A placebo-controlled study of high dose buprenorphine in opiate dependents waiting for medication-assisted rehabilitation in Oslo, Norway

Assessing fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacological therapies for opioid use disorders: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The fragility index is a statistical measure of the robustness or "stability" of a statistically significant result. It has been adapted to assess the robustness of statistically significant outcomes from randomized controlled trials. By hypothetically switching some non-responders to responders, for instance, this metric measures how many individuals would need to have responded for a statistically significant finding to become non-statistically significant. The purpose of this study is to assess the fragility index of randomized controlled trials evaluating opioid substitution and antagonist therapies for opioid use disorder. This will provide an indication as to the robustness of trials in the field and the confidence that should be placed in the trials' outcomes, potentially identifying ways to improve clinical research in the field. This is especially important as opioid use disorder has become a global epidemic, and the incidence of opioid related fatalities have climbed 500% in the past two decades.

METHODS

Six databases were searched from inception to September 25, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating opioid substitution and antagonist therapies for opioid use disorder, and meeting the necessary requirements for fragility index calculation. Specifically, we included all parallel arm or two-by-two factorial design RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of any opioid substitution and antagonist therapies using a binary primary outcome and reported a statistically significant result. The fragility index of each study was calculated using methods described by Walsh and colleagues. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials.

RESULTS

Ten studies with a median sample size of 82.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 58, 179, range 52-226) were eligible for inclusion. Overall risk of bias was deemed to be low in seven studies, have some concerns in two studies, and be high in one study. The median fragility index was 7.5 (IQR 4, 12, range 1-26).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that approximately eight participants are needed to overturn the conclusions of the majority of trials in opioid use disorder. Future work should focus on maximizing transparency in reporting of study results, by reporting confidence intervals, fragility indexes, and emphasizing the clinical relevance of findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42013006507. Registered on November 25, 2013.

Relative effectiveness of medications for opioid-related disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Several pharmacotherapeutic interventions are available for maintenance treatment for opioid-related disorders. However, previous meta-analyses have been limited to pairwise comparisons of these interventions, and their efficacy relative to all others remains unclear. Our objective was to unify findings from different healthcare practices and generate evidence to strengthen clinical treatment protocols for the most widely prescribed medications for opioid-use disorders.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) from database inception to February 12, 2022. Primary outcome was treatment retention, and secondary outcome was opioid use measured by urinalysis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) for available evidence. We assessed the credibility of the NMA using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity in measuring opioid use and reporting format between studies, we conducted NMA only for treatment retention. Methadone was the highest ranked intervention (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking [SUCRA] = 0.901) in the network with control being the lowest (SUCRA = 0.000). Methadone was superior to buprenorphine for treatment retention (RR = 1.22; 95% CrI = 1.06-1.40) and buprenorphine superior to naltrexone (RR = 1.39; 95% CrI = 1.10-1.80). However, due to a limited number of high-quality trials, confidence in the network estimates of other treatment pairs involving naltrexone and slow-release oral morphine (SROM) remains low.

CONCLUSION

All treatments had higher retention than the non-pharmacotherapeutic control group. However, additional high-quality RCTs are needed to estimate more accurately the extent of efficacy of naltrexone and SROM relative to other medications. For pharmacotherapies with established efficacy profiles, assessment of their long-term comparative effectiveness may be warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) (identifier CRD42021256212).

Therapy Dose Mediates the Relationship Between Buprenorphine/Naloxone and Opioid Treatment Outcomes in Youth Receiving Medication for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based interventions for treating opioid use disorder (OUD) in youth are limited and little is known about specific and general mechanisms of OUD treatments and how they promote abstinence.

METHODS

The present study used data from the NIDA-CTN-0010 trial to evaluate the mediating effects of psychosocial treatment-related variables (therapy dose and therapeutic alliance) on end-of-treatment opioid abstinence in a sample of youth with OUD (n = 152, 40% female, mean age = 19.7 years) randomized to receive either 12-weeks of treatment with Bup/Nal ("Bup-Nal") or up to 2 weeks of Bup/Nal detoxification ("Detox") with both treatment arms receiving weekly individual and group drug counseling ± family therapy.

RESULTS

Participants in the Bup-Nal group attended more therapy sessions (16 vs 6 sessions), had increased therapeutic alliance at week-4, and had less opioid use by week-12 compared to those in the Detox group. In both treatment arms, youth who attended more therapy sessions were less likely to have a week-12 opioid positive urine. In a multiple mediator model, therapy dose mediated the association between treatment arm and opioid abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide preliminary support for a "dose-response" effect of addiction-focused therapy on abstinence in youth OUD. Further, the results identified a mediating effect of therapy dose on the relationship between treatment assignment and opioid treatment outcomes, suggesting that extended Bup-Nal treatment may enhance abstinence, in part, through a mechanism of therapy facilitation, by increasing therapy dose during treatment.

Interim opioid agonist treatment for opioid addiction: a systematic review

Background

Opioid use disorder is a public health problem and treatment variability, coverage and accessibility poses some challenges. The study’s objective is to review the impact of interim opioid agonist treatment (OAT), a short-term approach for patients awaiting standard OAT, in terms of treatment retention, access to standard OAT, quality of life and satisfaction with treatment.

Method

We conducted a systematic review searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL up to May 2020. Due to variability between studies and outcome measurements, we did not pool effect estimates and reported a narrative synthesis of findings rating their certainty according to GRADE.

Results

We identified 266 unique records and included five randomized trials with some limitations in risk of bias and one observational study limited by selection bias. The studies assessed similar approaches to interim OAT but were compared to three different control conditions. Four studies reported on treatment retention at 4 months or less with no significant differences between interim OAT and waiting list or standard OAT. Two studies reported treatment retention at 12 months with no differences between interim OAT and standard OAT. Two trials assessed access to standard OAT and showed significant differences between interim OAT and waiting list for standard OAT. We rated the quality of evidence for these outcomes as moderate due to the impact of risk of bias. Data on quality of life or satisfaction with treatment was suboptimal.

Conclusions

Interim OAT is likely more effective than a waiting list for standard OAT in access to treatment, and it is probably as effective as standard OAT regarding treatment retention.

PROSPERO registration CRD42018116269.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12954-022-00592-x.

Effects of extended abstinence on cognitive functions in tramadol-dependent patients: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Some pieces of the literature report impaired cognitive functioning in tramadol dependence. Whether extended abstinence improves cognitive functioning or not is not well studied.

AIM

We aimed to measure the change in cognitive functioning following complete abstinence among individuals with tramadol dependence.

METHODS

Eighty-three male tramadol-dependent (TD) and 57 matched healthy controls participated in this study. Cognitive functions were assessed using: The Trail making test (TMT), Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised (WMS-R), and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). Patients were assessed in the first week immediately after the end of the in-patient treatment program (T1), and after six months of sustained abstinence (T2).

RESULTS

At T1, the TD group showed deficits on all tested cognitive parameters (visual attention, task switching, working memory, visual memory, verbal memory, verbal knowledge, Verbal IQ, Performance IQ, and Full-Scale IQ) in comparison to the control group. At T2, significant improvements had occurred in all the tested parameters except performance IQ. The cognitive performance of the abstinent individuals at T2 was comparable to the control group for the verbal subsets of WMS-R, Verbal IQ, Performance IQ, and Full-Scale IQ. Nevertheless, it was still worse than the control group in TMT, and all other WMS subsets.

CONCLUSION

tramadol dependence has negative effects on cognitive performance, which improves with extended abstinence.

