Predictors of outcome after short-term stabilization with buprenorphine

Buprenorphine-naloxone vs. extended-release naltrexone for opioid use disorder in individuals with and without criminal legal involvement: A secondary analysis of the X:BOT randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

There is uncertainty about whether criminal legal involvement (CLI) impacts the effectiveness of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). We aimed to determine whether CLI modifies the association between buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) vs. extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and MOUD treatment outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of X:BOT, a 24-week multi-center randomized controlled trial comparing treatment outcomes between BUP-NX (n = 287) and XR-NTX (n = 283) in the general population. We used baseline Additional Severity-Index Lite responses to identify patients with recent CLI (n = 342), defined as active CLI and/or CLI in the past 30 days, and lifetime incarceration (n = 328). We explored recent CLI and lifetime incarceration as potential effect modifiers of BUP-NX vs. XR-NTX effectiveness on relapse, induction, and overdose. We conducted both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses for each outcome.

RESULTS

In intention-to-treat analyses, recent CLI modified the effect of BUP-NX vs. XR-NTX on odds of successful induction (p = 0.03) and hazard of overdose (p = 0.04), but it did not modify the effect on hazard of relapse (p = 0.23). All participants experienced lower odds of successful induction with XR-NTX compared to BUP-NX, but the relative likelihood of successful induction with BUP-NX was lower than XR-NTX among individuals with recent CLI (OR: 0.25, 95 % CI: 0.13-0.47, p < 0.001) compared to those without recent CLI (OR: 0.04, 95 % CI: 0.01-0.19, p < 0.001). Participants with recent CLI experienced similar hazard of overdose with XR-NTX and BUP-NX (HR: 1.12, 95 % CI: 0.42-3.01, p = 0.82), whereas those without recent CLI experienced greater hazard of overdose with XR-NTX compared to BUP-NX (HR: 12.60, 95 % CI: 1.62-98.03, p = 0.02). In per-protocol analyses, recent CLI did not modify the effect of MOUD on hazard of overdose (p = 0.10) or relapse (p = 0.41). Lifetime incarceration did not modify any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to individuals without recent CLI, individuals with recent CLI experienced decreased relative effectiveness of BUP-NX compared to XR-NTX for induction and overdose outcomes. This highlights the importance of considering the impact of recent CLI on opioid use disorder treatment outcomes. Future research should explore the mechanisms through which recent CLI modifies MOUD effectiveness and aim to improve MOUD effectiveness for individuals with recent CLI.

Relationship between opioid cross-tolerance during buprenorphine stabilization and return to opioid use during buprenorphine dose tapering

RATIONALE

Opioid injection drug use (IDU) has been linked to a more severe pattern of use (e.g. tolerance, overdose risk) and shorter retention in treatment, which may undermine abstinence attempts.

OBJECTIVES

This secondary data analysis of four human laboratory studies investigated whether current opioid IDU modulates subjective abuse liability responses to high-dose hydromorphone during intermediate-dose buprenorphine stabilization (designed to suppress withdrawal but allow surmountable agonist effects), and whether hydromorphone response magnitude predicts latency of return to opioid use during buprenorphine dose-tapering.

METHODS

Regular heroin users not currently seeking treatment (n = 54; 29 current injectors, 25 non-injectors) were stabilized on 8-mg/day sublingual buprenorphine and assessed for subjective responses (e.g. 'liking', craving) to hydromorphone 24-mg intramuscular challenge (administered 16-hr post-buprenorphine) under randomized, double-blinded, controlled conditions. A subgroup (n = 35) subsequently completed a standardized 3-week outpatient buprenorphine dose-taper, paired with opioid-abstinent contingent reinforcement, and were assessed for return to opioid use based on thrice-weekly urinalysis and self-report.

RESULTS

During buprenorphine stabilization, IDU reported lower 'liking' of buprenorphine and post-hydromorphone peak 'liking', 'good effect' and 'high' compared to non-IDU. Less hydromorphone peak increase-from-baseline in 'liking' (which correlated with less hydromorphone-induced craving suppression) predicted significantly faster return to opioid use during buprenorphine dose-tapering.

CONCLUSIONS

In these buprenorphine-stabilized regular heroin users, IDU is associated with attenuated 'liking' response (more cross-tolerance) to buprenorphine and to high-dose hydromorphone challenge and, in turn, this cross-tolerance (but not IDU) predicts faster return to opioid use. Further research should examine mechanisms that link cross-tolerance to treatment response.

