Effects of buprenorphine versus buprenorphine/naloxone tablets in non-dependent opioid abusers

Rationale: Buprenorphine is an opioid agonist-antagonist under development in the United States as a sublingual medication for treatment of opioid dependence. Buprenorphine may be abused; therefore, tablets combining buprenorphine with naloxone have been developed with the intent of reducing the abuse risk in people physically dependent upon opioids. The characteristics and abuse potential of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone tablets in non-dependent opioid abusers have not been determined. Non-parenteral abuse of opioids such as buprenorphine may be more likely in people who have less severe substance abuse disorders (e.g., are not physically dependent upon opioids). Objectives: To assess the abuse potential of sublingual buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone tablets in non-dependent opioid abusers. Methods: Subjects (n=7) were tested with sublingual buprenorphine (4, 8, 16 mg), sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone (1/0.25, 2/0.5, 4/1, 8/2, 16/4 mg), as well as intramuscular hydromorphone as an opioid agonist control (2, 4 mg) and placebo in laboratory sessions conducted twice per week. Dosing was double-blind and double-dummy. Results: The higher doses of both buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone produced similar opioid agonist-like effects. The onset of these effects was slowed, consistent with the sublingual route of administration, and the magnitude of effects was moderate. There was no evidence to suggest the addition of naloxone attenuated buprenorphine’s opioid agonist effects in this population when buprenorphine was delivered by the sublingual route. Conclusions: These results suggest that sublingual buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone may both be abused by opioid users who are not physically dependent upon opioids. Received: 15 April 1999 / Final version: 11 September 1999     

Intranasal oxycodone self-administration in non-dependent opioid abusers

Oxycodone, an opioid with known abuse liability, is misused by the intranasal route. Our objective was to develop a model of intranasal oxycodone self-administration useful for assessing the relative reinforcing effects of opioids and potential pharmacotherapies for opioid use disorders. Healthy, sporadic intranasal opioid abusers (n = 8; 7 M, 1 F) completed this inpatient 2.5-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Each intranasal oxycodone dose (0, 14 & 28 mg) was tested in a separate 3-day block of sessions. The first day of each block was a sample session in which the test dose was given. Two randomized progressive ratio sessions were conducted on the next 2 days: (1) subjects could work for the test dose over 7 trials (1/7th of total dose/trial), and (2) subjects could work for either a portion of the dose (1/7th) or money ($3) over 7 trials. Physiological and subjective measures were collected before and after drug administration for all sessions. Subjects never worked to self-administer placebo regardless of whether money was available. In both self-administration sessions, oxycodone self-administration was dose-dependent. Subjects worked less for drug (28 mg oxycodone) when money was available but only modestly so. Oxycodone dose-dependently increased VAS ratings of positive drug effects (e.g., "like") during sample sessions (p < .05). These reports were positively correlated with self-administration behavior (e.g., "like," r = .65). These data suggest that both procedures are sensitive for detecting the reinforcing properties of intranasal oxycodone and may be used to further explore the characteristics of opioid compounds and potential pharmacotherapies for treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

Blockade of hydromorphone effects by buprenorphine/naloxone and buprenorphine

RATIONALE: Buprenorphine is an opioid agonist-antagonist used in the treatment of opioid dependence. Naloxone has been combined with buprenorphine to decrease the parenteral abuse potential of buprenorphine. This addition of naloxone may also confer further opioid blockade efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To test the opioid blockade efficacy of sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone versus buprenorphine alone and determine whether: (1) the blockade efficacy of buprenorphine/naloxone varies between the time of expected maximal and minimal effects of naloxone, (2) the blockade efficacy of buprenorphine/naloxone and buprenorphine varies as a function of maintenance dose level, and (3) there are adaptive changes over time associated with repeated daily dosing of buprenorphine/naloxone and buprenorphine. METHODS: Residential subjects ( n=6) were maintained on different double-blind dose levels of buprenorphine/naloxone (4/1, 8/2, 16/4, 32/8 mg) and buprenorphine (32 mg) for 6-day periods and challenged with parenteral doses of hydromorphone (12 mg) in laboratory sessions. RESULTS: There was no evidence of additional opioid blockade efficacy conferred by combining naloxone with buprenorphine. Higher doses of buprenorphine/naloxone provided greater blockade of hydromorphone effects. Changes over time associated with repeated daily dosing of buprenorphine/naloxone and buprenorphine were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of naloxone to buprenorphine may deter the parenteral abuse of buprenorphine/naloxone, but it does not enhance the therapeutic efficacy of buprenorphine. The blockade efficacy of buprenorphine/naloxone is dose related; however, doses up to 32/8 mg buprenorphine/naloxone provide only partial blockade when subjects receive a high dose of an opioid agonist.     

