Buprenorphine buccal film for chronic pain management

Economic burden and dosing trends of buprenorphine buccal film and transdermal patch in chronic low back pain

Aim: Exploring prescribing trends and economic burden of chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients prescribed buprenorphine buccal film (Belbuca®) or transdermal patches. Methods: In the MarketScan® commercial insurance claims (employees and their spouses/dependents, 2018-2021), the first film or patch prescription date was an index event. The observation covered 6-month pre-index and 12-month post-index periods. Results: Patients were propensity-score matched (708 per cohort). Buprenorphine initiation had stable cost trends in buccal film and increasing trends in transdermal patch cohort. Between-cohort comparisons of healthcare expenditures, cost trends and resource utilization showed significant differences, mostly in favor of buccal film. Buccal film also had higher daily doses and wider dosing range. Conclusion: Buprenorphine film is more cost-effective cLBP treatment with more flexible dosing.

Buprenorphine for Pain: A Narrative Review and Practical Applications

Chronic noncancer pain affects about 20% of US adults and can significantly affect function and quality of life. Current guidelines recommend multimodal pain control. Despite risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, opioids are commonly prescribed. Buprenorphine is a partial opioid agonist with an improved safety profile compared to full agonists. Some formulations are approved for chronic pain and others for opioid use disorder. Buprenorphine is an option for patients who use chronic daily opioids for pain. This review summarizes the literature on buprenorphine's efficacy and safety for chronic pain and provides recommendations to generalists on initiation, titration, and monitoring of buprenorphine-based pain treatment. We also discuss a communication approach when considering buprenorphine for pain.

Frontline Perspectives on Buprenorphine for the Management of Chronic Pain

Due to the prevalence of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain in the US, a significant percentage of the population is prescribed opioids for pain management. However, opioid use disorder is associated with reduced quality of life, along with fatal opioid overdoses, and is a significant burden on the US economy. Considering the clinical needs of patients with intractable chronic pain and the potential harms associated with prescribed and illicit opioids in our communities, having a deep understanding of current treatment options, supporting evidence, and clinical practice guidelines is essential for optimizing treatment selections. Buprenorphine is a Schedule III opioid with a unique mechanism of action, allowing effective and long-lasting analgesia at microgram doses with fewer negative side effects and adverse events, including respiratory depression, when compared with other immediate-release, long-acting, and extended-release prescription opioids. Due to its relatively lower risk for overdose and misuse, buprenorphine was recently added to the Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Opioids in the Management of Chronic Pain as a first-line treatment for chronic pain managed by opioids by the US Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Health and Human Services recommends that buprenorphine be made available for the treatment of chronic pain. In this narrative review, we discuss the different buprenorphine formulations, clinical efficacy, advantages for older adults and other special populations, clinical practice guideline recommendations, and payer considerations of buprenorphine and suggest that buprenorphine products approved for chronic pain should be considered as a first-line treatment for this indication.

Analgesic Effect of Buprenorphine for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist at the µ-opioid receptor and an antagonist at the delta and kappa opioid receptors. It has high affinity and low intrinsic activity at the µ-opioid receptor. Buprenorphine demonstrates no ceiling effect for clinical analgesia, but demonstrates this for respiratory depression and euphoria. It may provide effective analgesia while producing less adverse effects, making it a promising opioid analgesic. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to examine the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine for patients with chronic noncancer pain.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLNE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2022. Randomized controlled trials were included if they compared buprenorphine versus placebo or active analgesic in patients with chronic noncancer pain, where pain score was an outcome. Nonrandomized controlled trials, observational studies, qualitative studies, case reports, and commentaries were excluded. Two investigators independently performed the literature search, study selection, and data collection. A random-effects model was used. The primary outcome was the effect of buprenorphine on pain intensity in patients with chronic noncancer pain based on standardized mean difference (SMD) in pain score. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Two separate literature searches were conducted for patients with and without opioid use disorder (OUD). Only one study met the search criteria for those with OUD. Fourteen randomized controlled trials were included for those without OUD. Buprenorphine was associated with reduced pain score (SMD = -0.368, P < .001, I 2 = 89.37%) compared to placebo or active analgesic. Subgroup meta-analyses showed statistically significant differences in favor of buprenorphine versus placebo (SMD = -0.404, P < .001), for chronic low back pain (SMD = -0.383, P < .001), when administered via the transdermal route (SMD = -0.572, P = .001), via the buccal route (SMD = -0.453, P < .001), with length of follow-up lasting <12 weeks (SMD = -0.848, P < .05), and length of follow-up lasting 12 weeks or more (SMD = -0.415, P < .001). There was no significant difference when compared to active analgesic (SMD = 0.045, P > .05). Quality of evidence was low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine was associated with a statistically significant and small reduction in pain intensity compared to placebo. Both the transdermal and buccal routes provided pain relief. There was more evidence supporting its use for chronic low back pain.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Buprenorphine

Pain management in palliative care (PC) is becoming more complex as patients survive longer with life-limiting illnesses and population-wide trends involving opioid misuse become more common in serious illness. Buprenorphine, a generally safe partial mu-opioid receptor agonist, has been shown to be effective for both pain management and opioid use disorder. It is critical that PC clinicians become comfortable with indications for its use, strategies for initiation while understanding risks and benefits. This article, written by a team of PC and addiction-trained specialists, including physicians, nurse practitioners, social workers, and a pharmacist, offers 10 tips to demystify buprenorphine use in serious illness.