Examining the benefit of a higher maintenance dose of extended-release buprenorphine in opioid-injecting participants treated for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

BUP-XR (SUBLOCADE®) is the first buprenorphine extended-release subcutaneous injection approved in the USA for monthly treatment of moderate-to-severe opioid use disorder (OUD). Among patients with OUD, those who inject or use high doses of opioids likely require higher doses of buprenorphine to maximize treatment efficacy. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of 100-mg versus 300-mg maintenance doses of BUP-XR in OUD patients who inject opioids.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which adults with moderate or severe OUD received monthly injections of BUP-XR (2 × 300-mg doses, then 4 × 100-mg or 300-mg maintenance doses) or placebo for 24 weeks. Abstinence was defined as opioid-negative urine drug screens combined with negative self-reports collected weekly. Each participant's percentage abstinence was calculated after the first, second, and third maintenance doses in opioid-injecting and non-injecting participants. The proportion of participants achieving opioid abstinence in each group was also calculated weekly. Treatment retention rate following the first maintenance dose was estimated for opioid-injecting participants with Kaplan-Meier method. Risk-adjusted comparisons were made via inverse propensity weighting using propensity scores. Buprenorphine plasma concentration-time profiles were compared between injecting and non-injecting participants. The percentages of participants reporting treatment-emergent adverse events were compared between maintenance dose groups within injecting and non-injecting participants separately.

RESULTS

BUP-XR 100-mg and 300-mg maintenance doses were equally effective in non-injecting participants. However, in opioid-injecting participants, the 300-mg maintenance dose delivered clinically meaningful improvements over the 100-mg maintenance dose for treatment retention and opioid abstinence. Exposure-response analyses confirmed that injecting participants would require higher buprenorphine plasma concentrations compared to non-injecting opioid participants to achieve similar efficacy in terms of opioid abstinence. Importantly, both 100- and 300-mg maintenance doses had comparable safety profiles, including hepatic safety events.

CONCLUSIONS

These analyses show clear benefits of the 300-mg maintenance dose in injecting participants, while no additional benefit was observed in non-injecting participants relative to the 100-mg maintenance dose. This is an important finding as opioid-injecting participants represent a high-risk and difficult-to-treat population. Optimal buprenorphine dosing in this population might facilitate harm reduction by improving abstinence and treatment retention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02357901.

Differential Experience of Interdose Withdrawal During Long-Term Opioid Therapy and its Association With Patient and Treatment Characteristics: A Latent Class Analysis in Chronic Pain Population

Opioid withdrawal is characterized by a set of physical and psychological symptoms that depend on both opioid and patient specific characteristics. The present study aims to identify different latent classes of chronic pain patients according to the type of opioid withdrawal symptoms experienced, and to analyze the relationships between the classes and demographic, opioid therapy, psychological and substance use variables. This cross-sectional descriptive study included 391 chronic pain patients on long-term opioid therapy. A Latent Class Analysis (LCA) identified 3 classes (BIC = 7051.89, entropy = .87, LRTs P < .01). The mild withdrawal class showed low probabilities of presenting physical and psychological symptoms, the moderate withdrawal class was characterized by experiencing psychological symptoms, and the severe withdrawal class stood out for high probabilities of presenting both types of symptoms. The classes differed from each other, with higher rates of moderate-severe POUD, opioid misuse, anxiety, depression, and greater pain intensity and interference in more severe withdrawal classes (P < .05). The multinomial logistic regression showed that moderate-severe POUD and anxiety were the strongest variables related to moderate (OR_POUD = 3.34, OR_Anxiety = 2.58) and severe withdrawal classes (OR_POUD = 4.26, OR_Anxiety = 5.15). Considering that POUD and anxiety were strongly related to a more severe withdrawal syndrome, the inclusion of psychological interventions in pain management seems critical in this population. PERSPECTIVE: Although interdose opioid withdrawal is common in chronic pain patients, this study shows 3 different patterns in its experience (mild, moderate, and severe withdrawal). A more severe withdrawal may result in reduced effectiveness of opioids in relieving pain and increased negative consequences, such as higher risk of POUD. Findings that could help improve chronic pain management.

