|
| ||
|
|
||
Buprenorphine
Terms modified by Buprenorphine Selected AbstractsCOMPARING BUPRENORPHINE ,TAPERS',TO WHAT END?ADDICTION, Issue 8 2009ROBERT G. NEWMAN No abstract is available for this article. [source] [Commentary] WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO,DELIVERY OF BUPRENORPHINE AND THE TREATMENT OF OPIOID ADDICTIONADDICTION, Issue 12 2007WALTER LING No abstract is available for this article. [source] Clinical issues in using buprenorphine in the treatment of opiate dependenceDRUG AND ALCOHOL REVIEW, Issue 3 2000Dr A. Chadderton MB Abstract This paper looks at the current role of buprenorphine in the treatment of opiate dependence. It suggests that buprenorphine is a useful alternative to methadone and that in at least some cases it may be the preferred option. Buprenorphineis a partial agonist and a partial antagonist with a ceiling of opiate activity probably approximately equal to 30mg methadone. It achieves this at a dose of 10-12mg, although there is considerable individual variation. Because of its ceiling effect it has a good safety profile compared to full agonists such as methadone although some overdose deaths, particularly in conjunction with benzodiazepine abuse, have been reported in France. Induction of buprenorphine may take slightly longer than for methadone and there is a higher dropout rate compared to methadone in the first 2 weeks. This is probably due to the antagonist action of buprenorphine causing more withdrawal symptoms in comparison to methadone. Also, the ceiling effect for buprenorphine means that some clients do not experience sufficient opiate activity to satisfy them. Buprenorphine has a long half-life and dissociates slowly from opiate receptors. Most clients can be dosed second-daily but some find this unacceptable due to mood swings and/or withdrawal symptomson the second day. For these clients daily dosing is required. Transferring from buprenorphine to methadone is straightforward and well tolerated by clients. Transferring from methadone to buprenorphine, however, is more difficult because of the partial antagonist action of buprenorphine. Clients experience withdrawal symptoms that can take up to 2 weeks to settle. Most clients find these symptoms unacceptable when transferring from doses of over 30mg of methadone. The optimum method for transferring from methadone to buprenorphine is still to be determined. Withdrawal from buprenorphine appears to be relatively easier than from methadone. This is presumably due to buprenorphine's partial agonist effect at mureceptors. It is expected that during 2000 buprenorphine will be approved for use in Australia for the treatment of opiate dependence. It may well becomea first-line choice for opiate replacement in heroin dependence. It is also likely to be useful in assisting detoxification fromboth methadone and heroin. [source] Comparing retention in treatment and mortality in people after initial entry to methadone and buprenorphine treatmentADDICTION, Issue 7 2009James Bell ABSTRACT Aim To compare retention in treatment and mortality among people entering methadone and buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence. Data sources The Pharmaceutical Drugs of Abuse System (PHDAS) database records start- and end-dates of all episodes of methadone and buprenorphine treatment in New South Wales, and the National Death Index (NDI) records all reported deaths. Methods Data linkage study. First entrants to treatment between June 2002 and June 2006 were identified from the PHDAS database. Retention in treatment was compared between methadone and buprenorphine. Names were linked to the NDI database, and ,good matches' were identified. Deaths were classified as occurring during induction, maintenance and either post-methadone or post-buprenorphine, depending on the latest episode of treatment prior to death. The numbers of inductions into treatment, of total person-years spent in each treatment, and person-years post-methadone or buprenorphine, were calculated. Risk of death in different periods, and different treatments, was analysed using Poisson regression. Results A total of 5992 people entered their first episode of treatment,3349 (56%) on buprenorphine, 2643 on methadone. Median retention was significantly longer in methadone (271 days) than buprenorphine (40 days). During induction, the risk of death was lower for buprenorphine (relative risk = 0.114, 95% confidence interval = 0.002,0.938, P = 0.02, Fisher's exact test). Risk of death was lowest during treatment, significantly higher in the first 12 months after leaving both methadone and buprenorphine. Beyond 12 months after leaving treatment, risk of death was non-significantly higher than during treatment. Conclusions Buprenorphine was safer during induction. Despite shorter retention in treatment, buprenorphine maintenance was not associated with higher risk of death. [source] Comparison of costs and utilization among buprenorphine and methadone patientsADDICTION, Issue 6 2009Paul G. Barnett ABSTRACT Aims Buprenorphine is an effective alternative to methadone for treatment of opioid dependence, but economic concerns represent a barrier to implementation. The economic impacts of buprenorphine adoption by the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) were examined. Design Prescriptions of buprenorphine, methadone treatment visits, health-care utilization and cost, and diagnostic data were obtained for 2005. Findings VHA dispensed buprenorphine to 606 patients and methadone to 8191 other patients during the study year. An analysis that controlled for age and diagnosis found that the mean cost of care for the 6 months after treatment initiation was $11 597 for buprenorphine and $14 921 for methadone (P < 0.001). Cost was not significantly different in subsequent months. The first 6 months of buprenorphine treatment included an average of 66 ambulatory care visits, significantly fewer than the 137 visits in methadone treatment (P < 0.001). In subsequent months, buprenorphine patients had 8.4 visits, significantly fewer than the 21.0 visits of methadone patients (P < 0.001). Compared to new methadone episodes, new buprenorphine episodes had 0.634 times the risk of ending [95% confidence interval 0.547,0.736]. Implementation of buprenorphine treatment was not associated with an influx of new opioid-dependent patients. Conclusion