Implementation of a Medication for Addiction Treatment (MAT) and Linkage Program by Leveraging Community Partnerships and Medical Toxicology Expertise

IntroductionImplementing a hospital medication for addiction treatment (MAT) and a linkage program can improve care for patients with substance use disorder (SUD); however, lack of hospital funding and brick and mortar SUD resources are potential barriers to feasibility.MethodsThis study assesses the feasibility of implementation of a SUD linkage program. Components of the program include a county-funded hospital opioid support team (HOST), a hospital-employed addiction recovery specialist (ARS), and a medical toxicology MAT induction service and maintenance program. Data for linkage by HOST, ARS, and MAT program were tracked from July 2018 to December 2019.ResultsFrom July 2018 through December 2019, 1834 patients were linked to treatment: 1536 by HOST and 298 by the ARS. The most common disposition categories for patients linked by HOST were 16.73% to medically monitored detoxification, 9.38% to intensive outpatient, and 8.59% to short-term residential treatment. Among patients linked by the ARS, 65.66% were linked to outpatient treatment and 9.43% were linked directly to inpatient treatment. A total of 223 patients managed by the ARS were started on MAT by medical toxicology and linked to outpatient MAT clinic: 72.68% on buprenorphine/naloxone, 24.59% on naltrexone, 1.09% buprenorphine, and 0.55% acamprosate.ConclusionImplementing a MAT and linkage program in the ED and hospital setting was feasible. Leveraging medical toxicology expertise as well as community and funding partnerships was crucial to successful implementation.     

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.     

Preference for buprenorphine/naloxone and buprenorphine among patients receiving buprenorphine maintenance therapy in France: A prospective,multicenter study

Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine tablets (Subutex) has been associated with reductions in heroin use; however, concerns for intravenous misuse exist. A buprenorphine/naloxone formulation (Suboxone) was designed to reduce this misuse risk while retaining buprenorphine's efficacy and safety. This prospective, open-label, multicenter trial compared preferences for buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone in 53 opioid-dependent patients stabilized on buprenorphine. Buprenorphine was first administered at the patient's current dose (Days 1–2), followed by a direct switch to buprenorphine/naloxone (Days 3–5). Global satisfaction rates were high and similar between buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone; however, patients preferred the tablet taste, size, and sublingual dissolution time of buprenorphine/naloxone. At the end of the study, 54% of patients preferred buprenorphine/naloxone, 31% preferred buprenorphine, and 15% had no preference; most patients (71%) wished to continue treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone. This study did not identify any impediments to a direct buprenorphine-to-buprenorphine/naloxone switch and revealed some characteristics that may facilitate treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone.     

Unobserved versus observed office buprenorphine/naloxone induction: A pilot randomized clinical trial

Physician adoption of buprenorphine treatment of opioid dependence may be limited in part by concerns regarding the induction process. Although national guidelines recommend observed induction, some physicians utilize unobserved induction outside the office. The aim of this pilot randomized clinical trial was to assess preliminary safety and effectiveness of unobserved versus observed office buprenorphine/naloxone induction among patients entering a 12-week primary care maintenance study. Participants (N = 20) with DSM-IV opioid dependence were randomly assigned to unobserved or office induction, stratifying by past buprenorphine use. All patients received verbal and written instructions. A withdrawal scale was used during initiation and to monitor treatment response. Clinic visits occurred weekly for 4 weeks then decreased to monthly. The primary outcome, successful induction one week after the initial clinic visit, was defined as retention in buprenorphine/naloxone treatment and being withdrawal free. Secondary outcomes included prolonged withdrawal beyond 2 days after medication initiation and stabilization at week 4, defined as being in treatment without illicit opioid use for the preceding 2 weeks. Outcome results were similar in the two groups: 6/10 (60%) successfully inducted in each group, 3/10 (30%) experienced prolonged withdrawal, and 4/10 (40%) stabilized by week 4. These pilot study results suggest comparable safety and effectiveness of unobserved and office induction and point toward utilization of non-inferiority design during future definitive protocol development. By addressing an important barrier for physician adoption, further validation of the unobserved buprenorphine induction method will hopefully lead to increased availability of effective opioid dependence treatment.     

Prescription opioid abuse,chronic pain,and primary care: A Co-Occurring Disorders Clinic in the chronic disease model

Abuse of opioids has become a public health crisis. The historic separation between the addiction and pain communities and a lack of training in medical education have made treatment difficult to provide, especially in primary care. The Co-occurring Disorders Clinic (COD) was established to treat patients with co-morbid chronic pain and addiction. This retrospective chart review reports results of a quality improvement project using buprenorphine/naloxone to treat co-occurring chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and opioid dependence in a primary care setting. Data were collected for 143 patients who were induced with buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NLX) between June 2009 and November 2011. Ninety-three patients (65%) continued to be maintained on the medication and seven completed treatment and were no longer taking any opioid (5%). Pain scores showed a modest, but statistically significant improvement on BUP/NLX, which was contrary to our expectations and may be an important factor in treatment retention for this challenging population.     