Diversity inclusion in United States opioid pharmacological treatment trials: A systematic review

Pharmacological treatments for opioid use disorders (OUDs) may have mixed efficacy across diverse groups, i.e., sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES). The present systematic review aims to examine how diverse groups have been included in U.S. randomized clinical trials examining pharmacological treatments (i.e., methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone) for OUDs. PubMed was systematically searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The initial search yielded 567 articles. After exclusion of ineligible articles, 50 remained for the present review. Of the included articles, 14.0% (n = 7) reported both full (i.e., accounting for all participants) sex/gender and race/ethnicity information; only two of those articles also included information about any SES indicators. Moreover, only 22.0% (n = 11) reported full sex/gender information, and 42.0% (n = 21) reported full racial/ethnic information. Furthermore, only 10.0% (n = 5) reported that their lack of subgroup analyses or diverse samples was a limitation to their studies. Particularly underrepresented were American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (NH/OPI), and multiracial individuals. These results also varied by medication type; Black individuals were underrepresented in buprenorphine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but were well represented in RCTs for methadone and/or naltrexone. In conclusion, it is critical that all people receive efficacious pharmacological care for OUDs given the ongoing opioid epidemic. Findings from the present review, however, support that participants from diverse or marginalized backgrounds are underrepresented in treatment trials, despite being at increased risk for disparities related to OUDs. Suggestions for future research are advanced. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The "black box" of treatment: Patients' perspective on what works in opioid maintenance treatment for opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

A lack of conceptual modeling of how the components of opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) for opioid dependence (OD) work causes it to occasionally be labeled the "black-box" of treatment. This study had a two-fold objective: First, to analyze which factors related to OMT for OD contribute to the abstinence of problematic use of non-prescribed opioids and sustain recovery, from the patients' perspective; second, to understand which changes OMT produced in the individuals' lives might significantly contribute to relapse prevention.

METHODS

We used qualitative methods of design, inquiry, and analysis from a convenience sample of 19 individuals in a Swedish treatment setting.

RESULTS

All the participants reported previous cycles of problematic use of non-prescribed opioids and other non-prescribed psychoactive substances, treatment, abstinence, recovery, and relapse before starting the current OMT program. During the pre-treatment stage, specific events, internal processes, and social environments enhanced motivation toward abstinence and seeking treatment. During the treatment stage, participants perceived the quality of the human relationships established with primary social groups as important as medication and the individual plan of care in sustaining recovery. From the participants' perspective, OMT was a turning point in their life course, allowing them a sense of self-fulfillment and the reconstruction of personal and social identity. However, they still struggled with the stigmatization produced by a society that values abstinence-oriented over medication-assisted treatments.

CONCLUSION

OMT is not an isolated event in individuals' lives but rather a process occurring within a specific social context. Structural factors and the sense of acceptance and belonging are essential in supporting the transformation. Treatment achievements and the risk for relapse vary over time, so the objectives of the treatment plan must account for characteristics of the pre-treatment stage and the availability and capacity of individuals to restructure their social network, besides the opioid maintenance treatment and institutional social care.

Clinical and psychological factors associated with interdose opioid withdrawal in chronic pain population

BACKGROUND

The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Prescription Opioid-Use Disorder (POUD) have undergone some significant changes. One of the most controversial changes has been the elimination of the withdrawal symptoms criterion when opioid use is under appropriate medical supervision. For this reason, the goal of this study was to analyze factors associated with opioid withdrawal in patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP).

METHODS

This cross-sectional descriptive study involved 404 patients who use prescription opioids for long-term treatment (≥90 days) of CNCP. Measures included sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, POUD, withdrawal symptoms, craving, anxiety-depressive symptoms, and pain intensity and interference.

RESULTS

Forty-seven percent (n = 193) of the sample reported moderate-severe withdrawal symptoms, which were associated with lower age, higher daily morphine dose and duration of treatment with opioids, moderate-severe POUD, use of psychotropic drugs, higher anxiety-depressive symptoms, and greater pain intensity and interference (p < .05). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that moderate-severe POUD (OR = 2.82), anxiety (OR = 2.21), depression (OR = 1.81), higher pain interference (OR = 1.05), and longer duration of treatment with opioids were the strongest factors associated with moderate-severe withdrawal symptoms (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Psychological factors seem to play a key role in the severity of withdrawal symptoms. Since greater intensity of these symptoms increases the risk of developing POUD, knowing the factors associated with withdrawal may be useful in developing preventive psychological interventions.