Comparison of intramuscular buprenorphine and a buprenorphine/naloxone combination in the treatment of post-operative pain

The analgesic efficacy and tolerance of a single intramuscular injection of either buprenorphine (0.3 mg) or a buprenorphine (0.3 mg)/naloxone (0.2 mg) combination was compared in 70 patients suffering from moderate to severe pain after abdominal surgery. Patients in both treatment groups experienced good analgesia which was apparent within 10 minutes of administration and lasted for approximately 12 hours. The most frequently reported unwanted effects were drowsiness and/or sleepiness and nausea and/or vomiting which were of mild or moderate severity in most cases. No significant differences were seen between the two treatment groups with regard to the overall assessments of efficacy and tolerance.     

Acute opioid administration effects on sensory and motor function in baboons: buprenorphine, morphine, and naloxone

The effects of acute administration of the opioid compounds buprenorphine, morphine, and naloxone were studied on auditory and visual threshold functions and reaction time performances in baboons. Baboons were trained in a reaction time procedure to hold a lever depressed, and release the lever when a signal was presented. Auditory and visual signals were employed in separate sessions. Drug was administered 30min prior to testing. Dose-related increases in visual and auditory thresholds were observed following buprenorphine, with visual thresholds being somewhat more drug-sensitive. Buprenorphine also increased reaction times to both high-intensity and low-intensity stimuli. High doses of morphine increased reaction times to high-intensity auditory and low-intensity visual stimuli; thresholds for both modalities were unaffected by any dose of morphine. Naloxone produced no consistent effects on thresholds or reaction times. False alarm rates were not significantly changed by buprenorphine, morphine, or naloxone.     

Effects of buprenorphine and naloxone in morphine-stabilized opioid addicts

The present study, conducted as part of the development of a buprenorphine/naloxone combination product, was designed to evaluate the individual and combined effects of intravenously administered buprenorphine and naloxone. This in-patient trial used a randomized, double-blind, crossover design. Ten opioid-dependent male subjects were stabilized and maintained on morphine, 15 mg given intramuscularly four times daily. Then, at 48- to 72-h intervals, subjects received one of the following by intravenous injection: (1) placebo, (2) morphine 15 mg, (3) buprenorphine 2 mg, (4) buprenorphine 2 mg/naloxone 0.5 mg, and (5) naloxone 0.5 mg. Both naloxone and buprenorphine/naloxone produced significant (P<0.005) opioid withdrawal effects compared to placebo as assessed with the CINA scale, an instrument which utilizes subject- and observer-reported, as well as physiological parameters. The combination of buprenorphine with naloxone in a 4:1 ratio produced opioid antagonist-like effects which should limit its potential for intravenous abuse by opioid addicts.     

Buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone soluble-film for treatment of opioid dependence

Introduction: Opioid dependence is a chronic relapsing disorder that shows excess mortality and comorbidity with somatic and psychiatric disorders. Methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone are widely accepted and are used as first-line maintenance treatments for opioid dependence. Fatal intoxications with these agents, risk of diversion, and accidental intoxications, especially in children, are apparent risks and are of increasing public concern. Buprenorphine/naloxone sublingual tablet is an established treatment for opioid dependence. A novel buprenorphine/naloxone film has been developed with improved pharmacokinetics and a hopefully lower risk of diversion and accidental intoxications.