Impact of opioid agonist treatment on mental health in patients with opioid use disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background: There is a knowledge gap in systematic reviews on the impact of opioid agonist treatments on mental health.Objectives: We compared mental health outcomes between different opioid agonist treatments and placebo/waitlist, and between the different opioids themselves.Methods: This meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was pre-registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018109375). Embase, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL Complete, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception to May 2020. RCTs were included if they compared opioid agonists with each other or with placebo/waitlist in the treatment of patients with opioid use disorder and reported at least one mental health outcome after 1-month post-baseline. Studies with psychiatric care, adjunct psychotropic medications, or unbalanced psychosocial services were excluded. The primary outcome was overall mental health symptomatology, e.g. Symptom Checklist 90 total score, between opioids and placebo/waitlist. Random effects models were used for all the meta-analyses.Results: Nineteen studies were included in the narrative synthesis and 15 in the quantitative synthesis. Hydromorphone, diacetylmorphine (DAM), methadone, slow-release oral morphine, buprenorphine, and placebo/waitlist were among the included interventions. Based on the network meta-analysis for primary outcomes, buprenorphine (SMD (CI95%) = -0.61 (-1.20, -0.11)), DAM (-1.40 (-2.70, -0.23)), and methadone (-1.20 (-2.30, -0.11)) were superior to waitlist/placebo on overall mental health. Further direct pairwise meta-analysis indicated that overall mental health improved more in DAM compared to methadone (-0.23 (-0.34, -0.13)).Conclusions: Opioid agonist treatments used for the treatment of opioid use disorder improve mental health independent of psychosocial services.

Screening for Unhealthy Drug Use: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Illicit drug use is among the most common causes of preventable morbidity and mortality in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature on screening and interventions for drug use to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through September 18, 2018; literature surveillance through September 21, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Test accuracy studies to detect drug misuse and randomized clinical trials of screening and interventions to reduce drug use.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers and random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity, drug use and other health, social, and legal outcomes.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine studies (N = 84 206) were included. Twenty-eight studies (n = 65 720) addressed drug screening accuracy. Among adults, sensitivity and specificity of screening tools for detecting unhealthy drug use ranged from 0.71 to 0.94 and 0.87 to 0.97, respectively. Interventions to reduce drug use were evaluated in 52 trials (n = 15 659) of psychosocial interventions, 7 trials (n = 1109) of opioid agonist therapy, and 13 trials (n = 1718) of naltrexone. Psychosocial interventions were associated with increased likelihood of drug use abstinence (15 trials, n = 3636; relative risk [RR], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.24 to 2.13]; absolute risk difference [ARD], 9% [95% CI, 5% to 15%]) and reduced number of drug use days (19 trials, n = 5085; mean difference, -0.49 day in the last 7 days [95% CI, -0.85 to -0.13]) vs no psychosocial intervention at 3- to 4-month follow-up. In treatment-seeking populations, opioid agonist therapy and naltrexone were associated with decreased risk of drug use relapse (4 trials, n = 567; RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82]; ARD, -35% [95% CI, -67% to -3%] and 12 trials, n = 1599; RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.85]; ARD, -18% [95% CI, -26% to -10%], respectively) vs placebo or no medication. While evidence on harms was limited, it indicated no increased risk of serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Several screening instruments with acceptable sensitivity and specificity are available to screen for drug use, although there is no direct evidence on the benefits or harms of screening. Pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions are effective at improving drug use outcomes, but evidence of effectiveness remains primarily derived from trials conducted in treatment-seeking populations.

A call for consensus in defining efficacy in clinical trials for opioid addiction: combined results from a systematic review and qualitative study in patients receiving pharmacological assisted therapy for opioid use disorder

Background

Given the complex nature of opioid addiction treatment and the rising number of available opioid substitution and antagonist therapies (OSAT), there is no ‘gold standard’ measure of treatment effectiveness, and each successive trial measures a different set of outcomes which reflect success in arbitrary or opportune terms. We sought to describe the variation in current outcomes employed across clinical trials for opioid addiction, as well as determine whether a discrepancy exists between the treatment targets that patients consider important and how treatment effectiveness is measured in the literature.

Methods

We searched nine commonly used databases (e.g., EMBASE, MEDLINE) from inception to August 1, 2015. Outcomes used across trials were extracted and categorized according to previously established domains. To evaluate patient-reported goals of treatment, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 adults undergoing methadone treatment.

Results

We identified 60 trials eligible for inclusion. Once outcomes were categorized into eight broad domains (e.g., abstinence/substance abuse), we identified 21 specific outcomes with furthermore 53 subdomains and 118 measurements. Continued opioid use and treatment retention were the most commonly reported measures (46%, n = 28). The majority of patients agreed that abstinence from opioids was a primary goal in their treatment, although they also stressed goals under-reported in clinical trials.

Conclusions

There is inconsistency in the measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of OSATs. Individual and population level decision making is being guided by a standard of effect considered useful to researchers yet in direct conflict with what patients deem important.

Trial registration

PROSPERO, CRD42013006507.

Opioid-related deaths in Europe: Strategies for a comprehensive approach to address a major public health concern

Use of illicit opioids and misuse of prescription opioids are the main causes of drug-related deaths across the world, and the continuing rise in opioid-related mortality, especially affecting North America, Australia and Europe, is a public health challenge. Strategies that may help to decrease the high levels of opioid-related mortality and morbidity and improve care across Europe include risk assessment and interventions to improve the use of opioid analgesics, e.g. prescription drug-monitoring programmes, education on pain management to reduce opioid prescribing, and the implementation of evidence-based primary prevention programmes to reduce the demand for opioids. For patients who develop opioid use disorder (a chronic and relapsing problematic use of opioids that causes clinical impairment or distress), treatment combining opiate receptor full or partial agonist medications for opioid-use disorder (MOUD) with psychosocial interventions is essential. However, in Europe a substantial proportion of the 1.3 million high-risk opioid users (defined as injecting drug use or regular use of opioids, mainly heroin) remain outside of dedicated treatment programmes. More widespread and easier access to MOUD could reduce mortality levels; via approaches such as primary care-led treatment models, and efforts to improve patient retention and adherence to treatment programmes. Other harm-reduction strategies, such as the use of MOUD at optimal doses, the provision of take-home naloxone, the introduction of supervised drug-consumption facilities, and patient education to reduce the risk of overdose may also be beneficial.

A systematic review of sex differences in treatment outcomes among people with opioid use disorder receiving buprenorphine maintenance versus other treatment conditions

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder is a major health concern in North America. Currently, buprenorphine is one of the most common pharmacological interventions used to treat opioid use disorder. Despite increasing prevalence of opioid use disorder among females, little is known about sex considerations in relation to treatment with buprenorphine.

METHODS

CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials examining buprenorphine maintenance versus other medication-assisted treatment, placebo, or withdrawal management to determine if there were any sex differences in treatment outcomes reported.

RESULTS

This review included 25 studies and found that only 52% included information related to sex differences in treatment outcomes or discussed any sex considerations in their studies. Of the 6,466 patients represented by these studies, only 26% were female. Of the studies conducting sex-specific analyses, seven studies examined treatment retention, five examined opioid use, two examined other substance use and one examined sexual risk behaviours. However, due to mixed findings, small sample sizes, and inability to conduct meta-analyses, no conclusive statements can be made about sex differences in these outcomes. None of the studies described sex differences in quality of life, legal involvement or mental and physical health.

CONCLUSIONS

Low numbers of females have been included in randomized controlled trials examining buprenorphine compared to males. While sex differences in treatment outcomes were identified in this review, further research is needed in order to add to these findings. Future studies should include greater numbers of female participants and conduct sex-specific analyses.

A randomized controlled trial of buprenorphine for probationers and parolees: Bridging the gap into treatment

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine can be effective in a variety of community substance use treatment settings outside of methadone programs, including outpatient programs and medical practices. In these settings, it has been found to be effective in reducing opioid use and retaining patients in treatment. Despite its effectiveness and safety, it is rarely provided to individuals with opioid use disorders in probation and parole settings.

METHODS

Male and female individuals under probation or parole supervision (N = 320) with histories of opioid use disorder will be enrolled in this randomized controlled trial. Participants will be randomized to one of two study arms: Buprenorphine Bridge Treatment (BBT): Participants will begin buprenorphine using the MedicaSafe dispensing device immediately after an on-site intake at a community supervision office and continue such treatment until they are transitioned to a community program; or Treatment as Usual (TAU): Participants will receive a referral to buprenorphine pharmacotherapy treatment in the community. Treatment outcomes will be: (a) illicit opioid oral saliva drug test results; and (b) treatment adherence (i. entered community based treatment; ii. number of days receiving opioid treatment).