Effects of a High-Dose,Fast Tapering Buprenorphine Detoxification Program on Symptom Relief and Treatment Retention

Abstract

A large number of patients with heroin dependency fail to enter a treatment program because of dropping out during or immediately after detoxification. This article presents an open study of symptom relief of 10 patients withdrawing from heroin with a high-dose rapid tapering buprenorphine detoxification protocol. It also presents a pseudo-experimental comparison between 208 patients treated with a clonidine/dextropropoxiphene detoxification protocol and 246 patients treated with the high-dose rapid tapering buprenorphine detoxification protocol to evaluate differences in patients' ability to continue in treatment of addiction immediately after detoxification. The results indicate that 24 mg of sublingually administered buprenorphine beginning when the patient judges himself to be in a withdrawal state followed by another three days of daily administered and rapidly decreased doses resulted in a significant reduction of withdrawal symptoms. Also, when the clonidine/dextropropoxiphene protocol was replaced with this buprenorphine protocol the number of patients continuing in treatment immediately after discharge from the detoxification ward increased from 41.3% to 58.1%. Buprenorphine given in high doses with rapid tapering when withdrawal symptoms occur seems to offer an effective symptom-alleviating treatment, probably also decreasing the number of drop-outs after detoxification.     

Prevalence of mood and substance use disorders among patients seeking primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment

BackgroundPsychiatric comorbidity can adversely affect opioid dependence treatment outcomes. While the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity among patients seeking methadone maintenance treatment has been documented, the extent to which these findings extend to patients seeking primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment is unclear.AimsTo determine the prevalence of mood and substance use disorders among patients seeking primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment, via cross sectional survey.Methods237 consecutive patients seeking primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment were evaluated using modules from the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I). Current (past 30 days) and past diagnoses were cataloged separately.ResultsPatients ranged in age from 18 to 62 years old (M = 33.9, SD = 9.9); 173 (73%) were men; 197 (83%) were white. Major depression was the most prevalent mood disorder (19% current, 24% past). A minority of patients met criteria for current dysthymia (6%), past mania (1%), or past hypomania (2%). While 37 patients (16%) met criteria for current abuse of or dependence on at least one non-opioid substance (7% cocaine, 4% alcohol, 4% cannabis, 2% sedatives, 0.4% stimulants, 0.4% polydrug), 168 patients (70%) percent met criteria for past abuse of or dependence on at least one non-opioid substance (43% alcohol, 38% cannabis, 30% cocaine, 9% sedatives, 8% hallucinogens, 4% stimulants, 1% polydrug, and 0.4% other substances).ConclusionMood and substance use comorbidity is prevalent among patients seeking primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment. The findings support the need for clinicians to assess and address these conditions.     

Primary care patient characteristics associated with completion of 6-month buprenorphine treatment

Background

Opioid addiction is prevalent in the United States. Detoxification followed by behavioral counseling (abstinence-only approach) leads to relapse to opioids in most patients. An alternative approach is substitution therapy with the partial opioid receptor agonist buprenorphine, which is used for opioid maintenance in the primary care setting. This study investigated the patient characteristics associated with completion of 6-month buprenorphine/naloxone treatment in an ambulatory primary care office.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of 356 patients who received buprenorphine for treatment of opioid addiction was conducted. Patient characteristics were compared among completers and non-completers of 6-month buprenorphine treatment.

Results

Of the 356 patients, 127 (35.7%) completed 6-month buprenorphine treatment. Completion of treatment was associated with counseling attendance and having had a past injury.

Conclusions

Future research needs to investigate the factors associated with counseling that influenced this improved outcome. Patients with a past injury might suffer from chronic pain, suggesting that buprenorphine might produce analgesia in addition to improving addiction outcome in these patients, rendering them more likely to complete 6-month buprenorphine treatment. Further research is required to test this hypothesis. Combination of behavioral and medical treatment needs to be investigated for primary care patients with opioid addiction and chronic pain.     

