General anaesthesia does not improve outcome in opioid antagonist detoxification treatment: a randomized controlled trial

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Craving and opioid use disorder: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The subjective experience of drug craving is a prominent and common clinical phenomenon for many individuals diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD), and could be a valuable clinical endpoint in medication development studies. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview and critical analysis of opioid craving assessments located in the published literature examining OUD.

METHOD

Studies were identified through a search of PubMed, Embase, and PsychInfo databases and included for review if opioid craving was the focus and participants were diagnosed with or in treatment for OUD.

RESULTS

Fifteen opioid craving assessment instruments were identified across the 87 studies included for review. The most common were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS, 41 studies), Desires for Drug Questionnaire (DDQ, 12 studies), Heroin Craving Questionnaire (HCQ, 10 studies), and Obsessive-Compulsive Drug Use Scale (OCDUS, 10 studies). Craving assessments varied considerably in their format, content, time frame, and underlying subscales, and only 6 of 15 had been psychometrically evaluated.

DISCUSSION

This review identified a variety of opioid craving assessments, but few had been evaluated for their psychometric properties making it difficult to ascertain whether craving is being assessed optimally in studies of OUD. Thus, the development of a reliable and valid opioid craving assessment would be worthwhile and could be guided by recently published Food and Drug Administration Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) guidelines. Importantly, a COA focused on opioid craving could be a valuable addition to research studies designed to evaluate novel treatments for OUD.

Pharmacological therapies for management of opium withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Pharmacologic therapies for management of heroin withdrawal have been studied and reviewed widely. Opium dependence is generally associated with less severe dependence and milder withdrawal symptoms than heroin. The evidence on withdrawal management of heroin might therefore not be exactly applicable for opium.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of various pharmacologic therapies for the management of the acute phase of opium withdrawal.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following sources up to September 2017: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, regional and national databases (IMEMR, Iranmedex, and IranPsych), main electronic sources of ongoing trials, and reference lists of all relevant papers. In addition, we contacted known investigators to obtain missing data or incomplete trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials and randomised controlled trials on pharmacological therapies, compared with no intervention, placebo, other pharmacologic treatments, different doses of the same drug, and psychosocial intervention, to manage acute withdrawal from opium in a maximum duration of 30 days.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 1096 participants. No pooled analysis was possible. Studies were carried out in three countries, Iran, India, and Thailand, in outpatient and inpatient settings. The quality of the evidence was generally very low.When the mean of withdrawal symptoms was provided for several days, we mainly focused on day 3. The reason for this was that the highest severity of opium withdrawal is in the second to fourth day.Comparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, clonidine was twice as good as methadone for completion of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.38; 361 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). All the other results showed no differences between the considered drugs: baclofen versus clonidine (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.80; 66 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence); clonidine versus clonidine plus amantadine (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24; 69 participants, 1 study); clonidine versus buprenorphine in an inpatient setting (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 1 study, 35 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus tramadol (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37; 1 study, 72 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.43; 1 study, 40 participants, low-quality evidence), and tincture of opium versus methadone (1 study, 74 participants, low-quality evidence).Comparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, adding amantadine to clonidine decreased withdrawal scores rated at day 3 (mean difference (MD) -3.56, 95% CI -5.97 to -1.15; 1 study, 60 participants, very low-quality evidence). Comparing clonidine with buprenorphine in an inpatient setting, we found no difference in withdrawal symptoms rated by a physician (MD -1.40, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.13; 1 study, 34 participants, very low-quality evidence), and results in favour of buprenorpine when rated by participants (MD -11.80, 95% CI -15.56 to -8.04). Buprenorphine was superior to clonidine in controlling severe withdrawal symptoms in an outpatient setting (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1 study, 76 participants). We found no difference in the comparison of methadone versus tramadol (MD 0.04, 95% CI -2.68 to 2.76; 1 study, 72 participants) and in the comparison of methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (MD -2.20, 95% CI -6.72 to 2.32; 1 study, 40 participants).Comparing clonidine versus buprenorphine in an outpatient setting, more adverse effects were reported in the clonidine group (1 study, 76 participants). Higher numbers of participants in the clonidine group experienced hypotension at days 5 to 8, headache at days 1 to 8, sedation at days 5 to 8, dizziness and dry mouth at days 1 to 10, and nausea at days 1 to 9. Sweating was reported in a significantly higher number of participants in the buprenorphine group at days 1 to 10. We found no difference between groups for all the other comparisons considering this outcome.Comparing different dosages of the same pharmacological detoxification treatment, a high dose of clonidine (1 to 1.2 mg/day) did not differ from a low dose of clonidine (0.5 to 0.6 mg/day) in completion of treatment in an inpatient setting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19; 1 study, 68 participants), however a higher number of participants with hypotension was reported in the high-dose group (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.98). Gradual reduction of methadone was associated with more adverse effects than abrupt withdrawal of methadone (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.94; 1 study, 20 participants, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results did not support using any specific pharmacological approach for the management of opium withdrawal due to generally very low-quality evidence and small or no differences between treatments. However, it seems that opium withdrawal symptoms are significant, especially at days 2 to 4 after discontinuation of opium. All of the assessed medications might be useful in alleviating symptoms. Those who receive clonidine might experience hypotension.