Despite the higher cost of medication, buprenorphine treatment was no more expensive than methadone treatment. VHA methadone treatment costs were higher than reported by other providers. Although new buprenorphine treatment episodes lasted longer than new methadone episodes, buprenorphine is recommended for more adherent patients. [source] Buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence: methods and design of the COBRA studyINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF METHODS IN PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH, Issue 1 2005Prof Dr Hans-Ulrich Wittchen Abstract Buprenorphine and methadone are the two established substitution drugs licensed in many countries for the treatment of opioid dependence. Little is known, however, about how these two drugs are applied and how they work in clinical practice. In this paper we present the aims, methods, design and sampling issues of a collaborative multi-stage epidemiological study (COBRA) to address these issues. Based on a nationally representative sample of substitution physicians, the study is designed as an observational, naturalistic study, consisting of three major parts. The first part was a national survey of substitution doctors (prestudy, n = 379 doctors). The second part was a cross-sectional study (n = 223 doctors), which consisted of a target-week assessment of 2,694 consecutive patients to determine (a) the severity and problem profiles and treatment targets; (b) the choice and dosage scheme of the substitution drug; (c) past and current interventions, including treatment of comorbid hepatitis C; and (d) cross-sectional differences between the two drugs with regard to comorbidity, clinical course, acceptance/compliance and social integration. The third part consists of a prospective-longitudinal cohort study of 48 methadone-treated and 48 buprenorphine-treated patients. The cohort is followed up over a period of 12 months to investigate whether course and outcome of the patients differ by type or treatment received in terms of clinical, psychosocial, pharmaco-economic and other related measures. The response rate among substitution doctors was 57.1%; that among eligible patients was 71.7%. Comparisons with the federal registers reveal that the final samples of doctors and patients may be considered nationally representative with regard to regional distribution, training, type of setting as well as the frequency of patients treated with buprenorphine or methadone. The COBRA study provides a unique comprehensive database, informing about the natural allocation and intervention processes in routine care and about the course and outcome of patients treated with buprenorphine or methadone. Copyright © 2005 Whurr Publishers Ltd. [source] Pilot randomised controlled trial of community pharmacy administration of buprenorphine versus methadoneINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACY PRACTICE, Issue 4 2006Isobel M Cameron research fellow Objectives The established regime for opiate substitute prescribing for drug misusers is daily methadone administered under supervision in community pharmacies. Buprenorphine has recently been introduced as an alternative. However there is a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) in the UK treatment setting. This study aimed to assess methods for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and the feasibility of pharmacy-based supervised self-administration (SSA) of buprenorphine compared to methadone. Setting Specialist substance misuse service, general practices and community pharmacies in Aberdeen, Scotland. Method The design was a pilot RCT. Opiate-dependent drug misusers, newly referred for maintenance treatment were randomised to receive BMT or methadone maintenance therapy (MMT). Clients and pharmacists were interviewed at baseline and at the end of a 12-week intervention period. Clients completed the quality of life measure EQ-5D. Pharmacy activities were timed. Key findings Twenty-one opiate-dependent clients were recruited (BMT = 11, MMT = 10). Recruitment levels improved as the trial progressed. Clients' treatment preferences were evident. Withdrawals occurred early with BMT. Clients found SSA of buprenorphine acceptable, but found daily administration more manageable than three times weekly. Pharmacists found the dispensing of buprenorphine to be an acceptable role, but felt less certain of ensuring against diversion with buprenorphine than they were with methadone. Pharmacy activities associated with buprenorphine took longer than those associated with methadone (mean = 7 min 25 s versus mean = 3 min 27 s, respectively). Conclusion Recruitment to a trial comparing MMT to BMT for opiate-dependent clients within a UK treatment setting is feasible. Clients and pharmacists found buprenorphine acceptable. [source] In-vitro and in-vivo characterization of a buprenorphine delivery systemJOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACOLOGY: AN INTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, Issue 3 2006Sofie R. Kleppner Buprenorphine is a mu-opioid receptor partial agonist with enhanced safety and comparable efficacy to methadone for treatment of opioid dependence. The sublingual formulation of buprenorphine, approved for treatment of opioid dependence, produces variable buprenorphine blood levels and requires frequent dosing that limits patient compliance. To achieve stable buprenorphine levels that may improve patient outcome, an implantable sustained buprenorphine delivery system was developed. Each implant consists of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer and 90 mg buprenorphine HCl, and measures 26 mm in length and 2.4 mm in diameter. Steady-state release in-vitro was 0.5 mg/implant/day. In-vivo pharmacokinetics and safety were examined for up to 52 weeks in beagle dogs receiving 8, 16 or 24 subcutaneous implants. Plasma buprenorphine concentrations correlated with the number of implants administered. Peak buprenorphine concentrations were generally reached within 24 h after implantation. Steady-state plasma levels were attained between 3 and 8 weeks, and were maintained for study duration, with a calculated mean release rate of 0.14 ± 0.04 mg/implant/day. There were no test-article-related adverse effects. This delivery system can provide long-term stable systemic buprenorphine levels, and may