Long term pre-treatment opioid use trajectories in relation to opioid agonist therapy outcomes among people who use drugs in a Canadian setting

BACKGROUND

Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) models are generally provided without consideration of how pre-treatment characteristics may be associated with outcome. Therefore, we aimed to first characterize longitudinal trajectories of opioid use before initiating OAT. Then we explored the impact of OAT on opioid use across these pre-treatment trajectories.

METHODS

Data were derived from three prospective cohort studies involving people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada. Latent class growth analysis was applied to identify opioid use trajectories based on individual-level observations three years before starting OAT. Multivariable generalized linear mixed model was used to examine whether engaging in OAT was associated with lower risk of illicit opioid use among participants with different pre-treatment opioid use trajectories.

RESULTS

464 participants were included in the study between September 2005 and November 2018. Two pre-treatment opioid use trajectories were identified: high frequency users (246, 53.0%) and gradually increasing frequency users (218, 47.0%). We observed different strengths of association between OAT engagement and illicit opioid use among high frequency users (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.36, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.20 - 0.63) and gradually increasing frequency users (AOR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.53 - 1.56). Unstable housing, any stimulant use, experiencing violence, drug dealing, sex work involvement, and incarceration were independently and positively associated with ongoing illicit opioid use.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct pre-treatment opioid use trajectories are likely to influence treatment outcomes. Research is required to determine if tailored strategies specific to people with different pre-treatment opioid use patterns have potential to improve outcomes of OAT.

Defining and Predicting Opioid and Cocaine Treatment Response

Background: Treatment with methadone is effective in reducing heroin use, HIV risk, and death; however, not all patients respond to treatment. Better outcomes may emerge with personalized treatment based on factors that influence treatment courses. Objectives: To investigate psychosocial variables contributing to treatment response, using a comprehensive definition of treatment response. Methods: Seventy participants seeking treatment for heroin and cocaine addiction completed up to 40 weeks of daily methadone. At week 22, we administered a semi-structured interview for DSM-IV symptoms. We defined opioid treatment responders as people still enrolled at 22 weeks, not meeting past 30-day criteria for DSM-IV opioid abuse or dependence or DSM-5 opioid use disorder, and providing ≥75% opioid-negative urine samples in the 30 days prior to week 22. The same criteria were applied to assess cocaine treatment response. Results: Sample was 71% male, 41% White, and averaged 39.4 ± 7.9 years old. Opioid treatment response was more likely in participants who had been employed over the past 3 years (OR: 8.1, 95% CI: 1.2-55) and less likely in those who spent more time on hobbies (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.23-0.88). Cocaine treatment response was more likely in participants who had a good relationship with their father (OR: 5.3, 95% CI: 1.2-24) and less likely if positive for hepatitis C (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03-0.75). Conclusions: Pretreatment characteristics differentially predict treatment response for heroin and cocaine use. Similar research in diverse patient groups may aid in the development of personalized treatment combining biologic treatment with targeted psychosocial interventions.

Two Different Buprenorphine Treatment Settings With Similar Retention Rates: Implications for Expanding Access to Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

INTRODUCTION: There is considerable need for effective and accessible treatment for opioid use disorder. AIMS: Our study explored differences in buprenorphine treatment retention and duration, with a focus on selected sociodemographic factors and treatment indicators, in two different settings: an office-based buprenorphine induction and stabilization clinic (OBIC) and a community-based primary care clinic (CPC). METHOD: This nonexperimental retrospective chart review compared demographic information and buprenorphine treatment details, including treatment retention and duration. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in buprenorphine treatment indicators between the OBIC and CPC groups, with two exceptions: the number of written buprenorphine prescriptions was significantly greater for the OBIC group, as was the number of filled buprenorphine prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Given similar treatment retention and duration in two different buprenorphine treatment settings, our findings suggest that access to buprenorphine treatment in standard integrated care settings can be supplemented by novel treatment structures such as the OBIC in order to increase access to care during the current opioid epidemic.