Opioid antagonists with minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of opioid antagonists plus minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal. Comparators were placebo as well as more established approaches to detoxification, such as tapered doses of methadone, adrenergic agonists, buprenorphine and symptomatic medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to December 2016: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials along with prospective controlled cohort studies comparing opioid antagonists plus minimal sedation versus other approaches or different opioid antagonist regimens for withdrawal in opioid-dependent participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (6 randomised controlled trials and 4 prospective cohort studies, involving 955 participants) met the inclusion criteria for the review. We considered 7 of the 10 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one of the domains we assessed.Nine studies compared an opioid antagonist-adrenergic agonist combination versus a treatment regimen based primarily on an alpha2-adrenergic agonist (clonidine or lofexidine). Other comparisons (placebo, tapered doses of methadone, buprenorphine) made by included studies were too diverse for any meaningful analysis. This review therefore focuses on the nine studies comparing an opioid antagonist (naltrexone or naloxone) plus clonidine or lofexidine versus treatment primarily based on clonidine or lofexidine.Five studies took place in an inpatient setting, two studies were in outpatients with day care, two used day care only for the first day of opioid antagonist administration, and one study described the setting as outpatient without indicating the level of care provided.The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of the type of opioid antagonist treatment regimen, the comparator, the outcome measures assessed, and the means of assessing outcomes. As a result, the validity of any estimates of overall effect is doubtful, therefore we did not calculate pooled results for any of the analyses.The quality of the evidence for treatment with an opioid antagonist-adrenergic agonist combination versus an alpha2-adrenergic agonist is very low. Two studies reported data on peak withdrawal severity, and four studies reported data on the average severity over the period of withdrawal. Peak withdrawal induced by opioid antagonists in combination with an adrenergic agonist appears to be more severe than withdrawal managed with clonidine or lofexidine alone, but the average severity over the withdrawal period is less. In some situations antagonist-induced withdrawal may be associated with significantly higher rates of treatment completion compared to withdrawal managed with adrenergic agonists. However, this result was not consistent across studies, and the extent of any benefit is highly uncertain.We could not extract any data on the occurrence of adverse events, but two studies reported delirium or confusion following the first dose of naltrexone. Delirium may be more likely with higher initial doses and with naltrexone rather than naloxone (which has a shorter half-life), but we could not confirm this from the available evidence.Insufficient data were available to make any conclusions on the best duration of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using opioid antagonists plus alpha2-adrenergic agonists is a feasible approach for managing opioid withdrawal. However, it is unclear whether this approach reduces the duration of withdrawal or facilitates transfer to naltrexone treatment to a greater extent than withdrawal managed primarily with an adrenergic agonist.A high level of monitoring and support is desirable for several hours following administration of opioid antagonists because of the possibility of vomiting, diarrhoea and delirium.Using opioid antagonists to induce and accelerate opioid withdrawal is not currently an active area of research or clinical practice, and the research community should give greater priority to investigating approaches, such as those based on buprenorphine, that facilitate the transition to sustained-release preparations of naltrexone.

Changes in Potassium Concentration During Opioid Antagonist Induction: Comparison of Two Randomized Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

Opioid antagonist induction under general anesthesia or heavy sedation has been criticized due to its associated morbidity and mortality. Information on the potential causes of these complications is limited. We aimed to compare electrolyte concentration changes during rapid opioid antagonist induction under general anesthesia and conscious sedation, and to find out whether these changes are associated with cardiovascular complications.

