Opioid addicts at admission vs. slow-release oral morphine, methadone, and sublingual buprenorphine maintenance treatment participants

With use of a randomized study design, quality of life (QOL) and physical symptoms of opioid addicts at admission were compared with slow-release oral morphine, methadone, and sublingual buprenorphine maintenance program participants after 6 months of treatment. The study was conducted from February to July 2004 in the outpatient drug user treatment center at University Department of Psychiatry at Innsbruck, providing maintenance treatment programs and detoxification in Tyrol, Austria. One hundred twenty opioid users seeking treatment were compared with 120 opioid-dependent patients retained for 6 months on a slow-release oral morphine, methadone, or sublingual buprenorphine maintenance program. The German version ("Berlin Quality of Life Profile") of the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile was used, and illicit opioid use was determined by urinalysis. Physical symptoms were measured by using the Opioid Withdrawal Scale. Urinalyses revealed a significantly lower consumption of cocaine and opioids in all three substitution groups than in patients at admission (p < 0.001 and p < or = 0.004, respectively). Both the buprenorphine and the methadone maintenance group showed significantly more favorable values than opioid clients at admission for stomach cramps (p < or = 0.002), muscular tension (p < or = 0.027), general pain (p < or = 0.001), feelings of coldness (p < or = 0.000), heart pounding (p < or = 0.008), runny eyes (p < or = 0.047), and aggressions (p < or = 0.009). Patients who received slow-release oral morphine treatment generally showed the least favorable QOL scores compared with patients at admission or sublingual buprenorphine and methadone clients. Patients in the sublingual buprenorphine or methadone program showed nearly the same QOL scores. The buprenorphine and the methadone maintenance group showed significantly more favorable values than opioid clients at admission regarding leisure time (p < or = 0.019), finances (p < or = 0.014), mental health (p < or = 0.010), and overall satisfaction (p < or = 0.010). Slow-release oral morphine is a well-established treatment for pain, but more research is required to evaluate it as a treatment for heroin dependence. The present data indicate that slow-release oral morphine could have some disadvantages compared with sublingual buprenorphine and methadone in QOL, physical symptoms, and additional consumption. The results further suggest that buprenorphine treatment is as effective as methadone in effects on quality of life and physical symptoms.     

Intimate relationship characteristics associated with condom use among drug users and their sex partners: a multilevel analysis

This study compared the safety and efficacy of sublingual buprenorphine tablets with oral methadone in a population of opioid-dependent individuals in a double-blind, randomized, 6-week trial using a flexible dosing procedure. Fifty-eight patients seeking treatment for opioid dependence were recruited in three outpatient facilities and randomly assigned to substitution with buprenorphine or methadone. The retention rate was significantly better in the methadone maintained group (90 vs. 56%; P<0.001). Subjects completing the study in both the treatment groups had similar proportions of opioid positive urine samples (buprenorphine 62%; methadone 59%) and positive urine specimens, as well as mean heroin craving scores decreased significantly over time (P=0.035 and P<0.001). The proportion of cocaine-positive toxicology results did not differ between groups. At week six mean stabilization doses were 10.5 mg per day for the sublingual buprenorphine tablet, and 69.8 mg per day for methadone, respectively. Patient performance during maintenance was similar in both the groups. The high attrition rate in the buprenorphine group during the induction phase might reflect inadequate induction doses. Thus, buprenorphine is a viable alternative for methadone in short-term maintenance treatment for heroin dependence if treatment induction is done with adequate dosages.     