Patient Barriers and Facilitators to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Primary Care

Introduction: This study explored factors influencing patient access to medications for opioid use disorder (OUD), particularly for individuals eligible but historically suboptimal follow-up with in-house referrals to office-based opioid treatment (OBOT). Objectives: In-depth qualitative interviews among a mostly underserved sample of adults with OUD elicited: 1) knowledge and experiences across the OUD treatment cascade; and 2) more nuanced elements of patient-centered care, including shared decision making with providers, experiences in OBOT versus specialty addiction treatment, transitioning from methadone to buprenorphine or extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), and voluntary discontinuation of medications for OUD. Methods: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews between January and February of 2018 among adult inpatient detoxification program patients with OUD (n = 23). Preliminary analysis of interviews yielded key themes and ideas that were coded from a grounded theory approach. Results: Willingness to engage with OBOT was influenced by a complex array of practical considerations, including access to patient-centered care in OBOT settings, positive experiences with illicitly obtained buprenorphine, and differential experiences pertaining to OBOT versus specialty addiction treatment. Responses were generally favorable towards OBOT with buprenorphine, yet knowledge regarding extended-release naltrexone was limited. Respondents were often frustrated by clinicians when requesting to transition from methadone to buprenorphine or XR-NTX. Lastly, participants elucidated limited access to OBOT programs in underserved neighborhoods and suburban settings. Conclusion: Limited access to patient-centered care in OBOT with buprenorphine and extended-release naltrexone may exacerbate challenges to retention and/or reengagement with OUD care.

Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Addiction in the United States: Critique and Commentary

In the United States, buprenorphine products (namely buprenorphine/naloxone combination) and methadone are the primary forms of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) that are authorized for addressing opioid addiction. Although treatment ideologies differentiate MAT programs, much of the provision in the US reflects a model of "high threshold, low tolerance." This model is discussed with a focus on structural and programmatic barriers that shape access to and retention in MAT. The critique continues with a discussion of multifaceted stigma that reinforces spoiled identities and diffuses into treatment settings. The social control mechanisms that are imposed in MAT are strikingly similar to those reflected in criminal justice settings, namely probation, parole and community corrections more generally. Parallels are drawn between the "addict" and the "felon" and how they are monitored, tracked, and controlled. These factors have major implications for recovery.

"Dopamine homeostasis" requires balanced polypharmacy: Issue with destructive, powerful dopamine agents to combat America's drug epidemic

The well-researched pro-dopamine regulator KB220 and variants result in increased functional connectivity in both animal and human brains, and prolonged neuroplasticity (brain cell repair) having been observed in rodents. Moreover, in addition to increased functional connectivity, recent studies show that KB220Z increases overall brain connectivity volume, enhances neuronal dopamine firing, and eliminates lucid dreams in humans over a prolonged period. An unprecedented number of clinical studies validating this patented nutrigenomic technology in re-balancing brain chemistry and optimizing dopamine sensitivity and function have been published. On another note, it is sad that unsuspecting consumers could be deceived and endangered by false promises of knock-off marketers with look- and- sound-alike products. Products containing ingredients having potential dangers (i.e., combinations of potent D2 agonists including L-Dopa and L-Theanine) threaten the credibility and reputation of validated, authentic, and ethical products. We encourage clinicians and neuroscientists to continue to embrace the concept of “dopamine homeostasis” and search for safe, effective, validated and authentic means to achieve a lifetime of recovery, instead of reverting to anti-dopaminergic agents doomed to fail in the war against the devastating drug epidemic, or promoting powerful D2 agonists that compromise needed balance.

Retention in medication-assisted treatment programs in Ukraine-Identifying factors contributing to a continuing HIV epidemic

BACKGROUND

Opioid agonist treatments (OAT) are widely-used, evidence-based strategies for treating opioid dependence and reducing HIV transmission. The positive benefits of OAT are strongly correlated with time spent in treatment, making retention a key indicator for program quality. This study assessed patient retention and associated factors in Ukraine, where OAT was first introduced in 2004.

METHODS

Data from clinical records of 2916 patients enrolled in OAT at thirteen sites from 2005 to 2012 were entered into an electronic monitoring system. Survival analysis methods were used to determine the probability of retention and its correlates.

RESULTS

Twelve-month retention was 65.8%, improving from 27.7% in 2005, to 70.9% in 2011. In multivariable analyses, the correlates of retention were receiving medium and high doses of medication (compared to low doses, dropout aHR=0.57 for both medium and high doses), having not been tested for HIV and tuberculosis (compared to not being tested, dropout aHR=4.44 and 3.34, respectively), and among those who were tested-a negative TB test result (compared to receiving a positive test result, dropout aHR=0.67).