METHODS

We used a pooled database analysis of 2 prospective randomized controlled clinical trials carried out in Lithuania between 2002 and 2014. Opioid-dependent patients underwent opioid antagonist induction under general anesthesia (n = 50) or conscious sedation (n = 68). Electrolyte levels were measured before the procedure, 3 hours after antagonist induction, and 3 hours after the end of the procedure.

RESULTS

General anesthesia was associated with initial hyperkalemia, which was followed by rapid reduction in potassium concentration (P < 0.01). Plasma potassium increase was noted in 92% of cases, and in 24%, these levels increased above 6.0 mmol/L, with a highest value of 6.7 mmol/L. Potassium concentration changes in the conscious sedation group were not statistically significant. There were no differences in sodium, calcium, chloride, and magnesium concentrations in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Plasma potassium concentration changes in the general anesthesia group were significant, whereas conscious sedation had no effect on electrolyte levels. Our data support the recommendation of the American Society of Addiction Medicine and other professional societies that opioid antagonist induction under general anesthesia must not be offered.

Estimation of the Time Interval between the Administration of Heroin and the Sampling of Blood in Chronic Inhalers

To develop a model for estimating the time delay between last heroin consumption and blood sampling in chronic drug users. Eleven patients, all heroin inhalers undergoing detoxification, were included in the study. Several plasma samples were collected during the detoxification procedure and analyzed for the heroin metabolites 6-acetylmorphine (6AM), morphine (MOR), morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) and morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G), according to a UHPLC/MSMS method. The general linear mixed model was applied to time-related concentrations and a pragmatic four-step delay estimation approach was proposed based on the simultaneous presence of metabolites in plasma. Validation of the model was carried out using the jackknife technique on the 11 patients, and on a group of 7 test patients. Quadratic equations were derived for all metabolites except 6AM. The interval delay estimation was 2-4 days when only M3G present in plasma, 1-2 days when M6G and M3G were both present, 0-1 day when MOR, M6G and M3G were present and <2 h for all metabolites present. The 'jackknife' correlation between declared and actual estimated delays was 0.90. The overall precision of the delay estimates was 8-9 h. The delay between last heroin consumption and blood sampling in chronic drug users can be satisfactorily predicted from plasma heroin metabolites.

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

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

Prediction of abstinence in opioid-dependent patients

OBJECTIVES

: Opioid detoxification with subsequent naltrexone is found to be an effective method as the first step in an abstinence-oriented approach. The aim of this study is to investigate the predictive value of variables for abstinence in opioid-dependent patients.

METHODS

: Opioid-dependent patients were followed up to 1 month after detoxification. Predictor variables were assessed at baseline, during detoxification, and at discharge. Primary outcome was abstinence assessed by analyzing urine samples and self-reports. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of abstinence.

RESULTS

: Of 272 participants, 211 could be rated as abstinent (59.2%) or nonabstinent (40.8%) at 1 month follow-up. Significant baseline predictors were severity score of justice/police (ASI) and physical quality of life (SF-36); discharge predictors were general quality of health (SF-36) and sleeping problems (SCL-90); change in sleeping problems (SCL-90) during detoxification was also a predictor. The explained variance of these predictors was very low and clinical significance was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

: Considering the results it seems not possible to predict who will be abstinent or not 1 month after detoxification. Because rapid detoxification is found to be an effective detoxification method in selected patients, it seems warranted to recommend that patients with similar characteristics (ie, patients motivated for an abstinence-based treatment and low non-drug-related severity scores on the ASI) should be regarded as eligible for rapid detoxification.

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.

Opioid antagonists under heavy sedation or anaesthesia for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Opioid antagonists with minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of opioid antagonists in combination with minimal sedation to manage opioid withdrawal.

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled studies of interventions involving the use of opioid antagonists in combination with minimal sedation to manage withdrawal in opioid-dependent participants compared with other approaches or different opioid antagonist regimes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (6 randomised controlled trials), involving 837 participants, met the inclusion criteria for the review.The quality of the evidence is low, but suggests that withdrawal induced by opioid antagonists in combination with an adrenergic agonist is more intense than withdrawal managed with clonidine or lofexidine alone, while the overall severity is less. Delirium may occur following the first dose of opioid antagonist, particularly with higher doses (> 25mg naltrexone).In some situations antagonist-induced withdrawal may be associated with significantly higher rates of completion of treatment, comp[ared to withdrawal managed primarily with adrenergic agonists. However, this outcome has not been produced consistently, and the extent of any benefit is highly uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of opioid antagonists combined with alpha(2)-adrenergic agonists is a feasible approach to the management of opioid withdrawal. However, it is unclear whether this approach reduces the duration of withdrawal or facilitates transfer to naltrexone treatment to a greater extent than withdrawal managed primarily with an adrenergic agonist.A high level of monitoring and support is desirable for several hours following administration of opioid antagonists because of the possibility of vomiting, diarrhoea and delirium.Further research is required to confirm the relative effectiveness of antagonist-induced regimes, as well as variables influencing the severity of withdrawal, adverse effects, the most effective antagonist-based treatment regime, and approaches that might increase retention in subsequent naltrexone maintenance treatment.