increase patient compliance, thereby improving outcome for opioid-dependent patients. [source] Opioids and the Management of Chronic Severe Pain in the Elderly: Consensus Statement of an International Expert Panel with Focus on the Six Clinically Most Often Used World Health Organization step III Opioids (Buprenorphine, Fentanyl, Hydromorphone, Methadone, Morphine, Oxycodone)PAIN PRACTICE, Issue 4 2008Joseph Pergolizzi MD ,,Abstract Summary of consensus: 1.,The use of opioids in cancer pain:, The criteria for selecting analgesics for pain treatment in the elderly include, but are not limited to, overall efficacy, overall side-effect profile, onset of action, drug interactions, abuse potential, and practical issues, such as cost and availability of the drug, as well as the severity and type of pain (nociceptive, acute/chronic, etc.). At any given time, the order of choice in the decision-making process can change. This consensus is based on evidence-based literature (extended data are not included and chronic, extended-release opioids are not covered). There are various driving factors relating to prescribing medication, including availability of the compound and cost, which may, at times, be the main driving factor. The transdermal formulation of buprenorphine is available in most European countries, particularly those with high opioid usage, with the exception of France; however, the availability of the sublingual formulation of buprenorphine in Europe is limited, as it is marketed in only a few countries, including Germany and Belgium. The opioid patch is experimental at present in U.S.A. and the sublingual formulation has dispensing restrictions, therefore, its use is limited. It is evident that the population pyramid is upturned. Globally, there is going to be an older population that needs to be cared for in the future. This older population has expectations in life, in that a retiree is no longer an individual who decreases their lifestyle activities. The "baby-boomers" in their 60s and 70s are "baby zoomers"; they want to have a functional active lifestyle. They are willing to make trade-offs regarding treatment choices and understand that they may experience pain, providing that can have increased quality of life and functionality. Therefore, comorbidities,including cancer and noncancer pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and postherpetic neuralgia,and patient functional status need to be taken carefully into account when addressing pain in the elderly. World Health Organization step III opioids are the mainstay of pain treatment for cancer patients and morphine has been the most commonly used for decades. In general, high level evidence data (Ib or IIb) exist, although many studies have included only few patients. Based on these studies, all opioids are considered effective in cancer pain management (although parts of cancer pain are not or only partially opioid sensitive), but no well-designed specific studies in the elderly cancer patient are available. Of the 2 opioids that are available in transdermal formulation,fentanyl and buprenorphine,fentanyl is the most investigated, but based on the published data both seem to be effective, with low toxicity and good tolerability profiles, especially at low doses. 2.,The use of opioids in noncancer-related pain:, Evidence is growing that opioids are efficacious in noncancer pain (treatment data mostly level Ib or IIb), but need individual dose titration and consideration of the respective tolerability profiles. Again no specific studies in the elderly have been performed, but it can be concluded that opioids have shown efficacy in noncancer pain, which is often due to diseases typical for an elderly population. When it is not clear which drugs and which regimes are superior in terms of maintaining analgesic efficacy, the appropriate drug should be chosen based on safety and tolerability considerations. Evidence-based medicine, which has been incorporated into best clinical practice guidelines, should serve as a foundation for the decision-making processes in patient care; however, in practice, the art of medicine is realized when we individualize care to the patient. This strikes a balance between the evidence-based medicine and anecdotal experience. Factual recommendations and expert opinion both have a value when applying guidelines in clinical practice. 3.,The use of opioids in neuropathic pain:, The role of opioids in neuropathic pain has been under debate in the past but is nowadays more and more accepted; however, higher opioid doses are often needed for neuropathic pain than for nociceptive pain. Most of the treatment data are level II or III, and suggest that incorporation of opioids earlier on might be beneficial. Buprenorphine shows a distinct benefit in improving neuropathic pain symptoms, which is considered a result of its specific pharmacological profile. 4.,The use of opioids in elderly patients with impaired hepatic and renal function:, Functional impairment of excretory organs is common in the elderly, especially with respect to renal function. For all opioids except buprenorphine, half-life of the active drug and metabolites is increased in the elderly and in patients with renal dysfunction. It is, therefore, recommended that,except for buprenorphine,doses be reduced, a longer time interval be used between doses, and creatinine clearance be monitored. Thus, buprenorphine appears to be the top-line choice for opioid treatment in the elderly. 5.,Opioids and respiratory depression:, Respiratory depression is a significant threat for opioid-treated patients with underlying pulmonary condition or receiving concomitant central nervous system (CNS) drugs associated with hypoventilation. Not all opioids show equal effects on respiratory depression: buprenorphine is the only opioid demonstrating a ceiling for respiratory depression when used without other CNS depressants. The different features of opioids regarding respiratory effects should be considered when treating patients at risk for respiratory problems, therefore careful dosing must be maintained. 