Buprenorphine exposure levels to optimize treatment outcomes in opioid use disorder

OPRM1 rs2075572 has potential to affect plasma buprenorphine level in opioid users, but not OPRM1 rs562859

OPRM1 gene encoding mu-opioid receptor (MOR) is the primary candidate gene for buprenorphine (BUP) pharmacogenetics. OPRM1 undergoes alternative splicing leading to multiple MOR subtypes. Thus, in the current study 2 SNPs (rs1799972 and rs562859) were selected due to evidence for their contribution to alternative splicing of OPRM1. The effects of 2 SNPs of OPRM1 gene on plasma buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine levels in a sample of 233 OUD patients receiving BUP/naloxone were examined. Polymorphisms were analyzed by PCR and RFLP. BUP and norbuprenorphine concentrations in plasma were measured by LC-MS/MS. OPRM1 rs2075572 GC + CC (0.12 ng/ml) had significantly higher plasma BUP level compared to GG (0.084 ng/ml) (p = 0.043). Although there was not a statistically significant difference between OPRM1 rs562859 genotypes (p = 0.46), patients with OPRM1 rs562859 CT + TT had higher plasma BUP and BUP-related values as compared to those with CC. In conclusion, the effect of OPRM1 rs2075572 on BUP levels in opioid users' plasma was shown in a Caucasian population for the first time. On the other hand, OPRM1 rs562859 seems not to influence the BUP pharmacology.

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.

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis of drug liking blockade by buprenorphine subcutaneous depot (CAM2038) in participants with opioid use disorder

Buprenorphine is used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). Weekly and monthly subcutaneous long-acting buprenorphine injections (CAM2038) provide more stable buprenorphine plasma levels and reduce the treatment burden, misuse, and diversion associated with sublingual transmucosal buprenorphine formulations. To characterize the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) relationship, a maximum inhibition (Imax) model was developed relating CAM2038 buprenorphine plasma concentration to drug liking maximum effect (Emax) visual analog scale (VAS; bipolar) score after intramuscular hydromorphone administration. Data included time-matched observations of buprenorphine plasma concentration and drug liking Emax VAS score after hydromorphone 18 mg administration in 47 non-treatment-seeking adults with moderate to severe OUD in a phase 2 study. Analysis used non-‍linear mixed-effects modeling (NONMEM®). The final Imax model adequately described the PK/PD relationship between buprenorphine plasma concentration and drug liking Emax VAS score. Simulations showed drug liking was effectively blocked at low buprenorphine plasma concentrations (0.4 ng/mL) where the upper 95% confidence interval of the drug liking Emax VAS score was below the pre-defined 11-point complete blockade threshold. The buprenorphine plasma concentration required to achieve 90% of the maximal effect (IC90) of drug liking was 0.675 ng/mL. Interindividual variability in responses to buprenorphine was observed; some participants experienced fluctuating responses, and a few did not achieve drug liking blockade even with higher buprenorphine plasma concentrations. This affirms the need to individualize treatment and titrate doses for optimal treatment outcomes. PK/PD models were also developed for desire to use VAS and Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores, with results aligned to those for drug liking.

Management of Critically Ill Patients Receiving Medications for Opioid Use Disorder

TOPIC IMPORTANCE

Critical care clinicians are likely to see an increasing number of patients admitted to the ICU who are receiving US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) given the well-documented benefits of these agents. Oral methadone, multiple formulations of buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone are the three types of MOUD most likely to be encountered by ICU clinicians; however, these drugs vary with respect to formulations, pharmacokinetics, and adverse effects.

REVIEW FINDINGS

No published clinical practice guidelines or consensus statements are available to guide decision-making in patients admitted to the ICU setting who are receiving MOUDs before admission. Additionally, no randomized trials and limited observational studies have evaluated issues related to MOUD use in the ICU. Therefore, ICU clinicians caring for patients admitted who are taking MOUDs must base their decision-making on data extrapolation from pharmacokinetic, pharmacologic, and clinical studies performed in non-ICU settings.

SUMMARY

Despite the challenges in administering MOUDs in critically ill patients, extrapolation of data from other hospital settings suggests that the benefits of continuing MOUD therapy outweigh the risks in patients able to continue therapy. This article provides guidance for critical care clinicians caring for patients admitted to the ICU already receiving methadone, buprenorphine, or extended-release naltrexone. The guidance includes algorithms to aid clinicians in the clinical decision-making process, recognizing the inherent limitations of the existing evidence on which the algorithms are based and the need to account for patient-specific considerations.

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.

Superiority and cost-effectiveness of monthly extended-release buprenorphine versus daily standard of care medication: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

Background

Daily methadone maintenance or buprenorphine treatment is the standard-of-care (SoC) medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Subcutaneously injected, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) may be more effective-but there has been no superiority evaluation.

Methods

This pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness superiority randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at five National Health Service community-based treatment clinics in England and Scotland. Participants (adults aged ≥ 18 years; all meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe OUD at admission to their current maintenance treatment episode) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continued daily SoC (liquid methadone (usual dose range: 60-120 mg) or sublingual/transmucosal buprenorphine (usual dose range: 8-24 mg) for 24 weeks; or monthly BUP-XR (Sublocade;® two injections of 300 mg, then four maintenance injections of 100 mg or 300 mg, with maintenance dose selected by response and preference) for 24 weeks. In the intent-to-treat population (senior statistician blinded to blinded to treatment group allocation), and with a seven-day grace period after randomisation, the primary endpoint was the count of days abstinent from non-medical opioids between days 8-168 (i.e., weeks 2-24; range: 0-161 days). Safety was reported for the intention-to- treat population. Adopting a broad societal perspective inclusive of criminal justice, NHS and personal social service costs, a trial-based cost-utility analysis estimated the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of BUP-XR versus SoC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The study was registered EudraCT (2018-004460-63) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05164549), and is completed.

