Randomised Comparison of a Novel Buprenorphine Oral Lyophilisate versus Existing Buprenorphine Sublingual Tablets in Opioid-Dependent Patients: A First-in-Patient Phase II Randomised Open Label Safety Study

Non-Prescribed Substance Use during the First Month of Treatment by People Receiving Depot Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder

Background: Non-prescribed substance use (NPSU) during the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is a recognized phenomenon. The use of non-prescribed substances is associated with discontinuing treatment and drop-out can occur within the early weeks of treatment, before benefit from treatment occurs. Recent developments in treatment include long-acting, slow-release depot buprenorphine injections. This article focuses on NPSU during the first month of treatment with depot buprenorphine, addressing the frequency with which it occurs, the substances used, and reasons for use. Methods: 70 semi-structured interviews (held at three time-points) were conducted with 26 patients initiating depot buprenorphine as part of a longitudinal qualitative study. Analysis prioritized content and framework analyses. Findings: 17/26 participants self-reported NPSU at various times during the first month of treatment. NPSU typically involved heroin, crack-cocaine and some use of benzodiazepines and/or cannabis. Participants' reasons for heroin use were connected to their subjective accounts of opioid withdrawal symptoms, the management of pain, and experimentation (to test the blockade effect of buprenorphine). Frequency of heroin use was typically episodic rather than sustained. Participants associated crack-cocaine use with stimulant-craving and social connections, and considered their use of this substance to be difficult to manage. Conclusions: Patients' initial engagement with treatment for OUD is rarely examined in qualitative research. This study highlights how NPSU amongst patients receiving new forms of such treatment continues to be a challenge. As such, shared decision-making (between providers and patients) regarding treatment goals and NPSU should be central to the delivery of depot buprenorphine treatment programmes.

Predicting Patient Satisfaction With Medications for Treating Opioid Use Disorder: Case Study Applying Natural Language Processing to Reviews of Methadone and Buprenorphine/Naloxone on Health-Related Social Media

Background

Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is an effective method for treating opioid use disorder (OUD), which combines behavioral therapies with one of three Food and Drug Administration-approved medications: methadone, buprenorphine, and naloxone. While MAT has been shown to be effective initially, there is a need for more information from the patient perspective about the satisfaction with medications. Existing research focuses on patient satisfaction with the entirety of the treatment, making it difficult to determine the unique role of medication and overlooking the views of those who may lack access to treatment due to being uninsured or concerns over stigma. Studies focusing on patients' perspectives are also limited by the lack of scales that can efficiently collect self-reports across domains of concerns.

Objective

A broad survey of patients' viewpoints can be obtained through social media and drug review forums, which are then assessed using automated methods to discover factors associated with medication satisfaction. Because the text is unstructured, it may contain a mix of formal and informal language. The primary aim of this study was to use natural language processing methods on text posted on health-related social media to detect patients' satisfaction with two well-studied OUD medications: methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone.

Methods

We collected 4353 patient reviews of methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone from 2008 to 2021 posted on WebMD and Drugs.com. To build our predictive models for detecting patient satisfaction, we first employed different analyses to build four input feature sets using the vectorized text, topic models, duration of treatment, and biomedical concepts by applying MetaMap. We then developed six prediction models: logistic regression, Elastic Net, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, random forest classifier, Ridge classifier, and extreme gradient boosting to predict patients' satisfaction. Lastly, we compared the prediction models' performance over different feature sets.

Results

Topics discovered included oral sensation, side effects, insurance, and doctor visits. Biomedical concepts included symptoms, drugs, and illnesses. The F-score of the predictive models across all methods ranged from 89.9% to 90.8%. The Ridge classifier model, a regression-based method, outperformed the other models.

Conclusions

Assessment of patients' satisfaction with opioid dependency treatment medication can be predicted using automated text analysis. Adding biomedical concepts such as symptoms, drug name, and illness, along with the duration of treatment and topic models, had the most benefits for improving the prediction performance of the Elastic Net model compared to other models. Some of the factors associated with patient satisfaction overlap with domains covered in medication satisfaction scales (eg, side effects) and qualitative patient reports (eg, doctors' visits), while others (insurance) are overlooked, thereby underscoring the value added from processing text on online health forums to better understand patient adherence.

Undetected Respiratory Depression in People with Opioid Use Disorder

BACKGROUND

Opioid-related deaths are increasing globally. Respiratory complications of opioid use and underlying respiratory disease in people with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) are potential contributory factors. Individual variation in susceptibility to overdose is, however, incompletely understood. This study investigated the prevalence of respiratory depression (RD) in OUD treatment and compared this to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) of equivalent severity. We also explored the contribution of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) dosage, and type, to the prevalence of RD.

METHODS

There were four groups of participants: 1) OUD plus COPD ('OUD-COPD', n = 13); 2) OUD without COPD ('OUD', n = 7); 3) opioid-naïve COPD patients ('COPD'n = 13); 4) healthy controls ('HC'n = 7). Physiological indices, including pulse oximetry (SpO₂%), end-tidal CO₂ (ETCO₂), transcutaneous CO₂ (TcCO₂), respiratory airflow and second intercostal space parasternal muscle electromyography (EMG_para), were recorded continuously over 40 min whilst awake at rest. Significant RD was defined as: SpO₂%< 90% for > 10 s, ETCO₂ per breath > 6.6 kPa, TcCO₂ overall mean > 6 kPa, respiratory pauses > 10 s RESULTS: At least one indicator was observed in every participant with OUD (n = 20). This compared to RD episode occurrence in only 2/7 HC and 2/13 COPD participants (p < 0.05,Fisher's exact test). The occurrence of RD was similar in OUD participants prescribed methadone (n = 6) compared to those prescribed buprenorphine (n = 12).