Areas covered: This review evaluates the available preclinical and clinical data on the novel buprenorphine/naloxone film for the treatment of opioid dependence. Literature was identified though a comprehensive PubMed search and data sources included official FDA information.

Expert opinion: This is an interesting new formulation of a well-established medication in opioid dependence. However, few data have been published on its safety and efficacy. In an experimental study, the new formulation suppressed symptoms of opioid withdrawal as expected. Results of an unpublished study made public by the FDA suggest a spectrum of adverse events similar to that of the conventional sublingual tablet. Some data show patients may prefer the novel film over the sublingual tablet. The estimated lower risk for diversion and especially for accidental poisoning in children cannot be assessed in clinical studies but requires data from emergency room visits.     

Depressive symptoms during buprenorphine treatment of opioid abusers

Among 40 opioid addicts treated as outpatients with sublingual buprenorphine (2-8 mg daily) for a month, depressive symptoms significantly decreased in the 19 who were depressed at intake to treatment.     

Effects of high-dose intravenous buprenorphine in experienced opioid abusers

Sublingual buprenorphine, a long-acting, partial mu-opioid agonist, is as effective as methadone in the treatment of heroin dependence, with a better safety profile due to its antagonist activity. However, the safety of therapeutic doses (8 to 16 mg) that might be diverted for intravenous (i.v.) use has not been demonstrated. To evaluate the safety and possible ceiling effects of buprenorphine administered i.v. to experienced opioid users, buprenorphine was administered to 6 nondependent opioid abusers residing on a research unit; the doses tested, in separate sessions, were 12 mg buprenorphine sublingual, i.v./sublingual placebo, and escalating i.v. buprenorphine (2, 4, 8, 12, and 16 mg). Physiologic and subjective measures were collected for 72 hours post-drug administration. Buprenorphine minimally but significantly increased systolic blood pressure. Changes in heart rate or oxygen saturation among the 7 drug conditions were not statistically significant. The mean maximum decrease in oxygen saturation from baseline was greatest for the 8-mg i.v. dose. Buprenorphine produced positive mood effects, although with substantial variability among participants. Onset and peak effects occurred earlier following i.v. administration: peak i.v. effects occurred between 0.25 and 3 hours; peak sublingual effects occurred at 3 to 7 hours. Duration of effects varied among the outcome measures. The dose-response curves were flat for most parameters, particularly subjective measures. Side effects were mild except in one participant who experienced severe nausea and vomiting after the 12-mg i.v. dose. Buprenorphine appears to have a ceiling for cardiorespiratory and subjective effects and a high safety margin even when taken by the i.v. route.     

Predictors of attrition with buprenorphine/naloxone treatment in opioid dependent youth

Background

In opioid dependent youth there is substantial attrition from medication-assisted treatment. If youth at risk for attrition can be identified at treatment entry or early in treatment, they can be targeted for interventions to help retain them in treatment.

Methods

Opioid dependent adolescents and young adults (n = 152), aged 15–21, were randomized to 12 weeks (BUP, n = 74) or 2 weeks of detoxification (DETOX, n = 78) with buprenorphine/naloxone (Bup/Nal), both in combination with 12 weeks of psychosocial treatment. Baseline and early treatment related predictors of treatment attrition were identified in each group using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression.

Results

In the DETOX group 36% left between weeks 2 and 4, at the end of the dose taper, while in the BUP group only 8% left by week 4. In the BUP group, early adherence to Bup/Nal, early opioid negative urines, use of any medications in the month prior to treatment entry, and lifetime non-heroin opioid use were associated with retention while prior 30-day hallucinogen use was associated with attrition. In the DETOX group, only use of sleep medications was associated with retention although not an independent predictor. A broad range of other pre-treatment characteristics was unrelated to attrition.