Early outcomes following low dose naltrexone enhancement of opioid detoxification

Although withdrawal severity and treatment completion are the initial focus of opioid detoxification, post-detoxification outcome better defines effective interventions. Very low dose naltrexone (VLNTX) in addition to methadone taper was recently associated with attenuated withdrawal intensity during detoxification. We describe the results of a seven-day follow-up evaluation of 96 subjects who completed inpatient detoxification consisting of the addition of VLNTX (0.125 or 0.250 mg per day) or placebo to methadone taper in a double blind, randomized investigation. Individuals receiving VLNTX during detoxification reported reduced withdrawal and drug use during the first 24 hours after discharge. VLNTX addition was also associated with higher rates of negative drug tests for opioids and cannabis and increased engagement in outpatient treatment after one week. Further studies are needed to test the utility of this approach in easing the transition from detoxification to various follow-up treatment modalities designed to address opioid dependence.

Very low dose naltrexone addition in opioid detoxification: a randomized, controlled trial

Although current treatments for opioid detoxification are not always effective, medical detoxification remains a required step before long-term interventions. The use of opioid antagonist medications to improve detoxification has produced inconsistent results. Very low dose naltrexone (VLNTX) was recently found to reduce opioid tolerance and dependence in animal and clinical studies. We decided to evaluate safety and efficacy of VLNTX adjunct to methadone in reducing withdrawal during detoxification. In a multi-center, double-blind, randomized study at community treatment programs, where most detoxifications are performed, 174 opioid-dependent subjects received NTX 0.125 mg, 0.250 mg or placebo daily for 6 days, together with methadone in tapering doses. VLNTX-treated individuals reported attenuated withdrawal symptoms [F = 7.24 (2,170); P = 0.001] and reduced craving [F = 3.73 (2,107); P = 0.03]. Treatment effects were more pronounced at discharge and were not accompanied by a significantly higher retention rate. There were no group differences in use of adjuvant medications and no treatment-related adverse events. Further studies should explore the use of VLNTX, combined with full and partial opioid agonist medications, in detoxification and long-term treatment of opioid dependence.

Pharmacologic treatments for opioid dependence: detoxification and maintenance options

While opioid dependence has more treatment agents available than other abused drugs, none are curative. They can, however, markedly diminish withdrawal symptoms and craving, and block opioid effects due to lapses.

The most effective withdrawal method is substituting and tapering methadone or buprenorphine, α-2 Adrenergic agents can ameliorate untreated symptoms or substitute for agonists if not available. Shortening withdrawal by precipitating it with narcotic antagonists has been studied, but the methods are plagued by safety issues or persisting symptoms. Neither the withdrawal agents nor the methods are associated with better long-term outcome, which appears mostly related to post-detoxification treatment.

Excluding those with short-term habits, the best outcome occurs with long-term maintenance on methadone or buprenorphine accompanied by appropriate psychosocial interventions. Those with strong external motivation may do well on the antagonist naltrexone. Currently, optimum duration of maintenance on either is unclear. Better agents are needed to impact the brain changes related to addiction.

Economic evaluation of interventions to treat opiate dependence : a review of the evidence

