Buprenorphine tablet versus liquid: A clinical trial comparing plasma levels, efficacy, and symptoms

Buprenorphine Pharmacology Review: Update on Transmucosal and Long-acting Formulations

: Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder. As a high-affinity, partial agonist for the mu-opioid receptor, buprenorphine suppresses opioid withdrawal and craving, reduces illicit opioid use, and blocks exogenous opioid effects including respiratory depression. Other pharmacologic benefits of buprenorphine are its superior safety profile compared with full opioid agonists and its long half-life that allows daily or less-than-daily dosing. New and innovative buprenorphine formulations, with pharmacokinetic profiles that differ from the original tablet formulation, continue to be developed. These include higher bioavailability transmucosal tablets and films and also 6-month implantable and monthly injectable products. This growing array of available formulations allows more choices for patients and increased opportunity for clinicians to individualize treatment; thus, it is important for buprenorphine prescribers to understand these differences.

Buprenorphine and pain treatment in pediatric patients: an update

Introduction

The usual management of moderate to severe pain is based on the use of opioids. Buprenorphine (BPN) is an opioid with an analgesic potency 50 times greater than that of morphine. It is widely used in various pain models and has demonstrated efficacy and safety in adult patients; however, there are insufficient clinical trials in pediatric populations.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis on the implementation of BPN in the treatment of pain in the pediatric population.

Methods

A bibliographic search was carried out in different biomedical databases to identify scientific papers and clinical trials with evidence of BPN use in children and adolescents.

Results

A total of 89 articles were found, of which 66 were selected. Analysis of these items revealed additional sources, and the final review included a total of 112 publications.

Conclusion

Few studies were found regarding the efficacy and safety of BPN use in children. In recent years, the use of this drug in the pediatric population has become widespread, so it is imperative to perform clinical trials and pharmacological and pharmacovigilance studies, which will allow researchers to develop dosage schemes based on the evidence and minimize the risk of adverse effects.

Buprenorphine for managing opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of buprenorphine versus tapered doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine regimens for managing opioid withdrawal, in terms of the intensity of the withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration and completion of treatment, and adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 11, 2016), MEDLINE (1946 to December week 1, 2016), Embase (to 22 December 2016), PsycINFO (1806 to December week 3, 2016), and the Web of Science (to 22 December 2016) and handsearched the reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions using buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine or lofexidine), symptomatic medications or placebo, and different buprenorphine-based regimens.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies involving 3048 participants. The main comparators were clonidine or lofexidine (14 studies). Six studies compared buprenorphine versus methadone, and seven compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction. We assessed 12 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one of seven domains of methodological quality. Six of these studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine or lofexidine and two with methadone; the other four studies compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction.For the comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in tapered doses, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of intensity of withdrawal or adverse effects. However, information reported by the individual studies was suggestive of buprenorphine and methadone having similar capacity to ameliorate opioid withdrawal, without clinically significant adverse effects. The meta-analyses that were possible support a conclusion of no difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of average treatment duration (mean difference (MD) 1.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.11 to 10.72; N = 82; studies = 2; low quality) or treatment completion rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; N = 457; studies = 5; moderate quality).Relative to clonidine or lofexidine, buprenorphine was associated with a lower average withdrawal score (indicating less severe withdrawal) during the treatment episode, with an effect size that is considered to be small to moderate (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.28; N = 902; studies = 7; moderate quality). Patients receiving buprenorphine stayed in treatment for longer, with an effect size that is considered to be large (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; N = 558; studies = 5; moderate quality) and were more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.06; N = 1264; studies = 12; moderate quality). At the same time there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but dropout due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.15; N = 134; studies = 3; low quality). The difference in treatment completion rates translates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), indicating that for every four people treated with buprenorphine, we can expect that one additional person will complete treatment than with clonidine or lofexidine.For studies comparing different rates of reduction of the buprenorphine dose, meta-analysis was possible only for treatment completion, with separate analyses for inpatient and outpatient settings. The results were diverse, and we assessed the quality of evidence as being very low. It remains very uncertain what effect the rate of dose taper has on treatment outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine or lofexidine for managing opioid withdrawal in terms of severity of withdrawal, duration of withdrawal treatment, and the likelihood of treatment completion.Buprenorphine and methadone appear to be equally effective, but data are limited. It remains possible that the pattern of withdrawal experienced may differ and that withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine.It is not possible to draw any conclusions from the available evidence on the relative effectiveness of different rates of tapering the buprenorphine dose. The divergent findings of studies included in this review suggest that there may be multiple factors affecting the response to the rate of dose taper. One such factor could be whether or not the initial treatment plan includes a transition to subsequent relapse prevention treatment with naltrexone. Indeed, the use of buprenorphine to support transition to naltrexone treatment is an aspect worthy of further research.Most participants in the studies included in this review were male. None of the studies reported outcomes on the basis of sex, preventing any exploration of differences related to this variable. Consideration of sex as a factor influencing response to withdrawal treatment would be relevant research for selecting the most appropriate type of intervention for each individual.