6.,Opioids and immunosuppression:, Age is related to a gradual decline in the immune system: immunosenescence, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases, and cancer, and decreased efficacy of immunotherapy, such as vaccination. The clinical relevance of the immunosuppressant effects of opioids in the elderly is not fully understood, and pain itself may also cause immunosuppression. Providing adequate analgesia can be achieved without significant adverse events, opioids with minimal immunosuppressive characteristics should be used in the elderly. The immunosuppressive effects of most opioids are poorly described and this is one of the problems in assessing true effect of the opioid spectrum, but there is some indication that higher doses of opioids correlate with increased immunosuppressant effects. Taking into consideration all the very limited available evidence from preclinical and clinical work, buprenorphine can be recommended, while morphine and fentanyl cannot. 7.,Safety and tolerability profile of opioids:, The adverse event profile varies greatly between opioids. As the consequences of adverse events in the elderly can be serious, agents should be used that have a good tolerability profile (especially regarding CNS and gastrointestinal effects) and that are as safe as possible in overdose especially regarding effects on respiration. Slow dose titration helps to reduce the incidence of typical initial adverse events such as nausea and vomiting. Sustained release preparations, including transdermal formulations, increase patient compliance.,, [source] Buprenorphine plus naloxone, a new substitution treatmentPRESCRIBER, Issue 15 2007MRPharmS, Steve Chaplin MSc Suboxone, a combination of buprenorphine and the opiate antagonist naloxone, is a substitution treatment for opioid drug dependence intended to reduce potential abuse by intravenous injection. In our New products review Steve Chaplin presents the clinical data relating to its efficacy and adverse effects, and Dr Alan Fraser comments on its place in therapy. Copyright © 2007 Wiley Interface Ltd [source] Drug Interactions of Clinical Importance with Methadone and BuprenorphineTHE AMERICAN JOURNAL ON ADDICTIONS, Issue 1 2010Elinore F. McCance-Katz MD [source] Drug Interactions of Clinical Importance among the Opioids, Methadone and Buprenorphine, and Other Frequently Prescribed Medications: A ReviewTHE AMERICAN JOURNAL ON ADDICTIONS, Issue 1 2010Elinore F. McCance-Katz MD Drug interactions are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Methadone and buprenorphine are frequently prescribed for the treatment of opioid addiction. Patients needing treatment with these medications often have co-occurring medical and mental illnesses that require medication treatment. The abuse of illicit substances is also common in opioid-addicted individuals. These clinical realities place patients being treated with methadone and buprenorphine at risk for potentially toxic drug interactions. A substantial literature has accumulated on drug interactions between either methadone or buprenorphine with other medications when ingested concomitantly by humans. This review summarizes current literature in this area.,(Am J Addict 2009;19:4,16) [source] Uses of Diverted Methadone and Buprenorphine by Opioid-Addicted Individuals in Baltimore, MarylandTHE AMERICAN JOURNAL ON ADDICTIONS, Issue 5 2009Shannon Gwin Mitchell PhD This study examined the uses of diverted methadone and buprenorphine among opiate-addicted individuals recruited from new admissions to methadone programs and from out-of-treatment individuals recruited from the streets. Self-report data regarding diversion were obtained from surveys and semi-structured qualitative interviews. Approximately 16% (n = 84) of the total sample (N = 515) reported using diverted (street) methadone two,three times per week for six months or more, and for an average of 7.8 days (SD = 10.3) within the past month. The group reporting lifetime use of diverted methadone as compared to the group that did not report such use was less likely to use heroin and cocaine in the 30 days prior to admission (ps < .01) and had lower ASI Drug Composite scores (p < .05). Participants in our qualitative sub-sample (n = 22) indicated that street methadone was more widely used than street buprenorphine and that both drugs were largely used as self-medication for detoxification and withdrawal symptoms. Participants reported using low dosages and no injection of either medication was reported. [source] Tramadol versus Buprenorphine for the Management of Acute Heroin Withdrawal: A Retrospective Matched Cohort Controlled StudyTHE AMERICAN JOURNAL ON ADDICTIONS, Issue 2 2006Threlkeld Threlkeld MD Many medications have been used over the past thirty years for the treatment of opioid withdrawal, including propoxyphene, methadone, clonidine, parenteral buprenorphine, and, more recently, sublingual buprenorphine. Each has been found to have clinical strengths and limitations. Tramadol is a centrally acting synthetic analgesic with opiate activity primarily due to the binding ofa metabolite to the , receptor. Despite this , receptor activity, tramadol appears to have low abuse potential and is a non-scheduled analgesic. The pharmacologic profile of tramadol makes it a candidate for opiate withdrawal treatment. A chart review was undertaken to retrospectively compare treatment outcomes of heroin-dependent patients when detoxified with parenteral buprenorphine (1996,1997) versus tramadol (1999,2000). Inclusion criteria for this study were heroin as drug of choice, current opioid physical dependence (ie, withdrawal symptoms), no current abuse of oral opioid analgesics, and no alcohol or benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms. Patient cases that met inclusion criteria were group-matched between buprenorphine and tramadol on the basis of age, sex, and amount of heroin used (bags/ day). Charts were audited for patient demographics, daily heroin use at admission, withdrawal symptoms, and discharge status. In total, 129 patient charts were reviewed, and 115 met all inclusion criteria and were group-matched (45 patients in the buprenorphine group, seventy in the tramadol group). There were no differences in demographics between the two groups of patients. Fifty-six percent of the buprenorphine group and 71% of the tramadol group completed detoxification; tramadol-treated patients had significantly higher average withdrawal symptoms when compared to the buprenorphine group and a greater reduction in withdrawal symptoms over time. Finally, the number of side effects was small and did not differ between