Effects of buprenorphine and methadone in methadone-maintained subjects

Buprenorphine, a partial mu opioid agonist, is an experimental medication under development for the treatment of opioid dependence as an alternative to methadone maintenance. The present study examined the relationship between level of opioid physical dependence and response to buprenorphine administration as part of a program to develop procedures for transferring patients from methadone to buprenorphine treatment. This laboratory study characterized the agonist and antagonist effects of acute doses of buprenorphine and methadone in subjects maintained on either 30 (n=7) or 60 (n=6) mg/day oral methadone. Test doses of placebo [sl. and PO), methadone (15, 30, and 60 mg PO) and buprenorphine (2, 4, and 8 mg sl.) were administered to volunteers residing on a closed residential unit. Subjective, physiological, observer-rated, and cognitive/psychomotor measures were collected for 6.5 h after test doses. Test doses of methadone, but not buprenorphine, constricted pupils and produced dose-related increases on subjective report measures reflecting opioid agonist drug effects. Agonist effects of methadone were more prominent in the 30 mg than in the 60 mg methadone maintenance condition. Buprenorphine, but not methadone, precipitated opioid withdrawal signs and symptoms that were more prominent in the 60 mg than in the 30 mg methadone maintenance condition. These findings suggest that abrupt transition from methadone to buprenorphine may produce patient discomfort that is positively related to both methadone maintenance dose and buprenorphine transition dose.     

Blockade of morphine-induced behavioral sensitization by a combination of amisulpride and RB101, comparison with classical opioid maintenance treatments

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Maintenance treatments with methadone or buprenorphine are more or less efficient procedures for helping heroin addicts to stop or reduce drug abuse. Another approach to treat opiate dependence could be to target the endogenous opioid system by enhancing the effects of enkephalins by protecting them from enzymic degradation by the dual peptidase inhibitor RB101. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: As chronic treatment with the dopamine D2 antagonist amisulpride facilitates RB101-induced behavioral effects, we chose in this study to treat mice previously sensitized to the hyperlocomotor effects induced by morphine with a combination of amisulpride and RB101. KEY RESULTS: Expression of morphine-induced locomotor sensitization was abolished after combined treatment with amisulpride (20 mg x kg(-1), i.p.) and RB101 (80 mg x kg(-1), i.p.), whereas these drugs were not effective when used alone. We then compared these results with the effects of amisulpride combined with buprenorphine (0.1 mg x kg(-1), i.p.) or methadone (2.5 mg x kg(-1), i.p.) upon morphine-induced behavioral sensitization. Whereas the combination of amisulpride and buprenorphine partially blocked the expression of morphine sensitization, amisulpride+methadone was not effective in this paradigm. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The combination of amisulpride+RB101 appears to be very efficient in blocking the expression of morphine-induced behavioral sensitization. This could reflect a reinstatement of a balance between the function of the dopamine and opioid systems and could represent a new approach in maintenance treatments for opiate addiction.     

Buprenorphine versus methadone in the treatment of opioid-dependent cocaine users

This study compared the efficacy of buprenorphine to methadone for decreasing cocaine use in patients with combined opioid and cocaine use. Participants (n=51) were enrolled in a 26-week treatment program and randomly assigned to either buprenorphine or methadone. Dosing was double-blind and double-dummy. Patients were stabilized on either 8 mg sublingual buprenorphine or 50 mg oral methadone, with dose increases given in response to continued illicit cocaine use or opioid use through week 16 of treatment. Maximum doses possible were 16 mg buprenorphine and 90 mg methadone. Average doses achieved were 11.2 mg buprenorphine and 66.6 mg methadone; 49% of the patients received the maximum doses possible. Urine samples were collected three times per week, and there was no significant difference in the rate of cocaine positive urines for the intent-to-treat sample (69% for buprenorphine versus 63% for methadone). For patients who remained in treatment through the flexible dosing period (n=28), there were significant decreases in cocaine positive urines over time (P<0.01), but no significant differences between groups or group × time effects. Buprenorphine and methadone were equally effective on measures of treatment retention, urine results for opioids, and compliance with attendance and counseling. These results demonstrate no selective efficacy of either buprenorphine or methadone in attenuating cocaine use in this population, but do provide further support for the equivalent efficacy of buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence.Presented at the 55th Annual Scientific Meeting, The College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Toronto, Canada (Mune 17, 1993)     

Book review of the psychodynamics of addiction by Martin Weegmann & Robert Cohen London: whurr publishers 2002, 180 pp. £19.50, ISBN 1 86156 335 3

Aims: To ascertain the level of knowledge about some of the effects of methadone and buprenorphine among 956 clients receiving treatment for opioid dependence at 9 public clinics and 50 community pharmacies in New South Wales, Australia.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey using both research-administered and self-complete questionnaires assessed medication-specific knowledge (derived from a literature review and information contained within client treatment information booklets), answered only by those receiving that treatment type. Assessment of knowledge was performed by asking participants to agree or disagree with four statements about their medication.