RESULTS

We describe the background and rationale for the study, its aims, hypotheses, and study design.

CONCLUSIONS

If shown to increase compliance rates with conditions of probation and parole, buprenorphine treatment co-located at community supervision field offices could have a major impact on delivery of buprenorphine treatment to the criminal justice population. The public health impact of the proposed study would be widespread because this intervention could be implemented throughout areas of the US.

Efficacy and safety of a monthly buprenorphine depot injection for opioid use disorder: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

RBP-6000, referred to as BUP-XR (extended-release buprenorphine), is a subcutaneously injected, monthly buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. BUP-XR provides sustained buprenorphine plasma concentrations to block drug-liking of abused opioids over the entire monthly dosing period, while controlling withdrawal and craving symptoms. Administration of BUP-XR in a health-care setting also mitigates abuse, misuse, diversion, and unintentional exposure. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of different BUP-XR dosing regimens in participants with opioid use disorder.

METHODS

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 36 treatment centres in the USA. Treatment-seeking adults aged 18-65 years who had moderate or severe opioid use disorder (as defined by the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) entered an open-label run-in phase of up to 2 weeks' treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual film. Eligible participants were then randomly assigned (4:4:1:1) with an interactive voice/web-response system to receive BUP-XR 300 mg/300 mg (six injections of 300 mg), BUP-XR 300 mg/100 mg (two injections of 300 mg plus four injections of 100 mg), or volume-matched placebo every 28 days, and received weekly individual drug counselling. No supplemental buprenorphine was allowed. The primary efficacy endpoint was participants' percentage abstinence from opioid use, defined as the percentage of each participant's negative urine samples and self-reports of illicit opioid use from week 5 to week 24, analysed in the full analysis set. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of BUP-XR or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02357901.

FINDINGS

From Jan 28, 2015, to Nov 12, 2015, 1187 potential participants were screened, 665 entered run-in, and 504 received BUP-XR 300 mg/300 mg (n=201), BUP-XR 300 mg/100 mg (n=203), or placebo (n=100). Mean participants' percentage abstinence was 41·3% (SD 39·7) for BUP-XR 300 mg/300 mg and 42·7% (38·5) for 300 mg/100 mg, compared with 5·0% (17·0) for placebo (p<0·0001 for both BUP-XR regimens). No compensatory non-opioid drug use was observed during BUP-XR treatment. The most common adverse events were headache (17 [8%] participants in the BUP-XR 300 mg/300 mg group vs 19 [9%] participants in the BUP-XR 300 mg/100 mg group vs six [6%] participants in the placebo group), constipation (16 [8%] vs 19 [9%] vs 0), nausea (16 [8%] vs 18 [9%] vs five [5%]), and injection-site pruritis (19 [9%] vs 13 [6%] vs four [4%]). The BUP-XR safety profile was consistent with other buprenorphine products for treatment of opioid use disorder, except for injection-site reactions, which were reported in more than 5% of all participants who received BUP-XR, but were mostly mild and not treatment-limiting.

INTERPRETATION

Participants' percentage abstinence was significantly higher in both BUP-XR groups than in the placebo group. Treatment with BUP-XR was also well tolerated. The availability of this monthly formulation, delivered by health-care providers, represents an advance in treatment for opioid use disorder that enhances the benefits of buprenorphine by delivering sustained, optimal exposure, while reducing risks of current buprenorphine products.

FUNDING

Indivior.

Interim buprenorphine treatment during delays to comprehensive treatment: Changes in psychiatric symptoms

Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and mood disorders among individuals with opioid use disorder far exceeds that of the general population. While psychiatric symptoms often improve upon entry into opioid treatment, this has typically been seen with treatments involving psychosocial counseling. In this secondary analysis, we examined changes in psychiatric symptoms during a randomized clinical trial evaluating an interim buprenorphine treatment without counseling among individuals awaiting entry into comprehensive treatment. Waitlisted adults with opioid use disorder (N = 50) were randomized to one of two 12-week conditions: interim buprenorphine treatment (IBT; n = 25) consisting of buprenorphine maintenance using a computerized medication dispenser, with bimonthly clinic visits and technology-assisted monitoring, or waitlist control (WLC; n = 25), wherein participants remained on the waitlist of their local clinic. All participants completed assessments of psychiatric symptoms at intake and Study Weeks 4, 8, and 12. We examined changes on the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and Psychiatric subscale of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI). Significant group-by-time interactions were observed for all measures of psychiatric severity examined: BAI (p < .05), BDI-II (p < .01), 5 BSI subscales (ps < .05), and the ASI Psychiatric subscale (p < .05). On all measures, IBT participants reported significantly reduced psychiatric severity at the 4-, 8-, and 12-week assessments relative to baseline. In contrast, there were no significant changes in psychiatric symptoms among WLC participants. IBT without counseling may improve psychiatric distress among waitlisted individuals with opioid use disorder. (PsycINFO Database Record

A cross-national analysis of the association between years of implementation of opioid substitution treatments and drug-related deaths in Europe from 1995 to 2013

Data at the individual-level provide evidence that opioid substitution treatment (OST) programs protect against mortality for opioid dependent populations. Prior research has not examined the merits of national implementation of opioid substitution programs for reducing mortality at the country-level. This study elucidates longitudinal associations between country-level implementation of opioid substitution treatment programs on mortality rates of drug related deaths (DRD) from 1995 to 2013 in 30 European nations. Cases of DRD were measured using National Definitions for each country from official sources of data. Preliminary analysis of dispersion of cases of DRD using means and variances justified use of the negative binomial regression model with a population offset. Year and country-level fixed effects negative binomial regression models investigated the association between years of implementation of methadone maintenance therapy (MMT), OST in prison, and high dose buprenorphine treatment (HDBT) implementation and mortality rates from drug related deaths after adjusting for unemployment rates, heroin seizures and per capita expenditures on health. Beta coefficients were converted to Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) and standard errors bootstrapped using non-parametric methods to adjust for bias (SD_bs). The mean mortality rate of DRD was 1.81 from 1995 to 2013. In adjusted models, each additional year of MMT (IRR = .61, SD = .04, p < .001; SD_bs = .08, p < .001), prison OST (IRR = .90, SD = .01, p < .001; SD_bs = .02, p < .001), and HDBT (IRR = .09, SD = .02, p < .001; SD_bs = .02, p < .01) was significantly associated with lower rates of DRDs after adjusting for country and year fixed effects. Implementation of OST programs in the general population and in prison settings may have protected against mortality from drug use at the country-level in Europe from 1995 to 2013.

Buprenorphine/Naloxone Maintenance Therapy: an Observational Retrospective Report on the Effect of Dose on 18 months Retention in an Office-Based Treatment Program

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Buprenorphine has been available with few reports of the dose range necessary to adequately maintain patients. We report on the effect of 8 mg/d versus 16 mg/d of buprenorphine on long-term patient retention in office-based opioid maintenance (OBOMT).

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Case series, at an urban hospital-based primary care clinic providing OBOMT to 157 opiate-dependent, low socioeconomic status, uninsured, nonhomeless patients.

INTERVENTION

The OBOMT program operated by a comprehensive sobriety treatment program experienced State funding cuts. Thus, after 2 years, the program was required by the State funder to decrease the buprenorphine maintenance dose from 16 to 8 mg/d for all new admissions. We report on patient retention before and after dose reduction.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes of this study were to measure and compare patient retention in the 2 cohorts at each point of treatment transition over the 18 months following OBOMT initiation.

RESULTS

No significant differences in patient retention were observed between the 16 and 8 mg/d patient cohorts. Lower dose buprenorphine maintenance (8 mg/d) in uninsured patients enrolled in publicly funded long-term OBOMT combined with comprehensive sobriety counseling was as effective as higher dose therapy (16 mg/d) in promoting patient retention throughout the study period. This lower dose resulted in a substantial saving to the public funding agency.