the groups. The results of this study are consistent with previous pilot reports that indicated few clinical differences between parenteral buprenorphine and oral tramadol protocols when used in the management of acute heroin withdrawal. As a consequence, tramadol shows some promise as an opioid withdrawal management medication. [source] Buprenorphine: A Safe Method for Detoxifying Pregnant Heroin Addicts and Their UnbornTHE AMERICAN JOURNAL ON ADDICTIONS, Issue 3 2004Virginia G. Comer PA-S. No abstract is available for this article. [source] Gradual Dose Taper Following Chronic BuprenorphineTHE AMERICAN JOURNAL ON ADDICTIONS, Issue 2 2001Ami B. Becker Ph.D. This paper describes the time course of withdrawal and relapse in opioid-dependent volunteers (n = 8) who completed a gradual outpatient buprenorphine dose taper (28 days). Compliance with treatment was very high, as evidenced by clinic attendance (96,100%). Urinalysis showed that 6 of the 8 volunteers had relapsed to opiates by the end of the dose taper, even though reports of withdrawal were generally low. Relapse may have been triggered by a desire to re-experience the drug's positive subjective effects, craving, or low motivation to remain drug-free. A longer taper combined with an expanded range of treatments may improve prognosis. [source] The clinical use of buprenorphine in opiate addiction: evidence and practiceACTA NEUROPSYCHIATRICA, Issue 5 2004Fergus D. Law Buprenorphine is a partial ,-opioid receptor agonist that is being increasingly used in clinical practice in the treatment of opioid dependence in the UK, USA, and, elsewhere. Its unique pharmacological properties mean it is a relatively safe drug, it can be given by alternate day dispensing, and it is associated with relatively mild symptoms on withdrawal. The interpretation of the research literature on buprenorphine is however, complex, and often appears to be in conflict with how buprenorphine is used in clinical practice. This article describes these apparent contradictions, their likely explanations, and how these may further inform our clinical practice. The article also describes the clinically relevant pharmacological properties of buprenorphine, compares it to methadone, relates the evidence to clinical experience, and provides practical advice on how to manage the most common clinical techniques. The best quality evidence suggests that very rapid buprenorphine induction is not associated with a higher drop-out rate than methadone, that buprenorphine is probably as good as methadone for maintenance treatment, and is superior to methadone and ,-2 adrenergic agonists for detoxification. However, buprenorphine cannot yet be considered the ,gold standard' treatment for opiate dependence because of the higher drop-out rates that may occur on induction using current techniques, its high-cost relative to methadone, and because the place of buprenorphine in treatment is still continuing to evolve. [source] Allergic contact dermatitis due to transdermal buprenorphineCONTACT DERMATITIS, Issue 5 2008Lidia Pérez-Pérez No abstract is available for this article. [source] Prognostic impact of psychoactive substances use during hospitalization for intentional drug overdoseACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 2 2005M. Tournier Objective:, To assess whether current use of psychoactive substance(s) is a prognostic factor during hospitalization for intentional drug overdose (IDO). Method:, Current intoxication with psychoactive substance(s) [cannabis, opiate, buprenorphine, amphetamine/ecstasy, cocaine, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)] was identified using toxicological urinalysis in 671 patients with IDO. An IDO was a priori defined as serious if associated with one of the following events: death, hospitalization in intensive care unit longer than 48 h, respiratory support, use of vasopressive drugs, cardiac massage or dialysis. Results:, Subjects positive for toxicological assays were twice as likely to present with serious IDO (OR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3,2.8, P = 0.001), independently from a large range of confounding factors. The risk of serious IDO was especially marked in subjects using LSD, buprenorphine or opiates. Conclusion:, Systematic investigation of substance use could be important to adapt medical management of subjects with IDO in general hospital, but also in primary care and psychiatric settings. [source] Patients' help-seeking behaviours for health problems associated with methadone and buprenorphine treatmentDRUG AND ALCOHOL REVIEW, Issue 4 2008ADAM R. WINSTOCK Abstract Introduction and Aims. Clients in opioid substitution therapy often have considerable unmet health-care needs. The current study aimed to explore health problems related to opioid substitution therapy among clients on methadone and buprenorphine treatment. Design and Methods. A self-complete, cross-sectional survey conducted among 508 patients receiving methadone and buprenorphine treatment at community pharmacies in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Results. The most common problems for which participants had ever sought help were dental (29.9%), constipation (25.0%) and headache (24.0%). The most common problems for which participants would currently like help were dental (41.1%), sweating (26.4%) and reduced sexual enjoyment (24.2%). There were no significant differences between those currently on methadone and those currently on buprenorphine for any of the health problems explored, nor differences for gender or treatment duration. Participants on methadone doses 100 mg or above were significantly more likely to want help currently for sedation. Discussion and Conclusions. The considerable unmet health care needs among participants in this study suggest that treatment providers should consider improving the detection and response to common health problems related to opioid substitution therapy. [source] Trends in morphine prescriptions, illicit morphine use and associated harms among regular injecting drug users in AustraliaDRUG AND ALCOHOL REVIEW, Issue 5 2006LOUISA DEGENHARDT Abstract This paper examines population trends in morphine prescriptions in Australia, and contrasts them with findings from annual surveys with regular injecting drug users (IDU). Data on morphine prescriptions from 1995 to 2003 were obtained from