Findings: The majority of methadone clients were aware of the risks of overdose when methadone is taken by non-tolerant people and when methadone is mixed with other CNS depressants. Methadone clients were less aware of the protective effects of methadone in overdose and most believed that it rotted their teeth. Almost 50% of those on buprenorphine were not aware of the effects of dose increase on duration of action nor its relatively good safety profile compared to methadone. Buprenorphine clients were well informed about the importance of sublingual absorption and the risks of precipitated withdrawal.

Conclusions: This study identifies significant gaps in the knowledge that opioid-dependent clients have about methadone and buprenorphine that may lead to suboptimal use of medications and ambivalence over treatment. In addition to the provision of written material service providers need to consider systems to ensure that clinical information concerning treatment is received and understood by clients.     

Randomized controlled study transitioning opioid-dependent pregnant women from short-acting morphine to buprenorphine or methadone

This study compared the safety and withdrawal discomfort associated with transitioning pregnant opioid-dependent women from short-acting morphine onto buprenorphine or methadone under well-controlled double-blind conditions. Participants (n=18) were patients in a comprehensive treatment setting and were part of a larger randomized controlled trial comparing the neonatal abstinence syndrome in mothers treated with individualized doses of sublingual buprenorphine or oral methadone. Methadone was first given to all patients within 24h of treatment admission. After written informed consent was signed (3-5 days post-admission), methadone was discontinued and Immediate Release Morphine (IRM) was initiated. The initial total daily dose of IRM was six times the last daily methadone dose. The daily dose of IRM was divided in four daily doses. Induction onto double-blind, double dummy (i.e., two medications were administered with only one being active) methadone or buprenorphine was accomplished over 3 days (i.e., induction). Withdrawal scores during the IRM and induction onto randomized medication were judged mild and not statistically different for both methadone (mean dose 53.5 mg) and buprenorphine (mean dose 10.9 mg). No significant differences between medication groups were observed when individual withdrawal items were examined. No observed differences in safety measures including fetal movement, maternal physiological parameters of body temperature, heart rate and blood pressure were observed between groups. Transitioning opioid-dependent pregnant women from IRM to methadone or buprenorphine during the second trimester of pregnancy can be conducted with similar comfort and safety.     

Behavioral pharmacology of buprenorphine,with a focus on preclinical models of reward and addiction

RATIONALE: Buprenorphine is a potent mu-receptor partial agonist and is widely used as an analgesic drug. It is also increasingly considered to be an alternative to methadone in the maintenance and eventual detoxification of heroin addicts, and also in the treatment of cocaine addiction. So far, buprenorphine has been available as a sublingual tablet and as a solution for IV injection. Recently, a new transdermal formulation of buprenorphine in slow-release matrix patches has been introduced (Transtec) for the treatment of intermediate to severe pain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper is to review, from a preclinical perspective, the current status of what is known about the behavioral pharmacology of buprenorphine, with a particular emphasis on the issues of reward, addiction, and dependence. It will also point to open questions that should be addressed in the future to improve our understanding of the effects and the mechanisms of action of this drug. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Since buprenorphine is a potent opioid drug, the issue of addiction and dependence in this context is an important one. Although there are still some gaps in the behavioral pharmacological characterization of buprenorphine, the general conclusion that can be drawn from the reviewed literature is that despite the high affinity of buprenorphine for the mu receptor it appears to be a remarkably safe drug, with a benign overall side effect profile and low addictive and dependence-inducing potential. This favorable side effect profile appears to be due, to a large extent, to the partial agonistic properties of the drug, in combination with its particular receptor kinetics (i.e. very slow dissociation from the mu receptor after binding).     