New developments in the management of opioid dependence: focus on sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone

Opioid maintenance therapy is a well-established first-line treatment approach in opioid dependence. Buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist, has been found by numerous studies to be an effective and safe medication in the treatment of opioid dependence. At present, buprenorphine is available as a monodrug or in a fixed 4:1 ratio combination with naloxone. A diminished risk of diversion and abuse for the buprenorphine-naloxone combination is likely but not firmly established. Conventional formulations are given sublingually to avoid the hepatic first-pass effect. A novel film tablet is available only in the US and Australia. Other novel, sustained-release formulations (implant, depot) are currently being developed and tested. Recent studies, including a Cochrane meta-analysis, suggest that the retention with buprenorphine is lower than for methadone, but that buprenorphine may be associated with less drug use. Higher doses of buprenorphine are associated with better retention rates. Buprenorphine has a ceiling effect at the opioid receptor with regard to respiratory depression, and may cause fewer fatal intoxications than methadone. Possible antidepressant effects of buprenorphine and its use in comorbid psychiatric patients has not been studied in much detail. Clinical implications are discussed.

Buprenorphine maintenance and mu-opioid receptor availability in the treatment of opioid use disorder: implications for clinical use and policy

BACKGROUND

Sublingual formulations of buprenorphine (BUP) and BUP/naloxone have well-established pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and are safe and effective for treating opioid use disorder. Since approvals of these formulations, their clinical use has increased. Yet, questions have arisen as to how BUP binding to mu-opioid receptors (μORs), the neurobiological target for this medication, relate to its clinical application. BUP produces dose- and time-related alterations of μOR availability but some clinicians express concern about whether doses higher than those needed to prevent opioid withdrawal symptoms are warranted, and policymakers consider limiting reimbursement for certain BUP dosing regimens.

METHODS

We review scientific data concerning BUP-induced changes in μOR availability and their relationship to clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

Withdrawal suppression appears to require ≤50% μOR availability, associated with BUP trough plasma concentrations ≥1 ng/mL; for most patients, this may require single daily BUP doses of 4 mg to defend against trough levels, or lower divided doses. Blockade of the reinforcing and subjective effects of typical doses of abused opioids require <20% μOR availability, associated with BUP trough plasma concentrations ≥3 ng/mL; for most individuals, this may require single daily BUP doses >16 mg, or lower divided doses. For individuals attempting to surmount this blockade with higher-than-usual doses of abused opioids, even larger BUP doses and <10% μOR availability would be required.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, and given the complexities of studies on this issue and comorbid problems, we conclude that fixed, arbitrary limits on BUP doses in clinical care or limits on reimbursement for this care are unwarranted.

Buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine quantification in human plasma by simple protein precipitation and ultra-high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry

A highly sensitive ultra-high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) method was developed for the quantification of buprenorphine and its major metabolite norbuprenorphine in human plasma. In order to speed up the process and decrease costs, sample preparation was performed by simple protein precipitation with acetonitrile. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of this extraction technique for the quantification of buprenorphine in plasma. Matrix effects were strongly reduced and selectivity increased by using an efficient chromatographic separation on a sub-2 μm column (Acquity UPLC BEH C18 1.7 μm, 2.1×50 mm) in 5 min with a gradient of ammonium formate 20 mM pH 3.05 and acetonitrile as mobile phase at a flow rate of 0.4 ml/min. Detection was made using a tandem quadrupole mass spectrometer operating in positive electrospray ionization mode, using multiple reaction monitoring. The procedure was fully validated according to the latest Food and Drug Administration guidelines and the Société Française des Sciences et Techniques Pharmaceutiques. Very good results were obtained by using a stable isotope-labeled internal standard for each analyte, to compensate for the variability due to the extraction and ionization steps. The method was very sensitive with lower limits of quantification of 0.1 ng/ml for buprenorphine and 0.25 ng/ml for norbuprenorphine. The upper limit of quantification was 250 ng/ml for both drugs. Trueness (98.4-113.7%), repeatability (1.9-7.7%), intermediate precision (2.6-7.9%) and internal standard-normalized matrix effects (94-101%) were in accordance with international recommendations. The procedure was successfully used to quantify plasma samples from patients included in a clinical pharmacogenetic study and can be transferred for routine therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical laboratories without further development.

Pharmacokinetics of buprenorphine: a comparison of sublingual tablet versus liquid after chronic dosing

Although buprenorphine is approved for use in the outpatient treatment of opioid addiction in 2 tablet formulations, a monoproduct containing buprenorphine only (Subutex) and a buprenorphine/naloxone combination product (Suboxone), much of the clinical data that support the approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration were generated by using a sublingual liquid. To interpret the literature in prescribing parameters for tablet buprenorphine, this study was designed to determine steady state buprenorphine plasma levels for the 2 formulations and to assess the relative bioavailability of each. A randomized, double-blind, crossover study with dose increases was conducted during a 12-week period at an outpatient treatment clinic. Of the 184 subjects initially randomized to treatment, 133 (72.3%) were evaluated for the steady-state trough plasma concentration, 16 (8.7%) for relative bioavailability, and 31 (16.8%) for dose proportionality. At steady state, differences in the trough plasma concentrations of buprenorphine between the 2 formulations were found across all the dose levels. Average plasma concentration (Cavg) of the tablet at twice the milligram dose of the liquid was twice that of the liquid; intersubject variability was greater for the tablet. At double the dose of tablet, there is no difference in steady state plasma concentrations. The bioavailability seems equivalent for the 2 formulations across all the dose levels.

Buprenorphine-mediated transition from opioid agonist to antagonist treatment: state of the art and new perspectives

Constant refinement of opioid dependence (OD) therapies is a condition to promote treatment access and delivery. Among other applications, the partial opioid agonist buprenorphine has been studied to improve evidence-based interventions for the transfer of patients from opioid agonist to antagonist medications. This paper summarizes PubMed-searched clinical investigations and conference papers on the transition from methadone maintenance to buprenorphine and from buprenorphine to naltrexone, discussing challenges and advances. The majority of the 26 studies we examined were uncontrolled investigations. Many small clinical trials have demonstrated the feasibility of in- or outpatient transfer to buprenorphine from low to moderate methadone doses (up to 60-70 mg). Results on the conversion from higher methadone doses, on the other hand, indicate significant withdrawal discomfort, and need for ancillary medications and inpatient treatment. Tapering high methadone doses before the transfer to buprenorphine is not without discomfort and the risk of relapse. The transition buprenorphine-naltrexone has been explored in several pilot studies, and a number of treatment methods to reduce withdrawal intensity warrant further investigation, including the co-administration of buprenorphine and naltrexone. Outpatient transfer protocols using buprenorphine, and direct comparisons with other modalities of transitioning from opioid agonist to antagonist medications are limited. Given its potential salience, the information gathered should be used in larger clinical trials on short and long-term outcomes of opioid agonist-antagonist transition treatments. Future studies should also test new pharmacological mechanisms to help reduce physical dependence, and identify individualized approaches, including the use of pharmacogenetics and long-acting opioid agonist and antagonist formulations.