Opiate dependence imposes a significant economic burden on society in terms of treatment-related costs and prevention services, other healthcare costs, the work absenteeism of patients, productivity loss arising from premature death of patients, costs associated with crime, and social welfare expenditure. The objective of this research is to review the literature on economic evaluation of treatment of opiate dependence (including detoxification, maintenance and psychosocial support).A literature review was performed on several electronic databases, including MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, NHS Economic Evaluation Library Database (via Cochrane Library), Web of Science, Social Science Citations Index, EMBASE and PsycINFO. A sensitive approach was used in order to maximize the number of articles retrieved; no language or publication year limitations were applied to the searches. A combination of subject heading term searches and natural word searches were used. The Drummond checklist was applied to assess the quality of economic evaluations.A total of 259 articles were considered relevant, with eight review studies identified. The treatment spectrum ranged from detoxification to maintenance treatments involving the use of agonist and/or antagonist treatments. The evidence suggests that, although the quality of economic evaluations is reasonably good, there is a dearth of knowledge about the cost effectiveness of treatments for opiate dependence. The majority of the literature reporting the results of cost-effectiveness analyses used surrogate outcome measures and adopted a narrow treatment provider perspective. Studies that have conducted cost-benefit analyses, in spite of methodological divergences, generally adopted a societal perspective and consistently demonstrated positive economic returns from opiate treatment. A paucity of research examined the extent to which psychosocial or behavioural interventions support or replace conventional pharmacological approaches. Economic evaluation provides a useful framework to assist policy makers in allocating resources across competing needs. Opiate dependence is a considerable burden on society's resources, and treatment provides a cost-beneficial solution to address these consequences. However, to better inform the decision-making process, researchers must continue to produce high-quality, methodological, comparable and scientifically credible economic evaluations.

Does naltrexone affect craving in abstinent opioid-dependent patients?

Naltrexone blocks the opioid receptors that modulate the release of dopamine in the brain reward system and therefore blocks the rewarding effects of heroin and alcohol. It is generally assumed that naltrexone leads to reduction of craving, but few studies have been performed to prove this. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of the administration of naltrexone on craving level after rapid opioid detoxification induced by naltrexone. A naturalistic study was carried out in which patients were followed during 10 months after rapid detoxification. Data about abstinence, relapse, and naltrexone use were collected by means of urine specimens. Craving was measured by the visual analogue scale craving, the Obsessive Compulsive Drug Use Scale, and the Desires for Drug Questionnaire. Results showed that patients who relapsed in opioid use experienced obviously more craving than abstinent people. Patients who took naltrexone did not experience significant less craving than those who did not. These results suggest that the use of opioids is associated with increased craving and that abstinence for opioids is associated with less craving, independent of the use of naltrexone. This is in contrast to the general opinion. Because of the naturalistic design of the study, no firm conclusions can be drawn, but the results grounded the needs of an experimental study.

Naloxone treatment in opioid addiction: the risks and benefits

Naloxone is a non-selective, short-acting opioid receptor antagonist that has a long clinical history of successful use and is presently considered a safe drug over a wide dose range (up to 10 mg). In opioid-dependent patients, naloxone is used in the treatment of opioid-overdose-induced respiratory depression, in (ultra)rapid detoxification and in combination with buprenorphine for maintenance therapy (to prevent intravenous abuse). Risks related to naloxone use in opioid-dependent patients are: i) the induction of an acute withdrawal syndrome (the occurrence of vomiting and aspiration is potentially life threatening); ii) the effect of naloxone may wear off prematurely when used for treatment of opioid-induced respiratory depression; and iii) in patients treated for severe pain with an opioid, high-dose naloxone and/or rapidly infused naloxone may cause catecholamine release and consequently pulmonary edema and cardiac arrhythmias. These risks warrant the cautious use of naloxone and adequate monitoring of the cardiorespiratory status of the patient after naloxone administration where indicated.

Psychometric evaluation of the Dutch version of the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS)

AIM

To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the 16-item Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS). The SOWS measures withdrawal symptoms at the time of assessment.

METHODS

The Dutch SOWS was repeatedly administered to a sample of 272 opioid-dependent inpatients of four addiction treatment centers during rapid detoxification with or without general anesthesia. Examination of the psychometric properties of the SOWS included exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity.

RESULTS

Exploratory factor analysis of the SOWS revealed a general pattern of four factors with three items not always clustered in the same factors at different points of measurement. After excluding these items from factor analysis four factors were identified during detoxification (temperature dysregulation, tractus locomotorius, tractus gastro-intestinalis and facial disinhibition). The 13-item SOWS shows high internal consistency and test-retest reliability and good validity at different stages of withdrawal.

CONCLUSION

The 13-item SOWS is a reliable and valid instrument to assess opioid withdrawal during rapid detoxification. Three items were deleted because their content does not correspond directly with opioid withdrawal symptoms.

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.

The place of detoxification in treatment of opioid dependence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Opioid antagonists under heavy sedation or anaesthesia for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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