Opioid detoxification with buprenorphine,clonidine, or methadone in hospitalized heroin-dependent patients with HIV infection

With the growing role of intravenous drug use in the transmission of HIV infection, HIV-infected patients frequently present with comorbid opioid dependence. Yet, few empirical evaluations of the efficacy and consequences of opioid detoxification medications in medically ill HIV-infected patients have been reported. In a randomized, double-blind clinical trial, we evaluated the impact of three medications on the signs and symptoms of withdrawal and on the pain severity in heroin-dependent HIV-infected patients (N=55) hospitalized for medical reasons on an inpatient AIDS service. Patients received a 3-day pharmacologic taper with intramuscular buprenorphine (n=21), oral clonidine (n=16), or oral methadone (n=18), followed by a clonidine transdermal patch on the fourth day. Observed and self-reported measures of opioid withdrawal and pain were taken 1-3 times daily for up to 4 days. Opiate administration used as medically indicated for pain was also recorded. Observer- and subject-rated opiate withdrawal scores decreased significantly following the first dose of medication and overall during treatment. Among all 55 subjects, self-reported and observer-reported pain decreased after treatment (on average observer-rated opioid withdrawal scale (OOWS) scores declined 5.6 units and short opioid withdrawal scale (SOWS) declined 4.8 units, P<0.001, for both) with no indication of increased pain during medication taper. There were no significant differences of pain decline and other measures of withdrawal between the three treatment groups. During the intervention period, supplemental opiates were administered as medically indicated for pain to 45% of the patients; only 34% of men versus 62% of women received morphine (P<0.05). These findings suggest buprenorphine, clonidine, and methadone regimens each decrease opioid withdrawal in medically ill HIV-infected patients.     

Substance Abuse/Dependence Treatment: A European Perspective

ABSTRACT. During the past decade, substantial progress has been made in the field of addiction medicine in Europe, particularly regarding the development of new treatment interventions, resulting in a wide range of therapeutic options for patients with substance use disorders. However, not all interventions are evidence based. Patients with cannabis and cocaine/amphetamine use disorders and special patient populations especially lack evidence-based treatment recommendations. Many patients undergo treatment that has not been scientifically evaluated for quality and efficacy. Moreover, there are large disparities regarding availability and treatment access across Europe, with the new member states of the European Union (EU) reporting long waiting lists and low treatment coverage. Even in Austria, which ranks among the countries with relatively high treatment coverage and good diversification of treatment in opioid maintenance therapy due to the availability of methadone, buprenorphine, and slow-release oral morphine (SROM), a considerable population of untreated or inadequately treated patients exists. Treatment for substance use disorders in Europe still has scope for improvement in terms of treatment availability and access, which is ideally provided by further development and implementation of evidence-based interventions.     

Management of neonatal abstinence syndrome in neonates born to opioid maintained women

Neonates born to opioid-maintained mothers are at risk of developing neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), which often requires pharmacological treatment. This study examined the effect of opioid maintenance treatment on the incidence and timing of NAS, and compared two different NAS treatments (phenobarbital versus morphine hydrochloride). Fifty-three neonates born to opioid-maintained mothers were included in this study. The mothers received methadone (n=22), slow-release oral morphine (n=17) or buprenorphine (n=14) throughout pregnancy. Irrespective of maintenance treatment, all neonates showed APGAR scores comparable to infants of non-opioid dependent mothers. No difference was found between the three maintenance groups regarding neonatal weight, length or head circumference. Sixty percent (n=32) of neonates required treatment for NAS [68% in the methadone-maintained group (n=15), 82% in the morphine-maintained group (n=14), and 21% in the buprenorphine-maintained group (n=3)]. The mean duration from birth to requirement of NAS treatment was 33 h for the morphine-maintained group, 34 h for the buprenorphine-maintained group and 58 h for the methadone-maintained group. In neonates requiring NAS treatment, those receiving morphine required a significantly shorter mean duration of treatment (9.9 days) versus those treated with phenobarbital (17.7 days). Results suggest that morphine hydrochloride is preferable for neonates suffering NAS due to opioid withdrawal.     