CONCLUSION

Retention in Ukrainian OAT programs, especially in recent years, is comparable to other countries. The results confirm the importance of adequate OAT dosing (≥60mg of methadone, ≥8mg of buprenorphine). Higher dosing, however, will require interventions that address negative attitudes toward OAT by patients and providers. Interruption of OAT, in the case developing tuberculosis, should incorporate continuity of OAT for TB patients through integrated care delivery systems.

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.

Buprenorphine Initiation and Linkage to Outpatient Buprenorphine do not Reduce Frequency of Injection Opiate Use Following Hospitalization

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine has established effectiveness for outpatient treatment of opioid use disorder. Our previously published STOP (Suboxone Transition to Opiate Program) trial showed that buprenorphine induction, stabilization, and linkage to outpatient treatment in opioid-dependent inpatients (injection and non-injection drug users) decreased illicit opioid use over 6months. The present study was a planned subgroup analysis of injection opiate users from STOP.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if inpatient buprenorphine initiation and linkage to outpatient buprenorphine reduce injection opiate users' frequency of injection opiate use (IOU).

METHODS

Inpatient injection opiate users at a safety-net hospital were randomized to buprenorphine linkage (induction, stabilization, bridge prescription, and facilitated referral to outpatient treatment) or detoxification (5-day inpatient buprenorphine taper). Conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression was used to estimate the effects of intervention on 30-day (self-report) at 1, 3, and 6months, measured using 30-day timeline follow-back. The secondary outcome was linkage effectiveness, measured as % presenting to initial outpatient buprenorphine visits after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Analysis was limited to persons (n=62 randomized to detoxification and n=51 to linkage) with baseline IOU. There were no significant differences in age, ethnicity, or baseline IOU frequency. At follow-up, linkage patients (70.6%) were significantly more likely (p<0.001) to present to initial buprenorphine visits than detoxification patients (9.7%). However, there was no significant between group difference in the rate of IOU at 1- (IRR=0.73, p=0.32), 3- (IRR=1.20, p=0.54), or 6-month (IRR=0.73, p=0.23) follow-ups. Using person-day analysis, participants self-reported IOU on 5.8% of follow-up days in which they used prescription buprenorphine and 37.5% of non-buprenorphine days. Using a generalized estimating equation, the estimated odds of IOU was 4.57 times higher (p<0.001) on non-buprenorphine days.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite STOP's success in linking patients who inject opiates to outpatient buprenorphine, the intervention did not significantly decrease their IOU frequency. Injection opiate users will require a more intensive protocol to sustain outpatient buprenorphine treatment and decrease injection with its attendant risks.

Predictors of early dropout in outpatient buprenorphine/naloxone treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Identifying predictors of early drop out from outpatient treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine/naloxone (BN) may improve care for subgroups requiring more intensive engagement to achieve stabilization. However, previous research on predictors of dropout among this population has yielded mixed results. The aim of the present study was to elucidate these mixed findings by simultaneously evaluating a range of putative risk factors that may predict dropout in BN maintenance treatment.

METHODS

Outpatient medical records and weekly supervised urine toxicology results were retrospectively reviewed for patients at two community psychiatric clinics (n = 202): a private hospital clinic (n = 84) and a federally qualified health center (n = 118). A forward stepwise logistic regression was utilized to investigate the association between early dropout (i.e., discontinuing treatment or buprenorphine non-adherence within the first 3 months of clinic entry) and extracted sociodemographic, clinical, substance use, and treatment history variables.

RESULTS

Overall, 56 of 202 participants (27.7%) dropped out of treatment. The multivariable analysis indicated that age under 25 (B = 1.47, SEB = .52, p < .01) and opioid use in month 1 (B = 1.50, SEB = .41, p < .001) were significantly associated with early dropout; those with a history of suicide attempt were significantly less likely to drop out (B = -1.44, SEB = .67, p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Consistent with previous research, younger age and use of opioids during the first month of treatment predicted early dropout. Having a history of prior suicide attempt was associated with 3-month BN treatment retention, which has not been previously reported. (Am J Addict 2016;25:472-477).

Baseline characteristics of patients predicting suitability for rapid naltrexone induction

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Extended-release (XR) injection naltrexone has proved promising in the treatment of opioid dependence. Induction onto naltrexone is often accomplished with a procedure known as rapid naltrexone induction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate pre-treatment patient characteristics as predictors of successful completion of a rapid naltrexone induction procedure prior to XR naltrexone treatment.