the Drug Monitoring System (DRUMS) run by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Data collected from regular IDU as part of the Australian Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) were analysed (2001,2004). The rate of morphine prescription per person aged 15,54 years increased by 89% across Australia between 1995 and 2003 (from 46.3 to 85.9 mg per person). Almost half (46%) of IDU surveyed in 2004 reported illicit morphine use, with the highest rates in jurisdictions where heroin was less available. Recent morphine injectors were significantly more likely to be male, unemployed, out of treatment and homeless in comparison to IDU who had not injected morphine. They were also more likely to have injected other pharmaceutical drugs and to report injection related problems. Among those who had injected morphine recently, the most commonly reported injecting harms were morphine dependence (38%), difficulty finding veins into which to inject (36%) and scarring or bruising (27%). Morphine use and injection is a common practice among regular IDU in Australia. In some cases, morphine may be a substitute for illicit heroin; in others, it may be being used to treat heroin dependence where other pharmacotherapies, such as methadone and buprenorphine, are perceived as being unavailable or undesirable by IDU. Morphine injection appears to be associated with polydrug use, and with it, a range of problems related to drug injection. Further research is required to monitor and reduce morphine diversion and related harms by such polydrug injectors. [source] ASIA PACIFIC COLUMN: New challenges and opportunities in managing substance abuse in MalaysiaDRUG AND ALCOHOL REVIEW, Issue 5 2006MAHMUD MAZLAN MD Abstract Until recently, Malaysia has lagged behind in the treatment of drug addiction and related disorders, despite experiencing severe drug problems. By the end of 2004, 234 000 heroin users or heroin-dependent individuals had been registered in the official government registry, but other estimates exceed 500 000 for heroin abusers in the country. Amphetamine-type stimulant abuse is also increasing and of considerable public and government concern. Among the population of drug users, HIV and other infectious diseases rates are very high. In the Western Pacific regions, Malaysia has the second highest HIV prevalence (after Vietnam) among adult populations (0.62%) and the highest proportion of HIV cases resulting from injection drug use (76.3%). Drug use and related disorders exert a heavy burden on the country's health care and legal systems. Historically, drug abusers were rehabilitated involuntarily in correctional, rather than health-care, facilities. This primarily criminal treatment approach had limited effectiveness which led to widespread public dissatisfaction and the recent introduction of medical treatments for addiction. Naltrexone was introduced in 1999; buprenorphine was introduced in 2001 and methadone in 2003. Agonist maintenance programmes were embraced rapidly by the medical community in Malaysia. Currently, over 30 000 opiate-dependent patients are treated with agonist maintenance treatments by more than 500 medical practitioners in Malaysia. Despite these recent advances, treatments for amphetamine-type stimulant abuse or dependence are underdeveloped, and diversion of agonist medications is an emerging concern. [source] Treatment retention in adolescent patients treated with methadone or buprenorphine for opioid dependence: a file reviewDRUG AND ALCOHOL REVIEW, Issue 2 2006JAMES BELL Abstract The aim of this study was to compare retention and re-entry to treatment between adolescent subjects treated with methadone, those treated with buprenorphine, and those treated with symptomatic (non-opioid) medication only. We used a retrospective file review of all patients aged less than 18 at first presentation for treatment for opioid dependence. The study was conducted at the Langton Centre, Sydney, Australia, an agency specialising in the treatment of alcohol and other drug dependency. Sixty-one adolescents (age range 14,17 years at the time of commencing treatment); mean reported age of initiation of heroin use was 14 ± 1.3 years (range 11,16). Sixty-one per cent were female. The first episode of treatment was methadone maintenance in 20 subjects, buprenorphine in 25, symptomatic medication in 15; one patient underwent assessment only. These 61 subjects had a total of 112 episodes of treatment. Subjects treated with methadone had significantly longer retention in first treatment episode than subjects treated with buprenorphine (mean days 354 vs. 58, p<0.01 by Cox regression) and missed fewer days in the first month (mean 3 vs. 8 days, p<0.05 by t-test). Subsequent re-entry for further treatment occurred in 25% of subjects treated with methadone, 60% buprenorphine and 60% symptomatic medications. Time to reentry after first episode of buprenorphine treatment was significantly shorter than after methadone treatment (p < 0.05 by Kaplan-Meier test). Methadone maintenance appears to have been more effective than buprenorphine at preventing premature drop-out from treatment of adolescent heroin users. [source] Clinical issues in using buprenorphine in the treatment of opiate dependenceDRUG AND ALCOHOL REVIEW, Issue 3 2000Dr A. Chadderton MB Abstract This paper looks at the current role of buprenorphine in the treatment of opiate dependence. It suggests that buprenorphine is a useful alternative to methadone and that in at least some cases it may be the preferred option. Buprenorphineis a partial agonist and a partial antagonist with a ceiling of opiate activity probably approximately equal to 30mg methadone. It achieves this at a dose of 10-12mg, although there is considerable individual variation. Because of its ceiling effect it has a good safety profile compared to full agonists such as methadone although some overdose deaths, particularly in conjunction with benzodiazepine abuse, have been reported in France. Induction of buprenorphine may take slightly longer than for methadone and there is a higher dropout rate compared to methadone in the first 2 weeks. This is probably due to the antagonist action of buprenorphine causing more withdrawal symptoms in comparison to methadone. Also, the ceiling effect for buprenorphine means that some clients do not experience sufficient opiate activity