Abuse liability of buprenorphine-naloxone tablets in untreated IV drug users

Buprenorphine (Subutex) is widely abused in Finland. A combination of buprenorphine plus naloxone (Suboxone) has been available since late 2004, permitting a comparison of the abuse of the two products among untreated intravenous (IV) users. A survey was distributed to attendees at a Helsinki needle exchange program over 2-weeks in April, 2005, At least 30% were returned anonymously. Survey variables included: years of prior IV opioid abuse, years of buprenorphine abuse, frequency, dosage, route of administration and reasons for use, concomitant IV abuse of other substances and amount paid on the street for both buprenorphine and buprenorphine+naloxone. Buprenorphine was the most frequently used IV drug for 73% of the respondents. More than 75% said they used IV buprenorphine to self-treat addiction or withdrawal. Most (68%) had tried the buprenorphine+naloxone combination IV, but 80% said they had a "bad" experience. Its street price was less than half that of buprenorphine alone. The buprenorphine+naloxone combination appears to be a feasible tool, along with easier access to addiction treatment, for decreasing IV abuse of buprenorphine.     

Patient Perspectives on Buprenorphine/Naloxone: A Qualitative Study of Retention During the Starting Treatment with Agonist Replacement Therapies (START) Study

This study examines the barriers and facilitators of retention among patients receiving buprenorphine/naloxone at eight community-based opioid treatment programs across the United States. Participants (n = 105) were recruited up to three and a half years after having participated in a randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone on liver function. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 67 patients provided with buprenorphine/naloxone who had terminated early and 38 patients who had completed at least 24 weeks of the trial. Qualitative data were analyzed using the constant comparison method. Barriers to buprenorphine/naloxone retention that emerged included factors associated with: (1) the design of the clinical trial; (2) negative medication or treatment experience; and (3) personal circumstances. The facilitators comprised: (1) positive experience with the medication; (2) personal determination and commitment to complete; and (3) staff encouragement and support. The themes drawn from interviews highlight the importance of considering patients’ prior experience with buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone, medication preference, personal circumstances, and motivation to abstain from illicit use or misuse of opioids, as these may influence retention. Ongoing education of patients and staff regarding buprenorphine/naloxone, especially in comparison to methadone, and support from staff and peers are essential.     

Perceived need and availability of psychosocial interventions across buprenorphine prescriber specialties

IntroductionPsychosocial interventions are often recommended as part of buprenorphine treatment for patients with opioid use disorder, but little is known about prescriber perspectives on their use and how this varies across buprenorphine prescriber specialties.MethodsA large US sample of physicians actively prescribing buprenorphine (n = 1174) was surveyed from July 2014 to January 2017. Analyses examined prescriber characteristics and their perceptions and use of psychosocial interventions across three groups of physicians: primary care providers (PCPs), addiction physicians/psychiatrists, and other physicians.ResultsAcross all prescribers, 93.3% (n = 1061) report most patients would benefit from formal counseling during buprenorphine treatment while only 36.4% (n = 414) believe there are adequate number of counselors in their communities. Among addiction physicians/psychiatrists, 75.9% (n = 416) report their treatment settings have the resources to provide psychiatric services to patients with complex psychiatric problems compared to 29.1% (n = 130) of PCPs and 29.6% (n = 39, p < .001) of other physicians. Addiction physicians/psychiatrists report a higher percentage of patients receive counseling from clinicians in their practice while PCPs report a higher percentage of patients receive counseling from external providers.ConclusionsThe majority of prescribers believe patients receiving buprenorphine would benefit from psychosocial interventions and there is variation in how these services are delivered. However, many prescribers, especially those without addiction or psychiatry backgrounds, report their settings do not have adequate psychosocial treatment resources for patients with complex psychosocial needs. Future work developing novel models of psychosocial interventions may be helpful to support prescribers to effectively treat complex patients with opioid use disorders.     

Buprenorphine/naloxone treatment in primary care is associated with decreased human immunodeficiency virus risk behaviors

Methadone treatment reduces human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, but the effects of primary-care-based buprenorphine/naloxone on HIV risk are unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine whether primary-care-based buprenorphine/naloxone was associated with decreased HIV risk behavior. We conducted a longitudinal analysis of 166 opioid-dependent persons (129 men and 37 women) receiving buprenorphine/naloxone treatment in a primary care clinic. We compared baseline and 12- and 24-week overall, drug-related, and sex-related HIV risk behaviors using the AIDS/HIV Risk Inventory (ARI). Buprenorphine/naloxone treatment was associated with significant reductions in overall and drug-related ARI scores from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks. Intravenous drug use in the past 3 months was endorsed by 37%, 12%, and 7% of patients at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively (p< .001). Sex while you or your partner were "high" was endorsed by 64%, 13%, and 15% of patients at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively (p< .001). Inconsistent condom use during sex with a steady partner was high at baseline and did not change over time. We conclude that primary-care-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment is associated with decreased drug-related HIV risk, but additional efforts may be needed to address sex-related HIV risk when present.     