Findings

Between Aug 9, 2019 and Nov 2, 2021, 314 participants were randomly allocated to receive SoC (n = 156) or BUP-XR (n = 158). Participants were abstinent from opioids for an adjusted mean of 104.37 days (standard error [SE] 9.89; range: 0-161 days) in the SoC group and an adjusted mean of 123.43 days (SE 4.76; range: 24-161 days) in the BUP-XR group (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.33; p-value 0.004). The incidence of any adverse event was higher in the BUP-XR group than the SoC group (128 [81.0%] of 158 participants versus 67 [42.9%] of 156 participants, respectively-most commonly rapidly-resolving (mild-moderate range) pain from drug administration in the BUP-XR group (121 [26.9%] of 450 adverse events). There were 11 serious adverse events (7.0%) in the 158 participants in the BUP-XR group, and 18 serious adverse events (11.5%) in the 156 participants in the SoC group-none judged to be related to study treatment. The BUP-XR treatment group had a mean incremental cost of £1033 (95% central range [CR] -1189 to 3225) and was associated with a mean incremental QALY of 0.02 (95% CR 0.00-0.05), and an ICER of £47,540 (0.37 probability of being cost-effective at the £30,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold). However, BUP-XR dominated the SoC among participants who were rated more severe at study baseline, and among participants in maintenance treatment for more that 28 days at study enrolment.

Interpretation

Evaluated against the daily oral SoC, monthly BUP-XR is clinically superior, delivering greater abstinence from opioids, and with a comparable safety profile. BUP-XR was not cost-effective in a base case cost-utility analysis using the societal perspective, but it was more effective and less costly (dominant) among participants with more severe OUD, or those whose current treatment episode was longer than 28 days. Further trials are needed to evaluate if BUP-XR is associated with better clinical and health economic outcomes over the longer term.

Funding

Indivior.

Evidence on Buprenorphine Dose Limits: A Review

OBJECTIVES

As overdose deaths from fentanyl continue to increase, optimizing use of medications for opioid use disorder has become increasingly important. Buprenorphine is a highly effective medication for reducing the risk of overdose death, but only if a patient remains in treatment. Shared decision making between prescribers and patients is important to establish a dose that meets each patient's treatment needs. However, patients frequently face a dose limit of 16 or 24 mg/d based on dosing guidelines on the Food and Drug Administration's package label.

METHODS

This review discusses patient-centered goals and clinical criteria for determining dose adequacy, reviews the history of buprenorphine dose regulation in the United States, examines pharmacological and clinical research results with buprenorphine doses up to 32 mg/d, and evaluates whether diversion concerns justify maintaining a low buprenorphine dose limit.

RESULTS

Pharmacological and clinical research results consistently demonstrate buprenorphine's dose-dependent benefits up to at least 32 mg/d, including reductions in withdrawal symptoms, craving, opioid reward, and illicit use while improving retention in care. Diverted buprenorphine is most often used to treat withdrawal symptoms and reduce illicit opioid use when legal access to it is limited.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of established research and profound harms from fentanyl, the Food and Drug Administration's current recommendations on target dose and dose limit are outdated and causing harm. An update to the buprenorphine package label with recommended dosing up to 32 mg/d and elimination of the 16 mg/d target dose would improve treatment effectiveness and save lives.

Rapid induction onto extended-release injectable buprenorphine following opioid overdose: A case series

Background

Buprenorphine treatment has been associated with reduced non-prescribed opioid use and opioid related overdose (OD). We evaluated initial outcomes of rapid induction onto extended-release injectable buprenorphine (BUP-XR) within 7 days of emergency department presentation for unintentional OD.

Methods

Between February 2019-February 2021, N = 19 patients with opioid use disorder received buprenorphine/naloxone (4/1 mg), followed by BUP-XR (300 mg) at induction and continued BUP-XR outpatient for 6 months. Primary outcomes included adverse events, repeat OD, and death.

Results

For patients who received at least one dose of BUP-XR, there were no treatment related serious adverse events or symptoms of precipitated withdrawal. In addition, there were no repeat visits for ODs or deaths within 6 months of the initial OD.

Discussion

These preliminary findings support the need for larger controlled clinical trials to examine the safety and efficacy of rapid induction of BUP-XR in patients with opioid use disorder at high risk of opioid OD. Rapid induction onto long-lasting injectable buprenorphine may be a promising and protective treatment approach in the future.

History of the discovery, development, and FDA-approval of buprenorphine medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder

Buprenorphine-based medications were first approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2002 for the treatment of opioid dependence, or opioid use disorder (OUD) as the condition is presently known. This regulatory milestone was the outcome of 36 years of research and development, which also led to the development and approval of several other new buprenorphine-based medications. In this short review, we first describe the discovery and early development stages of buprenorphine. Second, we review key steps that led to the development of buprenorphine as a drug product. Third, we explain the regulatory approval of several buprenorphine-based medications for the treatment of OUD. We also discuss these developments in the context of the evolution of regulations and policies that have progressively improved OUD treatment availability and efficacy, although challenges remain in removing system-level, provider-level, and local-level barriers to quality treatment, to integrating OUD treatment into routine care and other settings, to reducing disparities in access to treatment, and to optimizing person-centered outcomes.