Slow-release oral morphine for opioid maintenance treatment: a systematic review

This review article summarizes the results of all available clinical trials considering the use of slow-release oral morphine (SROM) for opioid maintenance treatment (OMT). All studies published up to October 2010 and assessing SROM for OMT in adult patients are included. Three independent reviewers assessed the selected articles using a standardized checklist. Study design, study length and number of subjects included were recorded. Data about retention rate (proportion of participants remaining under maintenance treatment at the end of the study), quality of life, withdrawal symptoms, craving, additional drug consumption, driving capacity and adverse events were collected. We identified 13 articles corresponding to nine clinical trials considering the use of SROM for OMT. Among them, only one was a randomized trial and one was a controlled not randomized trial. All other studies were uncontrolled. Retention rates were good (from 80.6 to 95%) with SROM maintenance, but similar retention rates were obtained with methadone. Most of the studies showed that quality of life, withdrawal symptoms, craving and additional drug consumption improved with SROM. However, there was no comparison with other maintenance drugs. As most of the studies assessing SROM efficacy were uncontrolled, there is no definite evidence that SROM is an effective alternative to methadone for OMT.     

Buprenorphine-containing treatments: place in the management of opioid addiction

Although the synthetic opioid buprenorphine has been available clinically for almost 30 years, its use has only recently become much more widespread for the treatment of opioid addiction.The pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles of buprenorphine make it unique in the armamentarium of drugs for the treatment of opioid addiction. Buprenorphine has partial mu-opioid receptor agonist activity and is a kappa-opioid receptor antagonist; hence, it can substitute for other micro-opioid receptor agonists, yet is less apt to produce overdose reactions or dysphoria. On the other hand, buprenorphine can block the effects of opioids such as heroin (diamorphine) and morphine, and can even precipitate withdrawal in individuals physically dependent upon these drugs. Buprenorphine has significant sublingual bioavailability and a long half-life, making administration on a less than daily basis possible. Furthermore, its discontinuation is associated with only a mild withdrawal syndrome.Clinical trials have demonstrated that sublingual buprenorphine is effective in both maintenance therapy and detoxification of individuals addicted to opioids. The introduction of a sublingual formulation combining naloxone with buprenorphine further reduces the risk of diversion to illicit intravenous use. Because of its relative safety and lower risk of illegal diversion, buprenorphine has been made available in several countries for treating opioid addiction in the private office setting, greatly enhancing treatment options for this condition.     

Buprenorphine and methadone maintenance in jail and post-release: a randomized clinical trial

Buprenorphine has rarely been administered as an opioid agonist maintenance therapy in a correctional setting. This study introduced buprenorphine maintenance in a large urban jail, Rikers Island in New York City. Heroin-dependent men not enrolled in community methadone treatment and sentenced to 10-90 days in jail (N=116) were voluntarily randomly assigned either to buprenorphine or methadone maintenance, the latter being the standard of care for eligible inmates at Rikers. Buprenorphine and methadone maintenance completion rates in jail were equally high, but the buprenorphine group reported for their designated post-release treatment in the community significantly more often than did the methadone group (48% vs. 14%, p<.001). Consistent with this result, prior to release from Rikers, buprenorphine patients stated an intention to continue treatment after release more often than did methadone patients (93% vs. 44%, p<.001). Buprenorphine patients were also less likely than methadone patients to withdraw voluntarily from medication while in jail (3% vs. 16%, p<.05). There were no post-release differences between the buprenorphine and methadone groups in self-reported relapse to illicit opioid use, self-reported re-arrests, self-reported severity of crime or re-incarceration in jail. After initiating opioid agonist treatment in jail, continuing buprenorphine maintenance in the community appears to be more acceptable to offenders than continuing methadone maintenance.     