Factors associated with complicated buprenorphine inductions

Despite data supporting its efficacy, barriers to implementation of buprenorphine for office-based treatment are present. Complications can occur during buprenorphine inductions, yet few published studies have examined this phase of treatment. To examine factors associated with complications during buprenorphine induction, we conducted a retrospective chart review of the first 107 patients receiving buprenorphine treatment in an urban community health center. The primary outcome, defined as complicated induction (precipitated or protracted withdrawal), was observed in 18 (16.8%) patients. Complicated inductions were associated with poorer treatment retention (than routine inductions) and decreased over time. Factors independently associated with complicated inductions included recent use of prescribed methadone, recent benzodiazepine use, no prior experience with buprenorphine, and a low initial dose of buprenorphine/naloxone. Findings from this study and further investigation of patient characteristics and treatment characteristics associated with complicated inductions can help guide buprenorphine treatment strategies.     

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.     

Sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone precipitated withdrawal in subjects maintained on 100mg of daily methadone

RATIONALE: Acute doses of buprenorphine can precipitate withdrawal in opioid dependent persons. The likelihood of this withdrawal increases as a function of the level of physical dependence. OBJECTIVES: To test the acute effects of sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone tablets in volunteers with a higher level of physical dependence. The goal was to identify a dose that would precipitate withdrawal (Phase 1), then determine if withdrawal could be attenuated by splitting this dose (Phase 2). METHODS: Residential laboratory study; subjects (N=16) maintained on 100mg per day of methadone. Phase 1: randomized, double blind, triple dummy, within subject study. Conditions were sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone (4/1, 8/2, 16/4, 32mg/8mg), intramuscular naloxone (0.2mg), oral methadone (100mg), or placebo. Medication conditions were randomized, but buprenorphine/naloxone doses were ascending within the randomization. Phase 2: Conditions were methadone, placebo, naloxone, 100% of the buprenorphine/naloxone dose that precipitated withdrawal in Phase 1 (full dose), and 50% of this dose administered twice in a session (split dose). Analyses covaried by trough methadone serum levels. RESULTS: Six subjects did not complete the study. Of the 10 who completed, 3 tolerated up to 32mg/8mg of buprenorphine/naloxone without evidence of precipitated withdrawal. For the seven completing both phases, split doses generally produced less precipitated withdrawal compared to full doses. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable between subject variability in sensitivity to buprenorphine's antagonist effects. Low, repeated doses of buprenorphine/naloxone (e.g., 2mg/0.5mg) may be an effective mechanism for safely dosing this medication in persons with higher levels of physical dependence.     

Network therapy: decreased secondary opioid use during buprenorphine maintenance

Network therapy (NT) employs family members and/or friends to support compliance with an addiction treatment carried out in office practice. This study was designed to ascertain whether NT is a useful psychosocial adjunct, relative to a control treatment, for achieving diminished illicit heroin use for patients on buprenorphine maintenance. Patients agreeing to randomization to either NT (N = 33) or medication management (MM, N = 33) were inducted onto short-term buprenorphine maintenance and then tapered to zero dose. NT resulted in significantly more urine toxicologies negative for opioids than MM (65% vs. 45%) and more NT than MM patients (50% vs. 23%) experienced a positive outcome relative to secondary heroin use by the end of treatment. The use of NT in office practice may therefore improve the effectiveness of eliminating secondary heroin use during buprenorphine maintenance. It may also be useful in enhancing compliance with an addiction treatment regimen in other contexts.     

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).     

Urine naloxone concentration at different phases of buprenorphine maintenance treatment

In spite of the benefits of buprenorphine‐naloxone co‐formulation (BNX) in opioid maintenance treatment, the naloxone component has not prevented parenteral use of BNX. Current laboratory methods are not sufficient to differentiate between therapeutic and illicit use of buprenorphine, and little is known about urine naloxone concentrations. Measurement of urine naloxone, together with buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine, might help to determine the naloxone source and administration route. A liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS) method was developed and validated for this purpose. Naloxone, buprenorphine, and norbuprenorphine total concentrations were measured in urine samples from opioid‐dependent patients before and during stable and unstable phases of maintenance treatment with BNX. The limit of quantification in urine was 1.0 µg/L for naloxone, buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine. Before treatment, all samples contained buprenorphine but the median naloxone concentration was 0 µg/L. During the maintenance treatment with BNX all urine samples were positive for naloxone, buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine. The naloxone concentration at a stable phase of treatment (median 60 µg/L, range 5–200 µg/L) was not different from the naloxone concentration at an unstable phase (70 µg/L, 10–1700 µg/L). Applying an upper limit of 200 µg/L to the sample, the median naloxone/buprenorphine ratio was higher in the high than in the low naloxone concentration group (0.9 vs 0.3, respectively). This study suggests that naloxone in urine can act as an indicator of compliance with BNX. Parenteral use of BNX was associated with a high naloxone/buprenorphine ratio. Negative naloxone with positive buprenorphine suggests the use/abuse of buprenorphine alone. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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