were extracted independently and double checked. Studies were not pooled together because of heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

2400 references were obtained and 20 studies were eligible, 4 met the inclusion criteria for a total of 577 patients. The studies could not be analysed cumulatively because of heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes. Retention in treatment: no groups difference was found in two studies; one study (N=96) found RR=2.82 (95% CI 1.70-4.68) favouring heroin; one study (N=235) found RR 0.79 (95%CI 0.68-0.90) favouring methadone. Relapse to illegal heroin use (self- reported): in one study people using heroin in treatment was 64% (heroin group)and 59% (methadone group); in the other study the RR of heroin use was 0.33 (95%CI 0.15-0.72) favouring heroin. Criminal offence: one study showed the potential of heroin prescription in reducing the risk of being charged RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.14-0.78). Social functioning: two studies did not show statistical difference between intervention groups, and two studies considered criminal offence and social functioning as part of a multidomain outcome measure showing improvements among those treated with heroin plus methadone over those on methadone only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No definitive conclusions about the overall effectiveness of heroin prescription is possible. Results favouring heroin treatment come from studies conducted in countries where easily accessible Methadone Maintenance Treatment at effective dosages is available. In those studies heroin prescription was addressed to patients who had failed previous methadone treatments. The present review contains information about ongoing trials which results will be integrated as soon as available.

Use of slow-release oral morphine for the treatment of opioid dependence

AIMS

In addition to methadone, other synthetic opioids are now available for the treatment of opioid dependence. The study investigated the treatment satisfaction of oral slow-release morphine for maintenance therapy in opioid-dependent patients in an open-label 3-week study.

DESIGN

We evaluated the treatment satisfaction of oral slow-release morphine hydrochloride for 3 weeks in 110 patients meeting the diagnosis of opioid dependence (DSM-IV 304.0) or polysubstance dependence (DSM-IV 304.9).

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome measures were the study retention rate, urinalysis for additional illicit consumption other than heroin, cravings and withdrawal symptoms 24 h after the last intake of the medication (duration of action of treatment).

FINDINGS

In total, 103 patients completed the study, representing a retention rate of 94%. Patients reported significant improvements in somatic complaints, as well as significant reductions in heroin and cocaine cravings (p < 0.0001) and in additional consumption of cocaine in supervised urinalysis (p = 0.0083). Additional illicit consumption of benzodiazepines remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

The high study retention rate implies a good acceptance of slow-release acting oral morphine. However, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy studies with a longer investigational period are needed to meet criteria for evidence-based medicine.