Buprenorphine and its formulations: a comprehensive review

Buprenorphine, a novel long-acting analgesic, was developed with the intention of two purposes: analgesia and opioid use disorder. Regarding its pharmacodynamics, it is a partial agonist at mu receptors, an inverse agonist at kappa receptors, and an antagonist at delta receptors. For the purpose of analgesia, three formulations of buprenorphine were developed: IV/IM injectable formulation (Buprenex®), transdermal patch formulation (Butrans®), and buccal film formulation (Belbuca®). Related to opioid dependence, the formulations developed were subcutaneous extended release (Sublocade®), subdermal implant (Probuphine®), and sublingual tablets (Subutex®). Lastly, in order to avoid misuse of buprenorphine for opioid dependence, two combination formulations paired with naloxone were developed: film formulation (Suboxone®) and tablet formulation (Zubsolv®). In this review, we present details of each formulation along with their similarities and differences between each other and clinical considerations.

Current and Future Therapeutic Options in Pain Management: Multi-mechanistic Opioids Involving Both MOR and NOP Receptor Activation

Opioids are widely used in chronic pain management, despite major concerns about their risk of adverse events, particularly abuse, misuse, and respiratory depression from overdose. Multi-mechanistic opioids, such as tapentadol and buprenorphine, have been widely studied as a valid alternative to traditional opioids for their safer profile. Special interest was focused on the role of the nociceptin opioid peptide (NOP) receptor in terms of analgesia and improved tolerability. Nociceptin opioid peptide receptor agonists were shown to reinforce the antinociceptive effect of mu opioid receptor (MOR) agonists and modulate some of their adverse effects. Therefore, multi-mechanistic opioids involving both MOR and NOP receptor activation became a major field of pharmaceutical and clinical investigations. Buprenorphine was re-discovered in a new perspective, as an atypical analgesic and as a substitution therapy for opioid use disorders; and buprenorphine derivatives have been tested in animal models of nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Similarly, cebranopadol, a full MOR/NOP receptor agonist, has been clinically evaluated for its potent analgesic efficacy and better tolerability profile, compared with traditional opioids. This review overviews pharmacological mechanisms of the NOP receptor system, including its role in pain management and in the development of opioid tolerance. Clinical data on buprenorphine suggest its role as a safer alternative to traditional opioids, particularly in patients with non-cancer pain; while data on cebranopadol still require phase III study results to approve its introduction on the market. Other bifunctional MOR/NOP receptor ligands, such as BU08028, BU10038, and AT-121, are currently under pharmacological investigations and could represent promising analgesic agents for the future.

Welcome to the 11th Volume of Pain Management

I would like to welcome our readers to volume 11 of Pain Management. Since the launch of the journal in 2011, the title has gone from strength to strength, and we are delighted to bring you a new year of content. We are starting off this issue with a look back on some of our article highlights from 2020, alongside some of this month's key content.

A Phase I Placebo-Controlled Trial Comparing the Effects of Buprenorphine Buccal Film and Oral Oxycodone Hydrochloride Administration on Respiratory Drive

Introduction

Buprenorphine is a partial μ-opioid receptor agonist that, unlike full μ-opioid receptor agonists, has been shown to have a ceiling effect on respiratory depression. Buprenorphine buccal film (BBF) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with chronic pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for whom alternative treatment options are inadequate. This study was conducted to compare the effects of BBF and immediate-release oral oxycodone hydrochloride administration on respiratory drive, as measured by the ventilatory response to hypercapnia (VRH) after drug administration.

Methods

Subjects (N = 19) were men and women, ages 27–41 years, self-identifying as recreational opioid users who were not physically dependent on opioids as determined via a Naloxone Challenge Test. Respiratory drive was evaluated by measuring VRH through the assessment of the maximum decrease in minute ventilation (E_max) after administration of each treatment. The treatments utilized in this study included 300, 600, and 900 μg BBF; 30 and 60 mg orally administered oxycodone; and placebo (each separated by a 7-day washout period). Effects on respiratory drive were assessed using a double-blind, double-dummy, six-treatment, six-period, placebo-controlled, randomized crossover design. Statistical analyses were performed using a linear mixed-effects model.

Results

The least squares mean differences in minute volume E_max (L/min, versus placebo) were as follows: 300 μg BBF (+ 1.24, P = 0.529), 600 μg BBF (+ 0.23, P = 0.908), 900 μg BBF (+ 0.93, P = 0.637), 30 mg oxycodone (− 0.79, P = 0.687), and 60 mg oxycodone (− 5.23, P = 0.010).

Conclusions

BBF did not significantly reduce respiratory drive at any dose compared with placebo, including at the maximum available prescription dose of 900 μg. Administration of oxycodone resulted in a significant dose-dependent decrease in respiratory drive. These data suggest that BBF may be a safer treatment option than full μ-opioid receptor agonists for patients with chronic pain.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03996694.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01481-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.