Conclusions

Prompt attention to those with early non-adherence to medication or an early opioid positive urine, markers available in the first 2 weeks of treatment, may improve treatment retention. Extended Bup/Nal treatment appeared effective in improving treatment retention for youth with opioid dependence across a wide range of demographics, and pre-treatment clinical characteristics.     

Buprenorphine and naloxone co-administration in opiate-dependent patients stabilized on sublingual buprenorphine

Buprenorphine and naloxone sublingual (s.l.) dose formulations may decrease parenteral buprenorphine abuse. We evaluated pharmacologic interactions between 8 mg s.l. buprenorphine combined with 0, 4, or 8 mg of naloxone in nine opiate-dependent volunteers stabilized on 8 mg s.l. buprenorphine for 7 days. Combined naloxone and buprenorphine did not diminish buprenorphine's effects on opiate withdrawal nor alter buprenorphine bioavailability. Opiate addicts stabilized on buprenorphine showed no evidence of precipitated opiate withdrawal after s.l. buprenorphine-naloxone combinations. Buprenorphine and naloxone bioavailability was approximately 40 and 10%, respectively. Intravenous buprenorphine and naloxone produced subjective effects similar to those of s.l. buprenorphine and did not precipitate opiate withdrawal.     

Efficacy and safety of a sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablet for the treatment of adults with opioid dependence: A randomized trial

This prospective, randomized, active-controlled, non-inferiority study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablet (Zubsolv^®; buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablet) versus generic buprenorphine for induction of opioid maintenance among dependent adults. The study, conducted at 13 sites from June 2013 to January 2014, included a 2-day blinded induction phase and a 27-day open-label stabilization/maintenance phase. During the blinded induction, patients received fixed doses of buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets or generic buprenorphine. During open-label stabilization/early maintenance, all patients received buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets. The primary efficacy assessment was treatment retention at day 3; buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets were considered non-inferior to generic buprenorphine if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the treatments was ≥–10% in patients retained on day 3. Secondary assessments included opioid withdrawal symptoms and cravings as measured using the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, and the opioid cravings visual analogue scale. Safety was also assessed. A total of 313 patients were randomly assigned to induction with generic buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets. The mean age was 38.4 years, and the mean duration of opioid dependence was 12.4 years. For the primary efficacy assessment, 235 of 256 patients (91.8%) were retained at day 3 and continued to the maintenance phase. The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was ?13.7; thus, buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets did not demonstrate non-inferiority to generic buprenorphine, and significantly more patients who received induction with generic buprenorphine (122/128 [95.3%]) were retained at day 3 compared with those who received induction with buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets (113/128 [88.3%]; 95% confidence interval: ?13.7, ?0.4; p = 0.040). The rates of clinical response, as measured by the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, and the visual analogue scale, were comparable among patients regardless of the induction medication. Treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone rapidly dissolving tablets was generally safe and reduced the severity of withdrawal symptoms and cravings.     

Pharmacokinetic interactions between buprenorphine/naloxone and tipranavir/ritonavir in HIV-negative subjects chronically receiving buprenorphine/naloxone

Studies of the biobehavioral actions of psychostimulants commonly focus on locomotion and less commonly on feeding, and only rarely are these measures considered in conjunction within the same animal. The present study compared the impact of (+)-amphetamine and three amphetamine analogs, PAL-287, PAL-313, and PAL-353, on eating and locomotion assessed concurrently using an automated activity/feeding chamber during a daily 45 min session. Each analog is a potent releaser of norepinephrine and of dopamine, but exerts differential serotonin-releasing activity (PAL-287 > PAL-313 > amphetamine > PAL-353). Rats were tested with each of five doses of drug (0, 2, 4, 8, or 16 μmol/kg, i.p.), given in equimolar concentrations and in random dose order. PAL-353, an analog with minimal serotonin-releasing capacity, markedly stimulated forward locomotion at 2, 4, 8 and 16 μmol/kg, as did amphetamine, whereas PAL-287 and PAL-313 did not. In contrast to the locomotor findings, all four amphetamine-like drugs exerted similar effects on the suppression of food intake. These results suggest that the capacity of an amphetamine analog (i.e. amphetamine and PAL-353) to stimulate serotonin release can diminish its psychostimulant action on locomotion, but does not reliably augment drug-induced hypophagia.     

Pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of sublingual buprenorphine, alone or in combination with naloxone: lack of dose proportionality

OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone combinations are effective pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence, but doses are considerably greater than analgesic doses. Because dose-related buprenorphine opioid agonist effects may plateau at higher doses, we evaluated the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of expected therapeutic doses. DESIGN: The first experiment examined a range of sublingual buprenorphine solution doses with an ascending dose design (n = 12). The second experiment examined a range of doses of sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone tablets along with one dose of buprenorphine alone tablets with a balanced crossover design (n = 8). PARTICIPANTS: Twenty nondependent, opioid-experienced volunteers. METHODS: Subjects in the solution experiment received sublingual buprenorphine solution in single ascending doses of 4, 8, 16 and 32 mg. Subjects in the tablet experiment received sublingual tablets combining buprenorphine 4, 8 and 16 mg with naloxone at a 4 : 1 ratio or buprenorphine 16 mg alone, given as single doses. Plasma buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine and naloxone concentrations and pharmacodynamic effects were measured for 48-72 hours after administration. RESULTS: Buprenorphine concentrations increased with dose, but not proportionally. Dose-adjusted areas under the concentration-time curve for buprenorphine 32 mg solution, buprenorphine 1 6 mg tablet and buprenorphine/naloxone 16/4 mg tablet were only 54 +/- 16%, 70 +/- 25% and 72 +/- 17%, respectively, of that of the 4 mg dose of sublingual solution or tablet. No differences were found between dose strengths for most subjective and physiological effects. Pupil constriction at 48 hours after administration of solution did, however, increase with dose. Subjects reported greater intoxication with the 32 mg solution dose, even though acceptability of the 4 mg dose was greatest. Naloxone did not change the bioavailability or effects of the buprenorphine 16 mg tablet. CONCLUSION: Less than dose-proportional increases in plasma buprenorphine concentrations may contribute to the observed plateau for most pharmacodynamic effects as the dose is increased.     

HPLC法测定丁丙诺啡纳洛酮舌下片中两种主药的量

目的：建立梯度洗脱HPLC法同时测定丁丙诺啡纳洛酮舌下片中两种主药的量。方法：采用梯度洗脱,用DiamonsilC18（250mm×4.6mm,5μm）色谱柱;以甲醇-乙腈-0.02mol/L磷酸二氢钾溶液（48：32：20）（用磷酸调pH4.0）为流动相A,甲醇-乙腈-0.02mol/L磷酸二氢钾溶液（6：4：90）（用磷酸调pH4.0）为流动相B;体积流量1.0mL/min;检测波长为230nm。结果：纳洛酮在5.0～30.0μg/mL线性关系良好（r=0.9998）,回收率为99.68%（RSD=0.92%）;丁丙诺啡在20.0～120.0μg/mL线性关系良好（r=0.9999）,回收率为99.74%（RSD=0.53%）。结论：采用梯度洗脱HPLC法同时测定丁丙诺啡纳洛酮舌下片中两主药的量,方法简便、灵敏、专属,重现性好,该方法可以监控药品质量。     

Brief versus extended counseling along with buprenorphine/naloxone for HIV-infected opioid dependent patients

Untreated opioid dependence adversely affects HIV outcomes. Integrating buprenorphine/naloxone into HIV treatment settings is feasible; however, the optimal level of counseling has not been established. We conducted a 12-week randomized clinical trial of physician management (PM) versus PM plus enhanced medical management (EMM) in 47 subjects. At 12 weeks, there were no differences between the two groups in percentage of opioid negative urines (63.6% PM vs. 69.0% PM + EMM, p = .5), maximum duration of continuous abstinence (4.9 weeks PM vs. 5.2 weeks PM + EMM, p = .8) or retention (80% PM vs. 59% PM + EMM, p = .1). The percentage of subjects with detectable HIV viral loads decreased from 58% at baseline to 40% at 12 weeks across both groups (p = .02 for time) with no between group differences (p = .84 and p = .27 for the interaction). Providing more extensive counseling beyond PM is feasible in an HIV clinic, but we are unable to detect an improvement in outcomes associated with these services.     