METHODS

A chart review of 150 consecutive research participants (N = 84 completers and N = 66 non-completers) undergoing a rapid naltrexone induction with the buprenorphone-clonidine procedure were compared on a number of baseline demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors. Logistic regression was used to identify client characteristics that may predict successful initiation of naltrexone after a rapid induction-detoxification.

RESULTS

Patients who failed to successfully initiate naltrexone were younger (AOR: 1.040, CI: 1.006, 1.075), and using 10 or more bags of heroin (or equivalent) per day (AOR: 0.881, CI: 0.820, 0.946). Drug use other than opioids was also predictive of failure to initiate naltrexone in simple bivariate analyses, but was no longer significant when controlling for age and opioid use level.

CONCLUSIONS

Younger age, and indicators of greater substance dependence severity (more current opioid use, other substance use) predict difficulty completing a rapid naltrexone induction procedure. Such patients might require a longer period of stabilization and/or more gradual detoxification prior to initiating naltrexone.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Our study findings identify specific characteristics of patients who responded positively to rapid naltrexone induction.

Progression to regular heroin use: examination of patterns, predictors, and consequences

BACKGROUND

The present study retrospectively evaluated the chronology and predictors of substance use progression in current heroin-using individuals.

METHODS

Out-of-treatment heroin users (urinalysis-verified; N=562) were screened for laboratory-based research studies using questionnaires and urinalysis. Comprehensive substance use histories were collected. Between- and within-substance use progression was analyzed using stepwise linear regression models.

RESULTS

The strongest predictor of onset of regular heroin use was age at initial heroin use, accounting for 71.8% of variance. The strongest between-substance predictors of regular heroin use were ages at regular alcohol and tobacco use, accounting for 8.1% of variance. Earlier onset of regular heroin use (≤20 years) vs. older onset (≥30 years) was associated with a more rapid progression from initial to regular use, longer duration of heroin use, more lifetime use-related negative consequences, and greater likelihood of injecting heroin. The majority of participants (79.7%) reported substance use progression consistent with the gateway hypothesis. Gateway-inconsistent individuals were more likely to be African-American and to report younger age at initial use, longer duration of heroin use, and more frequent past-month heroin use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate the predictive validity and clinical relevance of evaluating substance use chronology and the gateway hypothesis pattern of progression.

Discontinuation of buprenorphine maintenance therapy: perspectives and outcomes

Buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) is increasingly the preferred opioid maintenance agent due to its reduced toxicity and availability in an office-based setting in the United States. Although BMT has been shown to be highly efficacious, it is often discontinued soon after initiation. No current systematic review has yet investigated providers' or patients' reasons for BMT discontinuation or the outcomes that follow. Hence, provider and patient perspectives associated with BMT discontinuation after a period of stable buprenorphine maintenance and the resultant outcomes were systematically reviewed with specific emphasis on pre-buprenorphine-taper parameters predictive of relapse following BMT discontinuation. Few identified studies address provider or patient perspectives associated with buprenorphine discontinuation. Within the studies reviewed providers with residency training in BMT were more likely to favor long term BMT instead of detoxification, and providers were likely to consider BMT discontinuation in the face of medication misuse. Patients often desired to remain on BMT because of fear of relapse to illicit opioid use if they were to discontinue BMT. The majority of patients who discontinued BMT did so involuntarily, often due to failure to follow strict program requirements, and 1 month following discontinuation, rates of relapse to illicit opioid use exceeded 50% in every study reviewed. Only lower buprenorphine maintenance dose, which may be a marker for attenuated addiction severity, predicted better outcomes across studies. Relaxed BMT program requirements and frequent counsel on the high probability of relapse if BMT is discontinued may improve retention in treatment and prevent the relapse to illicit opioid use that is likely to follow BMT discontinuation.

Using behavioral economics to predict opioid use during prescription opioid dependence treatment

BACKGROUND

Research grounded in behavioral economics has previously linked addictive behavior to disrupted decision-making and reward-processing, but these principles have not been examined in prescription opioid addiction, which is currently a major public health problem. This study examined whether pre-treatment drug reinforcement value predicted opioid use during outpatient treatment of prescription opioid addiction.