CONCLUSIONS

In an observational retrospective report, retention in treatment of opiate-addicted patients was the same at 8 and 16 mg/d buprenorphine doses after 18 months. These data have implications for public and managed care funding of OBOMT, for the general prescribing of buprenorphine in outpatient care, and may be instructive in the ongoing debate about the relationship between buprenorphine dose.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of unsupervised buprenorphine-naloxone for the treatment of heroin dependence in a randomized waitlist controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Access to opioid agonist treatment can be associated with extensive waiting periods with significant health and financial burdens. This study aimed to determine whether patients with heroin dependence dispensed buprenorphine-naloxone weekly have greater reductions in heroin use and related adverse health effects 12-weeks after commencing treatment, compared to waitlist controls and to examine the cost-effectiveness of this strategy.

METHODS

An open-label waitlist RCT was conducted in an opioid treatment clinic in Newcastle, Australia. Fifty patients with DSM-IV-TR heroin dependence (and no other substance dependence) were recruited. The intervention group (n=25) received take-home self-administered sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone weekly (mean dose, 22.7±5.7mg) and weekly clinical review. Waitlist controls (n=25) received no clinical intervention. The primary outcome was heroin use (self-report, urine toxicology verified) at weeks four, eight and 12. The primary cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per additional heroin-free-day.

RESULTS

Outcome data were available for 80% of all randomized participants. Across the 12-weeks, treatment group heroin use was on average 19.02days less/month (95% CI -22.98, -15.06, p<0.0001). A total 12-week reduction in adjusted costs including crime of $A5,722 (95% CI 3299, 8154) in favor of treatment was observed. Excluding crime, incremental cost per heroin-free-day gained from treatment was $A18.24 (95% CI 4.50, 28.49).

CONCLUSION

When compared to remaining on a waitlist, take-home self-administered buprenorphine-naloxone treatment is associated with significant reductions in heroin use for people with DSM-IV-TR heroin dependence. This cost-effective approach may be an efficient strategy to enhance treatment capacity.

Supervised dosing with a long-acting opioid medication in the management of opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Opioid dependence (OD) is an increasing clinical and public health problem worldwide. International guidelines recommend opioid substitution treatment (OST), such as methadone and buprenorphine, as first-line medication treatment for OD. A negative aspect of OST is that the medication used can be diverted both through sale on the black market, and the unsanctioned use of medications. Daily supervised administration of medications used in OST has the advantage of reducing the risk of diversion, and may promote therapeutic engagement, potentially enhancing the psychosocial aspect of OST, but costs more and is more restrictive on the client than dispensing for off-site consumption.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of OST with supervised dosing relative to dispensing of medication for off-site consumption.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched in Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science from inception up to April 2016. Ongoing and unpublished studies were searched via ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/).All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references on topic-related systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and prospective controlled cohort studies, involving people who are receiving OST (methadone, buprenorphine) and comparing supervised dosing with dispensing of medication to be consumed away from the dispensing point, usually without supervision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies (four RCTs and two prospective observational cohort studies), involving 7999 participants comparing supervised OST treatment with unsupervised treatment, met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was generally moderate across trials, but the results reported on outcomes that we planned to consider were limited. Overall, we judged the quality of the evidence from very low to low for all the outcomes.We found no difference in retention at any duration with supervised compared to unsupervised dosing (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12, 716 participants, four trials, low-quality evidence) or in retention in the shortest follow-up period, three months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; 472 participants, three trials, low-quality evidence). Additional data at 12 months from one observational study found no difference in retention between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.14; n = 300).There was no difference in abstinence at the end of treatment (self-reported drug use) (67% versus 60%, P = 0.33, 293 participants, one trial, very low-quality evidence); and in diversion of medication (5% versus 2%, 293 participants, one trial, very low-quality evidence).Regarding our secondary outcomes, we did not found a difference in the incidence of adverse effects in the supervised compared to unsupervised control group (RR 0.63; 96% CI 0.10 to 3.86; 363 participants, two trials, very low-quality evidence). Data on severity of dependence were very limited (244 participants, one trial) and showed no difference between the two approaches. Data on deaths were reported in two studies. One trial reported two deaths in the supervised group (low-quality evidence), while in the cohort study all-cause mortality was found lower in regular supervision group (crude mortality rate 0.60 versus 0.81 per 100 person-years), although after adjustment insufficient evidence existed to suggest that regular supervision was protective (mortality rate ratio = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.67 to 2.27).No studies reported pain symptoms, drug craving, aberrant opioid-related behaviours, days of unsanctioned opioid use and overdose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Take-home medication strategies are attractive to treatment services due to lower costs, and place less restrictions on clients, but it is unknown whether they may be associated with increased risk of diversion and unsanctioned use of medication. There is uncertainty about the effects of supervised dosing compared with unsupervised medication due to the low and very low quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for this review. Data on defined secondary outcomes were similarly limited. More research comparing supervised and take-home medication strategies is needed to support decisions on the relative effectiveness of these strategies. The trials should be designed and conducted with high quality and over a longer follow-up period to support comparison of strategies at different stages of treatment. In particular, there is a need for studies assessing in more detail the risk of diversion and safety outcomes of using supervised OST to manage opioid dependence.

Correlates of Nine-Month Retention following Interim Buprenorphine-Naloxone Treatment in Opioid Dependence: A Pilot Study

Interim medication-only treatment has been suggested for the initiation of opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) in opioid-dependent subjects, but this rarely has been studied using buprenorphine instead of methadone. Following a pilot trial assessing interim buprenorphine-naloxone treatment in order to facilitate transfer into OMT, we here aimed to study retention, and potential correlates of retention, in full-scale treatment. Thirty-six patients successfully referred from a waiting list through an interim treatment phase were followed for nine months in OMT. Baseline characteristics, as well as urine analyses during the interim phase and during full-scale OMT, were studied as potential correlates of retention. The nine-month retention in OMT was 83 percent (n = 30). While interim-phase urine samples positive for benzodiazepines did not significantly predict dropout from full-scale OMT (p = 0.09), urine samples positive for benzodiazepines within full-scale OMT were significantly associated with dropout (p < 0.01), in contrast to other substances and baseline characteristics. Retention remained high through nine months in this pilot study sample of patients referred through buprenorphine-naloxone interim treatment, but use of benzodiazepines is problematic, and the present data suggest that it may be associated with treatment dropout.

Meyer A, Hruska B, Ochalek T, Rose G, Badger GJ, Brooklyn JR, Heil SH, Higgins ST, Moore BA, Schwartz RP. Bridging waitlist delays with interim buprenorphine treatment: initial feasibility

Despite the effectiveness of agonist maintenance for opioid dependence, individuals can remain on waitlists for months, during which they are at significant risk for morbidity and mortality. Interim dosing, consisting of daily medication without counseling, can reduce these risks. In this pilot study, we examined the initial feasibility of a novel technology-assisted interim buprenorphine treatment for waitlisted opioid-dependent adults. Following buprenorphine induction during Week 1, participants (n=10) visited the clinic at Weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 to ingest their medication under staff observation, provide a urine specimen and receive their remaining doses via a computerized Med-O-Wheel Secure device. They also received daily monitoring via an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) platform, as well as random call-backs for urinalysis and medication adherence checks. The primary outcome was percent of participants negative for illicit opioids at each 2-week visit, with secondary outcomes of past-month drug use, adherence and acceptability. Participants achieved high levels of illicit opioid abstinence, with 90% abstinent at the Week 2 and 4 visits and 60% at Week 12. Significant reductions were observed in self-reported past-month illicit opioid use (p<.001), opioid withdrawal (p<.001), opioid craving (p<.001) and ASI Drug composite score (p=.008). Finally, adherence with buprenorphine administration (99%), daily IVR calls (97%) and random call-backs (82%) was high. Interim buprenorphine treatment shows promise for reducing patient and societal risks during delays to conventional treatment. A larger-scale, randomized clinical trial is underway to more rigorously examine the efficacy of this treatment approach.

Interim treatment: Bridging delays to opioid treatment access

OBJECTIVE

Despite the undisputed effectiveness of agonist maintenance for opioid dependence, individuals can remain on waitlists for months, during which they are at significant risk for morbidity and mortality. To mitigate these risks, the Food and Drug Administration in 1993 approved interim treatment, involving daily medication+emergency counseling only, when only a waitlist is otherwise available. We review the published research in the 20years since the approval of interim opioid treatment.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify all randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of interim treatment for opioid-dependent patients awaiting comprehensive treatment.