to satisfy them. Buprenorphine has a long half-life and dissociates slowly from opiate receptors. Most clients can be dosed second-daily but some find this unacceptable due to mood swings and/or withdrawal symptomson the second day. For these clients daily dosing is required. Transferring from buprenorphine to methadone is straightforward and well tolerated by clients. Transferring from methadone to buprenorphine, however, is more difficult because of the partial antagonist action of buprenorphine. Clients experience withdrawal symptoms that can take up to 2 weeks to settle. Most clients find these symptoms unacceptable when transferring from doses of over 30mg of methadone. The optimum method for transferring from methadone to buprenorphine is still to be determined. Withdrawal from buprenorphine appears to be relatively easier than from methadone. This is presumably due to buprenorphine's partial agonist effect at mureceptors. It is expected that during 2000 buprenorphine will be approved for use in Australia for the treatment of opiate dependence. It may well becomea first-line choice for opiate replacement in heroin dependence. It is also likely to be useful in assisting detoxification fromboth methadone and heroin. [source] Cost-effectiveness of extended buprenorphine,naloxone treatment for opioid-dependent youth: data from a randomized trialADDICTION, Issue 9 2010Daniel Polsky ABSTRACT Aims The objective is to estimate cost, net social cost and cost-effectiveness in a clinical trial of extended buprenorphine,naloxone (BUP) treatment versus brief detoxification treatment in opioid-dependent youth. Design Economic evaluation of a clinical trial conducted at six community out-patient treatment programs from July 2003 to December 2006, who were randomized to 12 weeks of BUP or a 14-day taper (DETOX). BUP patients were prescribed up to 24 mg per day for 9 weeks and then tapered to zero at the end of week 12. DETOX patients were prescribed up to 14 mg per day and then tapered to zero on day 14. All were offered twice-weekly drug counseling. Participants 152 patients aged 15,21 years. Measurements Data were collected prospectively during the 12-week treatment and at follow-up interviews at months 6, 9 and 12. Findings The 12-week out-patient study treatment cost was $1514 (P < 0.001) higher for BUP relative to DETOX. One-year total direct medical cost was only $83 higher for BUP (P = 0.97). The cost-effectiveness ratio of BUP relative to DETOX was $1376 in terms of 1-year direct medical cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $25 049 in terms of out-patient treatment program cost per QALY. The acceptability curve suggests that the cost-effectiveness ratio of BUP relative to DETOX has an 86% chance of being accepted as cost-effective for a threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Conclusions Extended BUP treatment relative to brief detoxification is cost effective in the US health-care system for the outpatient treatment of opioid-dependent youth. [source] Were the changes to Sweden's maintenance treatment policy 2000,06 related to changes in opiate-related mortality and morbidity?ADDICTION, Issue 9 2010Anders Romelsjö ABSTRACT Aims To analyse whether changes in maintenance treatment of opiate-dependent subjects in Sweden were related to changes in opiate-related mortality and inpatient care from 1998 to 2006. Design We collected data from surveys of methadone maintenance treatment units, of buprenorphine and methadone sales, and of mortality and inpatient care in Sweden. Setting Sweden. Participants Patients in maintenance treatment. Measurements Survey data of treatment policy to all units in 2003 and 2005. Trend tests and correlation analyses of data on sales, mortality, inpatient care and forensic investigations. Findings The surveys showed a marked change to a less restrictive policy, with increased use of ,take-away doses' and a reduction of discharges due to side misuse. The one-year retention rate stayed high. Sales of buprenorphine and methadone and the number of patients in treatment increased more than threefold from 2000 to 2006, with the greatest increase for buprenoprphine, introduced in year 2000. There was a significant 20,30% reduction in opiate-related mortality and inpatient care between 2000,2002 and 2004,2006 but not of other drug-related mortality and inpatient care. This decline was larger in Stockholm County, which had a less restricted treatment policy. However, a significant increase in buprenorphine- and methadone-related mortality occurred. For the study period 1998,2006, statistically significant declines occurred only in Stockholm County. Conclusions The liberalization of Sweden's drug policy correlated with an increase in maintenance treatment, a decrease in opiate-related mortality and inpatient care and an increase in deaths with methadone and buprenorphine in the tissues. [source] First-trimester fetal heart rate in mothers with opioid addictionADDICTION, Issue 7 2010Maximilian Schmid ABSTRACT Aim To investigate the difference in fetal heart rate of opioid-dependent mothers compared to non-dependent mothers in the first trimester of pregnancy. Design The data of 74 consecutive singleton pregnancies of mothers enrolled in a maintenance programme for opioid-dependent women was matched to 74 non-exposed singleton pregnancies by maternal age, crown,rump length, smoking status, ethnic background and mode of conception. Measurement Fetal heart rate measured as part of first-trimester screening by Doppler ultrasound between 11+0 and 13+6 gestational weeks was compared retrospectively. Findings The mean fetal heart rate in opioid-dependent mothers was 156.0 beats per minute (standard deviation 7.3) compared to 159.6 (6.5) in controls. The difference in fetal heart rate was significant (P = 0.02). There was a significant difference in mean maternal body mass index (P = 0.01) but not in mean nuchal translucency (P = 0.3), gestational age (0.5), fetal gender (P = 0.3) and parity (P = 0.3) between both groups. Fifty-five per cent (41 of 74) of cases were taking methadone, 30% (22 of 74) buprenorphine and 15% (11 of 74) were taking slow-release morphines throughout the pregnancy. Conclusions In fetuses of opioid-dependent mothers a decreased fetal heart rate can already be observed between 11+0 and 13+6 gestational weeks. The effect of opioid intake needs