CONCLUSIONS

Undetected RD is common in OUD cohorts receiving OAT and is significantly more severe than in opioid-naïve controls. RD can be assessed using simple objective measures. Further studies are required to determine the association between RD and overdose risk.

Perception of a New Prolonged-Release Buprenorphine Formulation in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder: The PREDEPO Study

AIM

The aim of the study was to assess the acceptance of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to switching their opioid dependence treatment (ODT) for a prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB) injection according to their prior ODT (buprenorphine/naloxone [B/N] or methadone).

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective/cross-sectional, multicentre study of adult patients diagnosed with OUD on ODT. Data collected from diaries were analysed to know their interest and opinion on PRB. Questions with fixed response options were included, and several Likert scales were used.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients were enrolled (B/N: 50.0%, methadone: 50.0%). The mean age was 46.9 ± 8.43 years and 79.6% were males. PRB was similarly perceived by both groups in most variables analysed, receiving a mean score of 7.2/10 (B/N: 7.4, methadone: 7.0; p = 0.520), and approximately 65% of patients said they were willing to switch to PRB (B/N: 63.3%, methadone: 65.3%; p = 0.833). Of these, a higher percentage in the B/N group considered that switching would be easy/very easy (B/N: 90.3%, methadone: 46.9%; p < 0.001) and that they would start PRB when available (B/N: 64.5%, methadone: 34.3%; p = 0.005). More than 90% would prefer the monthly injection (B/N: 93.6%, methadone: 100%; p = 0.514). One-third of patients in both groups were unsure/would not switch their ODT to PRB (B/N: 36.7%, methadone: 34.7%; p = 0.833). The main reason was administration by injection.

CONCLUSION

Two-thirds of patients would switch their treatment for PRB, and most patients on B/N considered that switching would be easy. PRB could be a suitable alternative for OUD management.

Depot buprenorphine injections for opioid use disorder: Patient information needs and preferences

Introduction and Aims

There has been significant recent investment in new medications for opioid use disorder, including buprenorphine depot injections. Patients and professionals need good quality, independent information on medications to help them make informed treatment decisions. This paper aims to understand patients’ information needs and preferences in relation to buprenorphine depot injections.

Design and Methods

Semi‐structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 36 people using opioids (26 men, 10 women; 24–63 years). Twelve participants were currently prescribed daily oral methadone; 12 were currently prescribed daily oral buprenorphine; and 12 were using heroin and not in treatment. Interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed via Iterative Categorisation.

Results

Participants asked many questions about depot buprenorphine injections. These related to: (i) medication purpose and availability; (ii) pharmacology; (iii) evidence base and effectiveness; (iv) safety and side effects; (v) administration and dosing; and (vi) reducing and ending treatment. Additionally, participants expressed their information preferences in terms of (i) ‘format’ and (ii) ‘source’. Specifically, they wanted printed, verbal and electronic materials provided by people in authority, particularly patients who had already had the medication.

Discussion and Conclusions

All potential patients should be offered accessible information on depot buprenorphine to enable them to consider their options and participate meaningfully in treatment decision making. We recommend that further qualitative research is undertaken to produce informative video material that describes patient experiences of receiving depot buprenorphine. This should help to balance biomedical knowledge with lay knowledge, so facilitating more informed discussions when decisions about depot buprenorphine treatment are made.

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.

Rapid titration of opiate doses via patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for patients with severe cancer pain

This study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for opiate titration in patients with severe cancer. Eligible patients with cancer pain were randomly divided into two groups, which were titrated with a subcutaneous injection of morphine and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia, respectively. The time required for patients to begin titration to reach visual analog scale score ⩽ 3, the adverse reactions during titration, the time spent by nurses in titrating each patient, and the time to complete the titration with a delayed-release dosage form analgesic effect and adverse reaction. The mean titration time of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia group (1.09 ± 0.82 vs 2.97 ± 1.98) and morphine dosage (18.78 ± 12.32 vs 13.23 ± 8.07) were significantly lower than those in the subcutaneous group ( P < 0.05). The incidences of nausea, vomiting, pruritus, urinary retention, and sedation in the subcutaneous injection group were significantly lower than those in the subcutaneous injection group ( P < 0.05). The assessment times of the two groups (10.19 ± 3.72 vs 10.25 ± 4.88) were similar ( P > 0.05). However, the time required for subcutaneous injection in patients under patient-controlled intravenous analgesia was significantly lower than that in the subcutaneous injection group (36.36 ± 12.15 vs 132.36 ± 32.79), which was statistically significant ( P < 0.05). After the titration, the controlled release opioid was used to treat cancer pain. The visual analog scale score of the patient-controlled intravenous analgesia group was significantly lower than that of the subcutaneous group (2.44 ± 1.37 vs 2.73 ± 0.91) at 7 days after treatment in the subcutaneous group (1.05 ± 0.30 vs 2.45 ± 1.29; P < 0.05). Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia technique can effectively and quickly complete the titration of cancer pain treatment with less occupational care resources and is better than the subcutaneous injection titration.

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.