RESULTS

Interim opioid treatment has been evaluated in four controlled trials to date. In three, interim treatment was compared to waitlist or placebo control conditions and produced greater outcomes on measures of illicit opioid use, retention, criminality, and likelihood of entry into comprehensive treatment. In the fourth, interim treatment was compared to standard methadone maintenance and produced comparable outcomes in illicit opioid use, retention, and criminal activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Interim treatment significantly reduces patient and societal risks when conventional treatment is unavailable. Further research is needed to examine the generality of these findings, further enhance outcomes, and identify the patient characteristics which predict treatment response.

Impact of Chronic Pain on Treatment Prognosis for Patients with Opioid Use Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While a number of pharmacological interventions exist for the treatment of opioid use disorder, evidence evaluating the effect of pain on substance use behavior, attrition rate, and physical or mental health among these therapies has not been well established. We aim to evaluate these effects using evidence gathered from a systematic review of studies evaluating chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in patients with opioid use disorder.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ProQuest Dissertations and theses Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and National Institutes for Health Clinical Trials Registry databases to identify articles evaluating the impact of pain on addiction treatment outcomes for patients maintained on opioid agonist therapy.

RESULTS

Upon screening 3,540 articles, 14 studies with a combined sample of 3,128 patients fulfilled the review inclusion criteria. Results from the meta-analysis suggest that pain has no effect on illicit opioid consumption [pooled odds ratio (pOR): 0.70, 95%CI 0.41–1.17; I² = 0.0] but a protective effect for reducing illicit non-opioid substance use (pOR: 0.57, 95%CI 0.41–0.79; I² = 0.0). Studies evaluating illicit opioid consumption using other measures demonstrate pain to increase the risk for opioid abuse. Pain is significantly associated with the presence of psychiatric disorders (pOR: 2.18; 95%CI 1.6, 2.9; I² = 0.0%).

CONCLUSION

CNCP may increase risk for continued opioid abuse and poor psychiatric functioning. Qualitative synthesis of the findings suggests that major methodological differences in the design and measurement of pain and treatment response outcomes are likely impacting the effect estimates.

Interim buprenorphine treatment in opiate dependence: A pilot effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

Interim methadone treatment (i.e., temporary medication-only treatment) has been tested in a few U.S. studies as a method for facilitated referral to and initiation of opioid maintenance treatment in heroin dependence. However, despite the favorable safety profile of buprenorphine compared with methadone, interim treatment with buprenorphine rarely has been tested and reported in the scientific literature. The present pilot effectiveness study aims to assess the feasibility of an interim buprenorphine treatment for initiation of individuals with opiate dependence into full-scale opioid maintenance treatment, and to study baseline predictors of successful transfer to full-scale treatment.

METHODS

Interim treatment was introduced in a high-threshold setting with waiting lists to opioid maintenance treatment. Consecutive patients on the waiting list were offered the option to enter interim treatment. The interim program was a medication-only condition with supervised daily doses of buprenorphine-naloxone. The main outcome was successful transfer to full-scale opioid maintenance treatment, which required a drug-free urine sample.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients entered interim buprenorphine treatment. Among them, 57% (n = 25) were successfully transferred to full-scale treatment after an average of 44 days. Remaining patients could not be transferred, generally because they did not manage to become drug-free. Successful transfer to full-scale treatment was associated with a lower baseline Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score (4.4 vs. 12.6; P < .001) and tended to be associated with lower cannabis use (5.2 vs. 10.4 days during the past 30 days; P = .06) and lower heroin use (7.2 vs. 9.9 days; P = .09) prior to baseline. In a logistic regression analysis, only lower AUDIT score predicted successful treatment entry.

CONCLUSIONS

According to these pilot data, supervised buprenorphine-naloxone in a medication-only interim treatment condition appears to be a feasible way to improve treatment initiation in a high-threshold setting. Polydrug use, including higher levels of alcohol consumption, may predict a more complicated course in interim treatment.

Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine maintenance treatment has been evaluated in randomised controlled trials against placebo medication, and separately as an alternative to methadone for management of opioid dependence.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate buprenorphine maintenance compared to placebo and to methadone maintenance in the management of opioid dependence, including its ability to retain people in treatment, suppress illicit drug use, reduce criminal activity, and mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to January 2013: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, PsycLIT, CORK, Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia, Australian Drug Foundation, Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol, Library of Congress, reference lists of identified studies and reviews. We sought published/unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of buprenorphine maintenance treatment versus placebo or methadone in management of opioid-dependent persons.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane Collaboration methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 31 trials (5430 participants), the quality of evidence varied from high to moderate quality.There is high quality of evidence that buprenorphine was superior to placebo medication in retention of participants in treatment at all doses examined. Specifically, buprenorphine retained participants better than placebo: at low doses (2 - 6 mg), 5 studies, 1131 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.88; at medium doses (7 - 15 mg), 4 studies, 887 participants, RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.87; and at high doses (≥ 16 mg), 5 studies, 1001 participants, RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.90. However, there is moderate quality of evidence that only high-dose buprenorphine (≥ 16 mg) was more effective than placebo in suppressing illicit opioid use measured by urinanalysis in the trials, 3 studies, 729 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.17; 95% CI -1.85 to -0.49, Notably, low-dose, (2 studies, 487 participants, SMD 0.10; 95% CI -0.80 to 1.01), and medium-dose, (2 studies, 463 participants, SMD -0.08; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.62) buprenorphine did not suppress illicit opioid use measured by urinanalysis better than placebo.There is high quality of evidence that buprenorphine in flexible doses adjusted to participant need,was less effective than methadone in retaining participants, 5 studies, 788 participants, RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95. For those retained in treatment, no difference was observed in suppression of opioid use as measured by urinalysis, 8 studies, 1027 participants, SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.02 or self report, 4 studies, 501 participants, SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07, with moderate quality of evidence.Consistent with the results in the flexible-dose studies, in low fixed-dose studies, methadone (≤ 40 mg) was more likely to retain participants than low-dose buprenorphine (2 - 6 mg), (3 studies, 253 participants, RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.87). However, we found contrary results at medium dose and high dose: there was no difference between medium-dose buprenorphine (7 - 15 mg) and medium-dose methadone (40 - 85 mg) in retention, (7 studies, 780 participants, RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.10) or in suppression of illicit opioid use as measured by urines, (4 studies, 476 participants, SMD 0.25; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.58) or self report of illicit opioid use, (2 studies, 174 participants, SMD -0.82; 95% CI -1.83 to 0.19). Similarly, there was no difference between high-dose buprenorphine (≥ 16 mg) and high-dose methadone (≥ 85 mg) in retention (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.20 to 3.16) or suppression of self-reported heroin use (SMD -0.73; 95% CI -1.08 to -0.37) (1 study, 134 participants).Few studies reported adverse events ; two studies compared adverse events statistically, finding no difference between methadone and buprenorphine, except for a single result indicating more sedation among those using methadone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is an effective medication in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, retaining people in treatment at any dose above 2 mg, and suppressing illicit opioid use (at doses 16 mg or greater) based on placebo-controlled trials.However, compared to methadone, buprenorphine retains fewer people when doses are flexibly delivered and at low fixed doses. If fixed medium or high doses are used, buprenorphine and methadone appear no different in effectiveness (retention in treatment and suppression of illicit opioid use); however, fixed doses are rarely used in clinical practice so the flexible dose results are more relevant to patient care. Methadone is superior to buprenorphine in retaining people in treatment, and methadone equally suppresses illicit opioid use.

A review of the community reinforcement approach in the treatment of opioid dependence

This article reviews the Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA) in the treatment of opioid dependence. It covers the use of CRA with both methadone maintenance patients and patients withdrawing from opioids. The data reviewed in the use of CRA in combination with methadone maintenance shows improvement in a number of areas. These include the reduction of opioid use, as well as other drugs of abuse, improved legal status, less psychiatric symptoms, and improved vocational and social functioning. CRA coupled with vouchers can assist in retaining patients in treatment long enough to improve opioid detoxification rates from buprenorphine and coupled with naltrexone may sustain abstinence. Further, the use of a standardized computerized format may extend the utility of CRA.