Effects of buprenorphine sublingual tablet maintenance on opioid drug-seeking behavior by humans

RATIONALE: Buprenorphine can decrease opioid self-administration by humans and animals, but its ability to decrease drug-seeking behavior and craving (i.e. motivational measures) among outpatient volunteers using clinically relevant dosing schedules has not been extensively studied. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether daily versus alternating-day administration of high versus low buprenorphine doses influenced choice of, and operant responding for, hydromorphone versus money. METHODS: Fourteen heroin-dependent outpatients were maintained under four buprenorphine sublingual tablet (double blind) dose conditions using a within-subject, randomized crossover design. All participants received, for 2 weeks each, buprenorphine doses of 2 mg daily, 4 mg/placebo on alternating days, 16 mg daily, and 32 mg/placebo on alternating days. In each laboratory test session, participants chose between money ($2/choice) and drug (1/8 of total hydromorphone, 4 or 24 mg IM in different sessions) alternatives using an eight-trial non-independent progressive ratio schedule (FR 100, 200,.12,800). The drug dose and money amount earned was delivered after the end of the 2.5-h work period. RESULTS: Hydromorphone 24 mg was more reinforcing than 4 mg. Higher versus lower average buprenorphine doses (regardless of daily versus alternate-day schedule) significantly decreased hydromorphone 24 mg choice and increased money choice. Baseline heroin craving questionnaire scores predicted drug choice, and craving scores were significantly decreased by high-dose buprenorphine. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose buprenorphine attenuated opioid drug-seeking behavior, heroin craving self-reports and increased sensitivity to alternative reinforcement. These beneficial effects were retained when high-dose buprenorphine was administered on alternate days.     

Effects of buprenorphine/naloxone in opioid-dependent humans

RATIONALE: Buprenorphine is a partial mu opioid agonist under development as a sublingual (SL) medication for opioid dependence treatment in the United States. Because buprenorphine may be abused, tablets combining buprenorphine with naloxone in a 4:1 ratio have been developed to reduce that risk. Low doses of injected buprenorphine/naloxone have been tested in opioid-dependent subjects, but higher doses (more than 2 mg of either medication) and direct comparisons to SL buprenorphine/naloxone have not been examined. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effects of intramuscular (i.m.) versus SL buprenorphine/naloxone in opioid-dependent volunteers. METHODS: Opioid-dependent volunteers were maintained on 40 mg per day of oral hydromorphone while on a residential research ward. After safety testing in two pilot subjects, participants (n = 8) were tested with both i.m. and SL buprenorphine/naloxone (1/0.25, 2/0.5, 4/1, 8/2, 16/4 mg); i.m. hydromorphone (10 mg) and naloxone (0.25 mg); both i.m. and SL buprenorphine alone (8 mg); and placebo. Test sessions were twice per week; dosing was double-blind. RESULTS: Intramuscular buprenorphine/naloxone produced dose-related increases on indices of opioid antagonist effects. Effects were consistent with naloxone-precipitated withdrawal, and were short-lived. As withdrawal effects dissipated, euphoric opioid agonist effects from buprenorphine did not appear. Sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone produced neither opioid agonist nor antagonist effects. CONCLUSIONS: Intramuscular injection of buprenorphine/naloxone precipitates withdrawal in opioid dependent persons; therefore, the combination has a low abuse potential by the injection route in this population. Sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone by tablet is well tolerated in opioid dependent subjects, and shows neither adverse effects (i.e., precipitated withdrawal) nor a high abuse potential (i.e., opioid agonist effects).