The association between outpatient buprenorphine detoxification duration and clinical treatment outcomes: a review

BACKGROUND

The association between buprenorphine taper duration and treatment outcomes is not well understood. This review evaluated whether duration of outpatient buprenorphine taper is significantly associated with treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals, administered buprenorphine as an outpatient taper to opioid-dependent participants, and provided data on at least one of three primary treatment outcome measures (opioid abstinence, retention, peak withdrawal severity) were reviewed. Primary treatment outcomes were evaluated as a function of taper duration using hierarchical linear regressions with pre-taper maintenance duration as a cofactor.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were reviewed. Taper duration significantly predicted percent of opioid-negative samples provided during treatment, however pre-taper maintenance period predicted percent participants abstinent on the final day of treatment. High rates of relapse were reported. No significant association between taper duration and retention in treatment or peak withdrawal severity was observed.

CONCLUSION

The data reviewed here suggest taper duration is associated with opioid abstinence achieved during detoxification but not with other markers of treatment outcome. The reviewed studies varied widely on several parameters (e.g., frequency of urinalysis testing, provision of ancillary medications) that may influence treatment outcome and thus could have interfered with the ability to identify relationships between taper duration and outcomes. Future studies evaluating opioid detoxification should utilize rigorous experimental methods and report a wider range of outcome measures in order to help advance our understanding of the association between taper duration and treatment outcomes.

Preliminary buprenorphine sublingual tablet pharmacokinetic data in plasma, oral fluid, and sweat during treatment of opioid-dependent pregnant women

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine is currently under investigation as a pharmacotherapy to treat pregnant women for opioid dependence. This research evaluates buprenorphine (BUP), norbuprenophine (NBUP), buprenorphine-glucuronide (BUP-Gluc), and norbuprenorphine-glucuronide (NBUP-Gluc) pharmacokinetics after high-dose (14-20 mg) BUP sublingual tablet administration in three opioid-dependent pregnant women.

METHODS

Oral fluid and sweat specimens were collected in addition to plasma specimens for 24 hours during gestation weeks 28 or 29 and 34, and 2 months after delivery. Time to maximum concentration was not affected by pregnancy; however, BUP and NBUP maximum concentration and area under the curve at 0 to 24 hours tended to be lower during pregnancy compared with postpartum levels.

RESULTS

Statistically significant but weak positive correlations were found for BUP plasma and OF concentrations and BUP/NBUP ratios in plasma and oral fluid. Statistically significant negative correlations were observed for times of specimen collection and BUP and NBUP oral fluid/plasma ratios. BUP-Gluc and NBUP-Gluc were detected in only 5% of oral fluid specimens. In sweat, BUP and NBUP were detected in only four of 25 (12 or 24 hours) specimens in low concentrations (less than 2.4 ng/patch).

CONCLUSION

These preliminary data describe BUP and metabolite pharmacokinetics in pregnant women and suggest that, like methadone, upward dose adjustments may be needed with advancing gestation.

Acute effects of sublingual buprenorphine on brain responses to heroin-related cues in early-abstinent heroin addicts: an uncontrolled trial

Replacement therapy with buprenorphine is clinically effective in reducing withdrawal and craving for heroin during detoxification but not in decreasing the probability of relapse after detoxification. This study examined the acute effects of buprenorphine on brain responses to heroin-related cues to reveal the neurobiological and therapeutic mechanisms of addiction and relapse. Fifteen heroin addicts at a very early period of abstinence, were studied in two separate periods 10-15 min apart: an early period (5-45 min) and a later period (60-105 min) after sublingual buprenorphine, roughly covering the onset and peak of buprenorphine plasma level. During both periods, fMRI scanning with heroin-related visual stimuli were performed followed by questionnaires. Under effect of buprenorphine, brain responses to heroin-related cues showed decrease in amygdala, hippocampus, ventral tegmental area (VTA) and thalamus but no changes in ventral striatum and orbital-prefrontal-parietal cortices. As an uncontrolled trial, these preliminary results suggest that buprenorphine has specific brain targets in reducing withdrawal and craving during early abstinence, and that ventral striatum and orbital-prefrontal-parietal cortices may be the key targets in developing therapy for drug addiction and relapse.

Treatment completion on an inpatient detoxification unit: Impact of a change to sublingual buprenorphine–naloxone

PURPOSE

Buprenorphine is commonly used for opioid detoxification. The goal of this study was to determine whether a change from the intramuscular (IM) buprenorphine to the sublingual (SL) formulation of buprenorphine-naloxone was associated with improved treatment completion rates on an inpatient detoxification unit.