The pharmacological treatment of opioid addiction--a clinical perspective

This article reviews the main pharmacotherapies that are currently being used to treat opioid addiction. Treatments include detoxification using tapered methadone, buprenorphine, adrenergic agonists such as clonidine and lofexidine, and forms of rapid detoxification. In opioid maintenance treatment (OMT), methadone is most widely used. OMT with buprenorphine, buprenorphine-naloxone combination, or other opioid agonists is also discussed. The use of the opioid antagonists naloxone (for the treatment of intoxication and overdose) and oral and sustained-release formulations of naltrexone (for relapse prevention) is also considered. Although recent advances in the neurobiology of addictions may lead to the development of new pharmacotherapies for the treatment of addictive disorders, a major challenge lies in delivering existing treatments more effectively. Pharmacotherapy of opioid addiction alone is usually insufficient, and a complete treatment should also include effective psychosocial support or other interventions. Combining pharmacotherapies with psychosocial support strategies that are tailored to meet the patients' needs represents the best way to treat opioid addiction effectively.

Long-term outcomes of office-based buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance therapy

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine/naloxone was approved by the FDA for office-based opioid maintenance therapy (OMT), with little long-term follow-up data from actual office-based practice. 18-Month outcome data on the office-based use of buprenorphine/naloxone (bup/nx) and the impact of socioeconomic status and other patient characteristics on the duration and clinical effects of bup/nx are reported.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review and cross-sectional telephone interview provide treatment retention of opioid-dependent patients receiving bup/nx-OMT in an office-based setting. 176 opioid-dependent patients from two different socioeconomic groups (high and low SES) were begun on bup/nx, started intensive outpatient treatment, and followed-up after a minimum of 18 months (18-42 months) by telephone interview to assess treatment outcome.

RESULTS

110 subjects (67%) completed the interview, 77% remained on bup/nx with no difference in retention between high and low SES groups. Those on bup/nx at follow-up were more likely to report abstinence, to be affiliated with 12-step recovery, to be employed and to have improved functional status.

CONCLUSIONS

Bup/nx-OMT is a viable treatment option and when coupled with a required abstinence oriented addiction counseling program is effective in promoting abstinence, self-help group attendance, occupational stability, and improved psychosocial outcomes in both low SES and high SES patient populations over an 18-42-month period.

Opioid dependence treatment: options in pharmacotherapy

The development of effective treatments for opioid dependence is of great importance given the devastating consequences of the disease. Pharmacotherapies for opioid addiction include opioid agonists, partial agonists, opioid antagonists, and alpha-2-adrenergic agonists, which are targeted toward either detoxification or long-term agonist maintenance. Agonist maintenance therapy is currently the recommended treatment for opioid dependence due to its superior outcomes relative to detoxification. Detoxification protocols have limited long-term efficacy, and patient discomfort remains a significant therapy challenge. Buprenorphine's effectiveness relative to methadone remains a controversy and may be most appropriate for patients in need of low doses of agonist treatment. Buprenorphine appears superior to alpha-2 agonists, however, and office-based treatment with buprenorphine in the USA is gaining support. Studies of sustained-release formulations of naltrexone suggest improved effectiveness for retention and sustained abstinence; however, randomized clinical trials are needed.

Why don't out-of-treatment individuals enter methadone treatment programmes?

BACKGROUND

Despite the proven effectiveness of methadone treatment, the majority of heroin-dependent individuals are out-of-treatment.

METHODS

Twenty-six opioid-dependent adults who met the criteria for methadone maintenance who were neither seeking methadone treatment at the time of study enrollment, nor had participated in such treatment during the past 12 months, were recruited from the streets of Baltimore, Maryland through targeted sampling. Ethnographic interviews were conducted to ascertain participants' attitudes toward methadone treatment and their reasons for not seeking treatment.

RESULTS

Barriers to treatment entry included: waiting lists, lack of money or health insurance, and requirements to possess a photo identification card. For some participants, beliefs about methadone such as real or rumored side effects, fear of withdrawal from methadone during an incarceration, or disinterest in adhering to the structure of treatment programmes kept them from applying. In addition, other participants were not willing to commit to indefinite "maintenance" but would have accepted shorter time-limited methadone treatment.

CONCLUSION

Barriers to treatment entry could be overcome by an infusion of public financial support to expand treatment access, which would reduce or eliminate waiting lists, waive treatment-related fees, and/or provide health insurance coverage for treatment. Treatment programmes could overcome some of the barriers by waiving their photo I.D. requirements, permitting time-limited treatment with the option to extend such treatment upon request, and working with corrections agencies to ensure continued methadone treatment upon incarceration.

Expanding the public health benefits of syringe exchange programs

OBJECTIVE

To provide a brief history of community syringe exchange programs (SEPs), describe the clinical profile of those who attend them, identify factors interfering with the transition of SEP participants to more comprehensive substance abuse treatment services, review studies designed to improve rates of treatment seeking, and offer practical suggestions to facilitate links between SEPs and substance abuse treatment.

METHOD

Relevant articles were identified using a PubMed literature search of English-language journals from 1997 to 2007. Studies were included that evaluated the effectiveness of SEPs or methods for increasing treatment enrolment in SEP participants or other out-of-treatment intravenous drug users. Relevant articles prior to 1997 were identified using reference lists of identified articles.

RESULTS

SEPs have little impact on rates of drug use or injections. Substance abuse treatment reduces human immunodeficiency virus transmission through drug use reduction and psychosocial functioning improvement, yet SEP participants only infrequently engage in treatment. Psychological and pharmacological interventions delivered at the SEP setting can improve treatment seeking in SEP participants. Use of SEPs by substance abuse treatment programs can improve harm-reduction efforts at these settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to improve the link between SEPs and substance abuse treatment should include interventions to enhance cooperation across programs, motivate treatment enrolment and SEP use, and expand access to treatment. A more fluent and bidirectional continuum of services can enhance the public health benefits of both of these health care delivery settings.

Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine and naltrexone for heroin dependence in Malaysia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Expansion of access to effective treatments for heroin dependence is a worldwide health priority that will also reduce HIV transmission. We compared the efficacy of naltrexone, buprenorphine, and no additional treatment, in patients receiving detoxification and subsequent drug counselling, for maintenance of heroin abstinence, prevention of relapse, and reduction of HIV risk behaviours.

METHODS

126 detoxified heroin-dependent patients, from an outpatient research clinic and detoxification programme in Malaysia, were randomly assigned by a computer-generated randomisation sequence to 24 weeks of manual-guided drug counselling and maintenance with naltrexone (n=43), buprenorphine (n=44), or placebo (n=39). Medications were administered on a double-blind and double-dummy basis. Primary outcomes, assessed by urine testing three times per week, were days to first heroin use, days to heroin relapse (three consecutive opioid-positive urine tests), maximum consecutive days of heroin abstinence, and reductions in HIV risk behaviours over 6 months. The study was terminated after 22 months of enrolment because buprenorphine was shown to have greater efficacy in an interim safety analysis. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00383045.

FINDINGS

We observed consistent, linear contrasts in days to first heroin use (p=0.0009), days to heroin relapse (p=0.009), and maximum consecutive days abstinent (p=0.0007), with all results best for buprenorphine and worst for placebo. Buprenorphine was associated with greater time to first heroin use than were naltrexone (hazard ratio 1.87 [95% CI 1.21-2.88]) or placebo (2.02 [1.29-3.16]). With buprenorphine, we also recorded significantly greater time to heroin relapse (2.17 [1.38-3.42]), and maximum consecutive days abstinent than with placebo (mean days 59 [95% CI 43-76] vs 24 [13-35]; p=0.003); however, for these outcomes, differences between buprenorphine and naltrexone were not significant. Differences between naltrexone and placebo were not significant for any outcomes. HIV risk behaviours were significantly reduced from baseline across all three treatments (p=0.003), but the reductions did not differ significantly between the three groups.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings lend support to the widespread dissemination of maintenance treatment with buprenorphine as an effective public-health approach to reduce problems associated with heroin dependence.

Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine has been reported as an alternative to methadone for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence, but differing results are reported concerning its relative effectiveness indicating the need for an integrative review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of buprenorphine maintenance against placebo and methadone maintenance in retaining patients in treatment and in suppressing illicit drug use.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases up to October 2006: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK , Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia, Australian Drug Foundation, Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol, Library of Congress databases, reference lists of identified studies and reviews, authors were asked about any other published or unpublished relevant RCT.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials of buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors separately and independently evaluated the papers and extracted data for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty four studies met the inclusion criteria (4497 participants), all were randomised clinical trials, all but six were double-blind. The method of allocation concealment was not clearly described in the majority (20) of the studies, but where it was reported the methodological quality was good. Buprenorphine was statistically significantly superior to placebo medication in retention of patients in treatment at low doses (RR=1.50; 95% CI: 1.19 - 1.88), medium (RR=1.74; 95% CI: 1.06 - 2.87), and high doses (RR=1.74; 95% CI: 1.02 - 2.96). The high statistical heterogeneity prevented the calculation of a cumulative estimate. However, only medium and high dose buprenorphine suppressed heroin use significantly above placebo. Buprenorphine given in flexible doses was statistically significantly less effective than methadone in retaining patients in treatment (RR= 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68 - 0.95), but no different in suppression of opioid use for those who remained in treatment. Low dose methadone is more likely to retain patients than low dose buprenorphine (RR= 0.67; 95% CI: 0.52 - 0.87). Medium dose buprenorphine does not retain more patients than low dose methadone, but may suppress heroin use better. There was no advantage for medium dose buprenorphine over medium dose methadone in retention (RR=0.79; 95% CI:0.64 - 0.99) and medium dose buprenorphine was inferior in suppression of heroin use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, but it is less effective than methadone delivered at adequate dosages.

A primary care/multidisciplinary harm reduction clinic including opiate bridging

Wait times for methadone maintenance programs are associated with significant dropout rates. This puts the substance user at risk of continued illegal and high-risk behavior. We describe a unique model of daily dispensing opiates other than methadone to "bridge" clients awaiting methadone management. The Health and Harm Reduction Clinic is a community-based, primary care health clinic in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, an urban city of 1 million. The team is comprised of a family physician, nurse practitioner, social/mental health worker and addictions counsellor. Descriptive data utilizing chart reviews from 2001 to 2005 are presented: one hundred four noninjection drug users and 86 injection drug users, with 43 of the latter being "bridged." This team model, which includes opiate bridging to a methadone program, appears to provide a reasonable approach for community-based practices to offer quality care for substance-abusing patients. Further clarification of the impact on health outcomes and health service utilization is suggested.

Hepatitis C treatment of opioid dependants receiving maintenance treatment: results of a Norwegian pilot study

BACKGROUND

Many physicians are still skeptic to treat opioid dependants, with or without maintenance treatment, for hepatitis C (HCV) because of concerns about psychiatric comorbidity, stability and adherence. In Norway, there are about 3,500 patients participating in the restrictive medication-assisted rehabilitation (LAR) programs in which all patients are given methadone or buprenorphine maintenance therapy. This study was undertaken to determine whether HCV combination therapy with pegylated interferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin is feasible, efficient and safe in this patient group.

METHOD

Seventeen patients with HCV genotype 3a were treated for 24 weeks. To optimize compliance, the treatment was given from a department of infectious diseases in cooperation with an LAR center. All injections were given in the LAR center and the patients were given psychosocial support.

RESULTS

The compliance was 100%. All responded to the therapy and 16 (94%) were sustained responders.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This study indicates that compliance and treatment outcome of opioid dependants on methadone or buprenorphine maintenance after 24 weeks of HCV treatment corresponds to that for non-dependants if extra support is given. The treatment should be undertaken in collaboration with specialists in addiction medicine, hepatology and infectious diseases.

The medical management of opioid dependence in HIV primary care settings

Injecting drug use is a common mode of transmission among persons with HIV/AIDS. Many HIV-infected patients meet diagnostic criteria for opioid dependence, a chronic and relapsing brain disorder. Most HIV providers, however, receive little training in substance use disorders. Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) has a stabilizing effect on opioid-dependent patients and is associated with greater acceptance of antiretroviral (ARV) therapy, higher ARV adherence, and greater engagement in HIV-related health care. Although methadone maintenance has been the OAT gold standard, methadone is available for the treatment of opioid dependence only in strictly regulated narcotic treatment programs. Buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist approved for the office-based treatment of opioid dependence in 2002, may result in better health and substance use treatment outcomes for patients with HIV disease.

Abstinence-orientated buprenorphine replacement therapy for young adults in out-patient counselling

This study assessed treatment retention, compliance and completion of a 9-month buprenorphine replacement programme. In addition, changes in drug use and other relevant variables, as well as predictors of completion, were examined. Seventy-five opioid-dependent out-patients (mean age 26 years; 33% females) who aimed for opioid abstinence were enrolled into the study. Assessments were undertaken prior to buprenorphine induction and again at 3, 6 and 9 months. Forty patients (53%) completed the buprenorphine programme. At 9 months, 67 patients (87%) were still in counselling. Mean attendance rates for buprenorphine dosing and counselling sessions were 0.91 and 0.74, respectively. There were significant and persistent reductions in drug use during treatment with, however, a reversed tendency in the 9th month. Psychiatric problems escalated at 9 months, and three patients died during the detoxification phase. Completion was predicted by fewer previous treatment episodes. Detoxification from buprenorphine is associated with substantial psychological distress and an increased death risk. Buprenorphine replacement therapy should be continued until the patient chooses to leave, and close monitoring during the detoxification phase is essential.

Cognitive function during early abstinence from opioid dependence: a comparison to age, gender, and verbal intelligence matched controls

BACKGROUND

Individuals with opioid dependence have cognitive deficits during abuse period in attention, working memory, episodic memory, and executive function. After protracted abstinence consistent cognitive deficit has been found only in executive function. However, few studies have explored cognitive function during first weeks of abstinence. The purpose of this study was to study cognitive function of individuals with opioid dependence during early abstinence. It was hypothesized that cognitive deficits are pronounced immediately after peak withdrawal symptoms have passed and then partially recover.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with opioid dependence and fifteen controls matched for, age, gender, and verbal intelligence were tested with a cognitive test battery When patients performed worse than controls correlations between cognitive performance and days of withdrawal, duration of opioid abuse, duration of any substance abuse, or opioid withdrawal symptom inventory score (Short Opiate Withdrawal Scale) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Early abstinent opioid dependent patients performed statistically significantly worse than controls in tests measuring complex working memory, executive function, and fluid intelligence. Their complex working memory and fluid intelligence performances correlated statistically significantly with days of withdrawal.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate a rather general neurocognitive deficit in higher order cognition. It is suggested that cognitive deficit during early abstinence from opioid dependence is related to withdrawal induced neural dysregulation in the prefrontal cortex and is partly transient.

Inpatient Initiation of Buprenorphine Maintenance vs. Detoxification: Can Retention of Opioid-Dependent Patients in Outpatient Counseling Be Improved?

Buprenorphine-naloxone is an office-based opioid agonist released in 2003 in the United States for the maintenance of heroin- and other opioid-dependent patients. Concern has been raised that the medication will distract or otherwise inhibit patients from participating in a holistic recovery program or abstinence-based counseling. Using a retrospective chart review, the first thirty opioid-dependent patients induced on buprenorphine maintenance therapy in an inpatient detoxification unit were compared to thirty age- and gender-matched patients who underwent detoxification (with a tramadol taper) and referral to intensive outpatient treatment. The clinical outcomes were a comparison of completion rates for an intensive outpatient program (IOP) and retention in treatment after twelve weeks of aftercare therapy. Patients induced on buprenorphine maintenance over three days had similar relief of withdrawal symptoms to patients detoxified from opioids over five days with tramadol. Patients maintained on buprenorphine had a markedly increased initiation of IOP and remained in outpatient treatment longer than patients who were detoxified (8.5 wks vs. 0.4 wks, p < 0.001). This study indicates that induction and maintenance on buprenorphine may be more effective than detoxification for engaging and retaining patients in abstinence-based comprehensive outpatient addiction treatment.