to be taken into consideration when interpreting fetal heart rate in opioid-dependent mothers at first-trimester screening. [source] Abuse liability of intravenous buprenorphine/naloxone and buprenorphine alone in buprenorphine-maintained intravenous heroin abusersADDICTION, Issue 4 2010Sandra D. Comer ABSTRACT Background Sublingual buprenorphine is an effective maintenance treatment for opioid dependence, yet intravenous buprenorphine misuse occurs. A buprenorphine/naloxone formulation was developed to mitigate this misuse risk. This randomized, double-blind, cross-over study was conducted to assess the intravenous abuse potential of buprenorphine/naloxone compared with buprenorphine in buprenorphine-maintained injection drug users (IDUs). Methods Intravenous heroin users (n = 12) lived in the hospital for 8,9 weeks and were maintained on each of three different sublingual buprenorphine doses (2 mg, 8 mg, 24 mg). Under each maintenance dose, participants completed laboratory sessions during which the reinforcing and subjective effects of intravenous placebo, naloxone, heroin and low and high doses of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone were examined. Every participant received each test dose under the three buprenorphine maintenance dose conditions. Results Intravenous buprenorphine/naloxone was self-administered less frequently than buprenorphine or heroin (P < 0.0005). Participants were most likely to self-administer drug intravenously when maintained on the lowest sublingual buprenorphine dose. Subjective ratings of ,drug liking' and ,desire to take the drug again' were lower for buprenorphine/naloxone than for buprenorphine or heroin (P = 0.0001). Participants reported that they would pay significantly less money for buprenorphine/naloxone than for buprenorphine or heroin (P < 0.05). Seven adverse events were reported; most were mild and transient. Conclusions These data suggest that although the buprenorphine/naloxone combination has intravenous abuse potential, that potential is lower than it is for buprenorphine alone, particularly when participants received higher maintenance doses and lower buprenorphine/naloxone challenge doses. Buprenorphine/naloxone may be a reasonable option for managing the risk for buprenorphine misuse during opioid dependence treatment. [source] Opioid agonist pharmacotherapy in New South Wales from 1985 to 2006: patient characteristics and patterns and predictors of treatment retentionADDICTION, Issue 8 2009Lucy Burns ABSTRACT Aims The aims of this study were to: examine the number and characteristics of patients entering and re-entering opioid replacement treatment between 1985 and 2006, to examine select demographic and treatment correlates of leaving treatment between 1985 and 2000, and to compare retention rates in methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment from 2001 to 2006. Design A retrospective cohort study using register data from the Pharmaceutical Drugs of Addiction System. Setting Opioid substitution treatment in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Participants A total of n = 42 690 individuals prescribed opioid replacement treatment between 1985 and 2006 in NSW. Measurements Client characteristics over time, retention in days in first treatment episode, number of episodes of treatment and proportion switching medication. Findings Overall, younger individuals were significantly more likely to leave their first treatment episode than older individuals. In 2001,06, after controlling for age, sex and first administration point, the hazard of leaving treatment was 1.9 times for those on buprenorphine relative to those on methadone. Retention in treatment varied somewhat across historical time, with those entering during 1995,2000 more likely to leave at an earlier stage than those who entered before that time. Conclusions Retention in treatment appears to fluctuate in inverse proportion to the availability of heroin. Individuals in contemporary treatment are older users with a lengthy treatment history. This study has provided population-level evidence to suggest that retention in methadone and buprenorphine differ in routine clinical practice. Future work might investigate ways in which patient adherence and retention may be improved. [source] Comparing retention in treatment and mortality in people after initial entry to methadone and buprenorphine treatmentADDICTION, Issue 7 2009James Bell ABSTRACT Aim To compare retention in treatment and mortality among people entering methadone and buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence. Data sources The Pharmaceutical Drugs of Abuse System (PHDAS) database records start- and end-dates of all episodes of methadone and buprenorphine treatment in New South Wales, and the National Death Index (NDI) records all reported deaths. Methods Data linkage study. First entrants to treatment between June 2002 and June 2006 were identified from the PHDAS database. Retention in treatment was compared between methadone and buprenorphine. Names were linked to the NDI database, and ,good matches' were identified. Deaths were classified as occurring during induction, maintenance and either post-methadone or post-buprenorphine, depending on the latest episode of treatment prior to death. The numbers of inductions into treatment, of total person-years spent in each treatment, and person-years post-methadone or buprenorphine, were calculated. Risk of death in different periods, and different treatments, was analysed using Poisson regression. Results A total of 5992 people entered their first episode of treatment,3349 (56%) on buprenorphine, 2643 on methadone. Median retention was significantly longer in methadone (271 days) than buprenorphine (40 days). During induction, the risk of death was lower for buprenorphine (relative risk = 0.114, 95% confidence interval = 0.002,0.938, P = 0.02, Fisher's exact test). Risk of death was lowest during treatment, significantly higher in the first 12 months after leaving both methadone and buprenorphine. Beyond 12 months after leaving treatment, risk of death was non-significantly higher than during treatment. Conclusions Buprenorphine was safer during induction. Despite shorter retention in treatment, buprenorphine maintenance was not associated with higher risk of death. [source] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||