METHODS

This study was conducted at the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center (JHBMC) Chemical Dependence Unit (CDU), a 26-bed, 3-day inpatient detoxification unit providing detoxification from opioids, alcohol, and sedatives. The opioid detoxification protocol was changed from IM buprenorphine (0.3 mg bid for 3 days) to SL buprenorphine-naloxone (8, 8, and 6 mg on sequential days, plus 2 mg on the morning of discharge). For the 3 months prior to and after the change in protocol, data were collected retrospectively on demographics, type of dependence being treated, and type of discharge.

FINDINGS

A total of 1,168 patients were admitted to the JHBMC CDU during the period studied. In the 3 months prior to the change in buprenorphine protocol, 353 of 483 patients admitted for treatment of opioid dependence (73.1%) completed treatment, compared with 407 of 473 patients admitted after the change (86.0%); this difference was highly significant (p < .0001). Among 212 patients who did not receive treatment for opioid dependence over the same period, the rates of treatment completion did not change significantly (89.8% before vs. 83.0% after; p = .208).

CONCLUSIONS

A change from IM buprenorphine to SL buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid detoxification was associated with a significant improvement in completion rates at this inpatient treatment program.

Thienorphine: receptor binding and behavioral effects in rhesus monkeys

Thienorphine is an oripavine with long-lasting antinociceptive effects in mice that are thought to be mediated by mu-opioid receptors. This study examined the receptor binding of thienorphine in cell membrane homogenates and its behavioral effects in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Affinity and potency were determined using radioligand displacement and stimulation of guanosine 5'-O-(3-[35S]thio)triphosphate binding in C6 (mu, delta) and Chinese hamster ovary (kappa) cell membranes. Thienorphine displayed high affinity for kappa-, mu-, and delta-opioid receptors with K(i) values of 0.14, 0.22, and 0.69 nM, respectively. Thienorphine partially stimulated kappa-opioid (75%) and mu-opioid (19%) receptors and not delta-opioid receptors. Thienorphine dose-dependently increased tail-withdrawal latency for 50 degrees C water and not 55 degrees C water with effects lasting for more than 7 days. The kappa-opioid receptor antagonist nor-binaltorphimine (nor-BNI) (3.2 mg/kg) and a large dose (1.0 mg/kg) of naltrexone prevented thienorphine-induced antinociception. Thienorphine enhanced the antinociceptive effects of morphine and U50,488 [trans-3, 4-dichloro-N-methyl-N-[2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)-cyclohexyl]-benzeneacetamide] with 50 degrees C water; with 55 degrees C water, thienorphine enhanced the effects of morphine and attenuated the effects of U50,488. In other monkeys, thienorphine decreased responding in both components of a multiple schedule of food presentation and stimulus shock termination for up to 8 days; naltrexone and nor-BNI partially prevented these rate-decreasing effects. In morphine-treated monkeys discriminating naltrexone, thienorphine, and U50,488 neither substituted for nor modified the naltrexone discriminative stimulus. Thienorphine and U50,488 produced the same directly observable signs. These results show that thienorphine has long-lasting effects that seem to be mediated by low-efficacy agonism at kappa-opioid receptors, both in vitro and in vivo.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions between Buprenorphine and Antiretroviral Medications

Buprenorphine is used for the treatment of opioid dependence. As the number of persons receiving buprenorphine treatment and antiretroviral therapy continues to grow, so too does the existence and clinical impact of drug interactions between buprenorphine and medications for treating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Awareness that such interactions exist may deter some patients and physicians from initiating potentially lifesaving therapy or lead to complications among patients whose treatment is already under way. Complications include nonadherence to antiretroviral therapy and the development of viral resistance. Illicit drug use is a frequent consequence of adverse drug effects experienced by injection drug users. The occurrence of unrecognized drug interactions can lead to unsuccessful therapy for HIV infection and the treatment of substance dependence. The present review is organized to provide a working background of buprenorphine pharmacology. Review of the current state of knowledge regarding specific interactions between buprenorphine and antiretrovirals is followed by a review of the clinical applicability of these interactions.