Randomized clinical trial to compare the effects of methadone and buprenorphine on the immune system in drug abusers

RATIONALE

Buprenorphine may be a useful alternative option to methadone in addicts. Opioids can produce severe changes in the immune system.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to compare the effect of sublingual buprenorphine and methadone on the immune system and to compare the two substances on the drying-out program compliance.

METHODS

We studied 62 randomized outpatients for a period of 12 months. Subjects (55 males and 7 females; mean age 25+/-4 years; average history of heroin abuse being 2 years) on maintenance treatment were assigned in two groups (A and B). Methadone chloride (medium dose 100 mg/day) was administered to group A, whereas group B received sublingual buprenorphine (32.40+/-2.8 mg/day). Urine toxicological screening, plasma levels of TNF-alpha interleukin-1, interleukin-beta, lymphocyte CD14 and a self-rating depression questionnaire were measured.

RESULTS

Urine screening was negative for opiates in 17.6% of group A and in 10.7% of group B (p<0.001; r = 0.62). Depression score was 62+/-2 in group A and 55+/-3 in group B (p < 0.01). Cytokine and CD14 revealed higher concentrations both in groups A and B without significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of buprenorphine and methadone tested on the immune system were overlapping in our patients. The elevated cytokine levels observed may suggest that the two drugs stimulate immunologic hyperactivation of an immune system that was formerly inhibited by heroin. Furthermore, our data suggest that buprenorphine can be a valid alternative to methadone in maintenance treatment of chronic heroin abuse and referred a marked decline in depression.

Practical considerations for the clinical use of buprenorphine

Buprenorphine is a new and attractive medication option for many opioid-addicted adults and their physicians. Before initiating buprenorphine treatment, providers must be aware of such critical factors as how the medication works, its efficacy and safety profile, how it is used in opioid withdrawal as well as maintenance treatment, and how patients can best be selected, educated about buprenorphine, and monitored throughout treatment. This article reviews these important issues as well as requirements for physician and staff training and needs for additional research on this unique medication.

Baclofen for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial [ISRCTN32121581]

BACKGROUND

Results of preclinical studies suggest that the GABA(B) receptor agonist baclofen may be useful in treatment of opioid dependence. This study was aimed at assessing the possible efficacy of baclofen for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence.

METHODS

A total of 40 opioid-dependent patients were detoxified and randomly assigned to receive baclofen (60 mg/day) or placebo in a 12-week, double blind, parallel-group trial. Primary outcome measure was retention in treatment. Secondary outcome measures included opioids and alcohol use according to urinalysis and self-report ratings, intensity of opioid craving assessed with a visual analogue scale, opioid withdrawal symptoms as measured by the Short Opiate Withdrawal Scale and depression scores on the Hamilton inventory.

RESULTS

Treatment retention was significantly higher in the baclofen group. Baclofen also showed a significant superiority over placebo in terms of opiate withdrawal syndrome and depressive symptoms. Non-significant, but generally favorable responses were seen in the baclofen group with other outcome measures including intensity of opioid craving and self-reported opioid and alcohol use. However, no significant difference was seen in the rates of opioid-positive urine tests. Additionally, the drug side effects of the two groups were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

The results support further study of baclofen in the maintenance treatment of opioid dependence.

Office-based treatment of opiate addiction with a sublingual-tablet formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone

BACKGROUND

Office-based treatment of opiate addiction with a sublingual-tablet formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone has been proposed, but its efficacy and safety have not been well studied.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 326 opiate-addicted persons who were assigned to office-based treatment with sublingual tablets consisting of buprenorphine (16 mg) in combination with naloxone (4 mg), buprenorphine alone (16 mg), or placebo given daily for four weeks. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of urine samples negative for opiates and the subjects' self-reported craving for opiates. Safety data were obtained on 461 opiate-addicted persons who participated in an open-label study of buprenorphine and naloxone (at daily doses of up to 24 mg and 6 mg, respectively) and another 11 persons who received this combination only during the trial.

RESULTS

The double-blind trial was terminated early because buprenorphine and naloxone in combination and buprenorphine alone were found to have greater efficacy than placebo. The proportion of urine samples that were negative for opiates was greater in the combined-treatment and buprenorphine groups (17.8 percent and 20.7 percent, respectively) than in the placebo group (5.8 percent, P<0.001 for both comparisons); the active-treatment groups also reported less opiate craving (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). Rates of adverse events were similar in the active-treatment and placebo groups. During the open-label phase, the percentage of urine samples negative for opiates ranged from 35.2 percent to 67.4 percent. Results from the open-label follow-up study indicated that the combined treatment was safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine and naloxone in combination and buprenorphine alone are safe and reduce the use of opiates and the craving for opiates among opiate-addicted persons who receive these medications in an office-based setting.

Subjective effects of the nicotine lozenge: assessment of abuse liability

RATIONALE

A nicotine lozenge was developed as a novel smoking cessation aid. Abuse liability, which in this context refers to use by novices not addicted to tobacco, may be expected to be low for the lozenge due to the relatively slow route of nicotine absorption. However, its resemblance to commercially marketed lozenges and its palatability, intended to increase medication compliance, may increase its abuse liability, especially among younger individuals.

OBJECTIVES

The present study evaluated the abuse liability of the nicotine lozenge. Effects of the lozenge on cigarette craving were also measured.

METHODS

Subjective and physiological effects of the nicotine lozenge were tested in healthy adult smokers ( n=12, 22-55 years old); a group of younger subjects ( n=12, 18-21 years) was also included to allow for assessment of abuse liability of the lozenge in young adults specifically. Amphetamine and a confectionery lozenge were included in the study conditions as positive controls for abuse liability and palatability, respectively, and nicotine gum was included to allow for comparison with a marketed oral nicotine replacement product with low abuse liability.

RESULTS

The nicotine lozenge did not increase ratings of traditional abuse liability predictors (good effect, like effect, MBG scale of the ARCI), while amphetamine significantly increased ratings on these measures. The lozenge dose dependently decreased craving for cigarettes after 70 min of abstinence, but only in the older group. Palatability of the lozenge was rated lower than a confectionery lozenge, but not lower than nicotine mint gum.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that the nicotine lozenge has low abuse liability, both in adults and young adults. The lozenge reduces craving to smoke, although craving reduction may not apply to young adults (18-21 years). Subjective effects of the lozenge are consistent with utility as a smoking cessation aid and are comparable to those of nicotine gum.

1-year retention and social function after buprenorphine-assisted relapse prevention treatment for heroin dependence in Sweden: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The partial opiate-receptor agonist buprenorphine has been suggested for treatment of heroin dependence, but there are few long-term and placebo-controlled studies of its effectiveness. We aimed to assess the 1-year efficacy of buprenorphine in combination with intensive psychosocial therapy for treatment of heroin dependence.

METHODS

40 individuals aged older than 20 years, who met DSM-IV criteria for opiate dependence for at least 1 year, but did not fulfil Swedish legal criteria for methadone maintenance treatment were randomly allocated either to daily buprenorphine (fixed dose 16 mg sublingually for 12 months; supervised daily administration for a least 6 months, possible take-home doses thereafter) or a tapered 6 day regimen of buprenorphine, thereafter followed by placebo. All patients participated in cognitive-behavioural group therapy to prevent relapse, received weekly individual counselling sessions, and submitted thrice weekly supervised urine samples for analysis to detect illicit drug use. Our primary endpoint was 1-year retention in treatment and analysis was by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

1-year retention in treatment was 75% and 0% in the buprenorphine and placebo groups, respectively (p=0.0001; risk ratio 58.7 [95% CI 7.4-467.4]). Urine screens were about 75% negative for illicit opiates, central stimulants, cannabinoids, and benzodiazepines in the patients remaining in treatment.

INTERPRETATION

The combination of buprenorphine and intensive psychosocial treatment is safe and highly efficacious, and should be added to the treatment options available for individuals who are dependent on heroin.