METHODS

Secondary analyses examined participants with prescription opioid dependence who received 12 weeks of buprenorphine-naloxone and counseling in a multi-site clinical trial (N=353). Baseline measures assessed opioid source and indices of drug reinforcement value, including the total amount and proportion of income spent on drugs. Weekly urine drug screens measured opioid use.

RESULTS

Obtaining opioids from doctors was associated with lower pre-treatment drug spending, while obtaining opioids from dealers/patients was associated with greater spending. Controlling for demographics, opioid use history, and opioid source frequency, patients who spent a greater total amount (OR=1.30, p<.001) and a greater proportion of their income on drugs (OR=1.31, p<.001) were more likely to use opioids during treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual differences in drug reinforcement value, as indicated by pre-treatment allocation of economic resources to drugs, reflects propensity for continued opioid use during treatment among individuals with prescription opioid addiction. Future studies should examine disrupted decision-making and reward-processing in prescription opioid users more directly and test whether reinforcer pathology can be remediated in this population.

Predictors of buprenorphine initial outpatient maintenance and dose taper response among non-treatment-seeking heroin dependent volunteers

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine (BUP) is effective for treating opioid use disorder. Individuals' heroin-use characteristics may predict their responses to BUP, which could differ during maintenance and dose-taper phases. If so, treatment providers could use pre-treatment characteristics to personalize level of individual care and possibly improve treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Non-treatment-seeking heroin-dependent volunteers (N=34) initiated outpatient BUP maintenance (8-mg/day) and submitted urine samples thrice weekly tested for opioids (non-contingent result). After completing three programmatically-related inpatient behavioral pharmacology experiments (while maintained on 8-mg/day BUP), participants were discharged and underwent a double-blind BUP dose taper (4-mg/day, 2-mg/day and 0-mg/day during weeks 1-3, respectively) with an opioid-abstinence incentive ($30 per consecutive opioid-negative urine specimen, obtained thrice weekly).

RESULTS

Participants who reported less pre-study (past-month) heroin use and shorter lifetime duration of heroin use were more likely to submit an opioid-negative urine sample during initial outpatient BUP maintenance. Participants who reported more lifetime heroin-quit attempts and provided any opioid-free urine sample during initial outpatient maintenance sustained longer continuous opioid-abstinence during the BUP dose taper. Participants who reported >3 lifetime quit attempts abstained from opioid use nearly one week longer (14 days vs. 8 days to opioid-lapse) and nearly half (46.7%) refrained from opioid use during dose taper.

CONCLUSIONS

Number of prior heroin quit attempts may predict BUP dose taper response and provide a metric for stratifying heroin-dependent individuals by relative risk for opioid lapse. This metric may inform personalized relapse prevention care and improve treatment outcomes.

Is residential treatment effective for opioid use disorders? A longitudinal comparison of treatment outcomes among opioid dependent, opioid misusing, and non-opioid using emerging adults with substance use disorder

BACKGROUND

Opioid misuse and dependence rates among emerging adults have increased substantially. While office-based opioid treatments (e.g., buprenorphine/naloxone) have shown overall efficacy, discontinuation rates among emerging adults are high. Abstinence-based residential treatment may serve as a viable alternative, but has seldom been investigated in this age group.

METHODS

Emerging adults attending 12-step-oriented residential treatment (N=292; 18-24 years, 74% male, 95% White) were classified into opioid dependent (OD; 25%), opioid misuse (OM; 20%), and no opiate use (NO; 55%) groups. Paired t-tests and ANOVAs tested baseline differences and whether groups differed in their during-treatment response. Longitudinal multilevel models tested whether groups differed on substance use outcomes and treatment utilization during the year following the index treatment episode.

RESULTS

Despite a more severe clinical profile at baseline among OD, all groups experienced similar during-treatment increases on therapeutic targets (e.g., abstinence self-efficacy), while OD showed a greater decline in psychiatric symptoms. During follow-up relative to OM, both NO and OD had significantly greater Percent Days Abstinent, and significantly less cannabis use. OD attended significantly more outpatient treatment sessions than OM or NO; 29% of OD was completely abstinent at 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings here suggest that residential treatment may be helpful for emerging adults with opioid dependence. This benefit may be less prominent, though, among non-dependent opioid misusers. Randomized trials are needed to compare more directly the relative benefits of outpatient agonist-based treatment to abstinence-based, residential care in this vulnerable age-group, and to examine the feasibility of an integrated model.