Comparative pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of methadone and slow-release oral morphine for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence

BACKGROUND: Slow-release oral morphine (SROM) has been proposed as an alternative maintenance pharmacotherapy to methadone for treatment of opioid dependence. However, the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of SROM have not been previously assessed in a methadone maintenance population. METHODS: In 14 methadone maintenance patients reporting adequate (holders, n=7) or inadequate (non-holders, n=7) withdrawal suppression between doses, plasma drug concentrations and indices of opioid effect (withdrawal severity, pupil diameter, and respiratory rate) were determined across a 24 h inter-dosing interval on one occasion at steady-state for methadone and SROM (once-daily Kapanol) using an open-label, crossover design. RESULTS: Opioid effects were of a similar overall magnitude following dosing for each drug and showed an inverse association with plasma drug concentrations, which peaked later for morphine compared to (R)-methadone (6.5 +/- 2.3 h vs. 2.5 +/- 1.4 h, P<0.001). For methadone non-holders, the number of self-reported opioid withdrawal symptoms prior to dosing was less for SROM compared to methadone (3.4 +/- 2.6 vs. 9.0 +/- 3.2, P<0.01); for holders it was approximately equal (4.4 +/- 3.0 vs. 4.0 +/- 3.7, P<0.76). Maintenance doses were more strongly related to plasma drug concentrations for SROM compared to methadone and may thus be more predictive of therapeutic response for the former medication. Twelve of the 14 subjects preferred SROM to methadone (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of SROM support its use as an alternative once-daily agonist option in the treatment of opioid dependence, particularly for patients responding poorly to methadone maintenance treatment.     

Safety and tolerability of slow-release oral morphine versus methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence

Opioid substitution treatment (OST) for opioid dependence may be limited by adverse events (AEs). Increasing the range of therapeutic options optimizes outcomes and facilitates patient management. An international, multi-center, two-phase study investigated the efficacy and safety of slow-release oral morphine (SROM) versus methadone in patients receiving methadone therapy for opioid dependence. In phase 1 (two way cross-over, 11 weeks each period) patients were randomized to SROM or methadone oral solution. In phase 2 (25 weeks), patients continued treatment with SROM (group A) or switched from methadone to SROM (group B). In total, 211 out of 276 completed phase 1 and 198 entered phase 2 (n = 95 group A, n = 103 group B). Treatment with both SROM and methadone was well tolerated. However, the mean QTc-interval associated with methadone was significantly longer than that under SROM. Higher treatment satisfaction, fewer cravings for heroin, and lower mental stress were reported with SROM. This study adds a significant further weight of evidence that SROM is an effective and well tolerated long-term maintenance treatment for opioid dependence with a beneficial risk profile compared to methadone regarding cardiac effects and supports its clinical utility.     

The practice of office-based buprenorphine treatment of opioid dependence: is it associated with new patients entering into treatment?

Office-based buprenorphine holds the promise of bringing patients who have never received pharmacotherapy into treatment. In a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis, we compared patients entering a clinical trial of buprenorphine in a Primary Care Clinic (PCC) and those entering a local Opioid Treatment Program (OTP) and we compared the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of PCC patients with no history of methadone treatment (new-to-treatment) to those with prior methadone treatment. PCC subjects (N=96) were enrolled in a 26-week randomized clinical trial of office-based buprenorphine/naloxone provided in a PCC. OTP subjects (N=94) were enrolled in methadone maintenance during the same time period. PCC subjects compared with OTP subjects were more likely to be male (77% versus 55%, p<0.01), full-time employed (46% versus 15%, p<0.001), have no history of methadone treatment (46% versus 61%, p<0.05), have fewer years of opioid dependence (10 versus 15, p<0.001), and lower rates of injection drug use (IDU) (44% versus 60%, p=0.03). The new-to-treatment PCC subjects were younger (36 years versus 41 years, p=0.001), more likely to be white (77% versus 57%, p=0.04), had fewer years of opioid dependence (7 versus 14, p<0.001), were less likely to have a history of IDU (35% versus 54%, p=0.07), and had lower rates of hepatitis C (25% versus 61%, p=0.002) than subjects with prior methadone treatment. Abstinence and treatment retention were comparable in both groups. The results suggest that office-based treatment of opioid dependence is associated with new types of patients entering into treatment. Treatment outcomes with buprenorphine in a PCC do not vary based on history of prior methadone treatment.