A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Dextromethorphan as an Adjunct in Opioid-Dependent Patients Undergoing Methadone Maintenance Treatment

Background:

Low-dose dextromethorphan (DM) might have anti-inflammatory and neurotrophic effects mechanistically remote from an NMDA receptor. In a randomized, double-blind, controlled 12 week study, we investigated whether add-on dextromethorphan reduced cytokine levels and benefitted opioid-dependent patients undergoing methadone maintenance therapy (MMT).

Methods:

Patients were randomly assigned to a group: DM60 (60mg/day dextromethorphan; n = 65), DM120 (120mg/day dextromethorphan; n = 65), or placebo (n = 66). Primary outcomes were the methadone dose required, plasma morphine level, and retention in treatment. Plasma tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, C-reactive protein, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, transforming growth factor–β1, and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels were examined during weeks 0, 1, 4, 8, and 12. Multiple linear regressions with generalized estimating equation methods were used to examine the therapeutic effect.

Results:

After 12 weeks, the DM60 group had significantly longer treatment retention and lower plasma morphine levels than did the placebo group. Plasma TNF-α was significantly decreased in the DM60 group compared to the placebo group. However, changes in plasma cytokine levels, BDNF levels, and the methadone dose required in the three groups were not significantly different.

Conclusions:

We provide evidence—decreased concomitant heroin use—of low-dose add-on DM’s efficacy for treating opioid-dependent patients undergoing MMT.     

The use of opioids for treatment of cancer pain

Introduction: Pain is commonly experienced by patients with cancer, particularly those with advanced disease. Alleviating pain is an important goal of cancer treatment. Opioids are the cornerstone of the analgesic treatment.

Areas covered: Pharmacology, characteristics, and use of opioids in clinical practice are presented.

Expert opinion: Although the use of opioids is largely accepted as a fundamental step for controlling cancer pain, existing data supporting this statement are poor. All opioids provide analgesia and are effective in controlling cancer pain. New drugs have been developed and experience is accumulating among clinicians. Despite these drugs having different pharmacokinetic and chemical properties, there is no proof that one opioid is better than another one. Thus, the optimum benefit depends on the experience of the users. Clinicians should weight evidence, clinical experience, patient preferences, and treatment costs when choosing the optimal treatment for an individual patient with cancer pain. New opioids with specific receptor activities are under investigation.     

Prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone in opioid-naïve patients – subgroup analysis of a prospective observational study

Objective: Prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN PR) showed improved gastrointestinal tolerability and equivalent analgesic efficacy compared to oxycodone alone in patients with non-cancer pain or cancer pain. This is the first dataset to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety compared to other strong opioids in opioid-naïve patients.

Methods: This is a subgroup analysis of a 4- to 6-week multicenter, observational study. A total of 162 opioid-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe pain of varying etiologies received either OXN PR or other strong opioids (control group). Documented parameters include pain relief (numeric rating scale), bowel function (Bowel Function Index [BFI]), pain-related functional impairment (Brief Pain Inventory Short Form), quality of life (QoL; EuroQol EQ-5D-3L) and a global therapy assessment.

Results: OXN group patients experienced a substantial clinically important reduction in mean pain intensity of 51.4%, compared to a 28.6% reduction in control patients. Although the BFI remained in the reference range in both groups, there was a difference between BFI changes during treatment in favor of OXN PR. The superior effectiveness of OXN PR was paralleled by greater improvements of pain interference and QoL and fewer adverse drug reactions compared to other strong opioids.

Conclusion: The favorable outcomes under real-life conditions suggest that OXN PR provides a valuable option for treatment of moderate-to-severe pain without using weak opioids first.     

Safety and tolerability of as-needed nalmefene in the treatment of alcohol dependence: results from the Phase III clinical programme

Objective: To investigate safety and tolerability of nalmefene for reduction of alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients.

Methods: Pooled data from three randomized, placebo-controlled studies (two 6-month; one 12-month) of 18 mg nalmefene (as-needed use) in alcohol-dependent patients looking at the total population (placebo n = 824, nalmefene n = 1123) and patients with high/very high drinking risk levels at screening and randomization (target population: placebo n = 374, nalmefene n = 450).

Results: In the study, 62.7% of patients on placebo and 74.7% on nalmefene in the total population had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Fourty-seven (5.9%) on placebo and 149 (13.0%) on nalmefene dropped out due to TEAEs. Thirty-five (4.4%) on placebo and 57 (5.0%) on nalmefene had serious adverse events. Tolerability and safety were similar in the target population and total population. Most frequent TEAEs were transient, mainly occurring at treatment initiation. There was no difference in tolerability and safety if nalmefene was taken daily or intermittently; no signal of increased risk of suicide-related behavior with nalmefene. The higher incidence of psychiatric events in the nalmefene group was mainly due to the TEAE of confusional state.

Conclusions: Although there was a higher incidence of TEAEs and TEAEs leading to dropout, nalmefene was well-tolerated and no major safety issues were identified.     

Comparative study of the effectiveness of slow-release morphine and methadone for opioid maintenance therapy

Aims Slow‐release morphine may represent a much‐needed new pharmacological treatment for opioid dependence. Design In a 14‐week randomized, double‐blind, double‐dummy, cross‐over study oral slow‐release morphine was compared with methadone as a treatment for opioid dependency. During two study periods, each consisting of a 1‐week titration and a 6‐week fixed‐dose treatment phase, medication was administered daily under supervised conditions. Setting The study was carried out at the Addiction Clinic, Department of Psychiatry, Medical University Vienna. Participants Sixty‐four subjects (56 males, eight females) with opioid dependence participated in the trial. Measurements Efficacy was evaluated on the basis of retention, use of illicit substances based on urinalysis, extent of drug cravings, withdrawal symptoms and general wellbeing. Safety was assessed on the basis of adverse events and clinical and physical examination. Demographic and baseline characteristics were assessed using the European Addiction Severity Index. Findings Fifty‐five patients (86%) completed the study, with a mean methadone dose of 85 mg and a mean slow‐release morphine dose of 680 mg. No significant differences in retention or use of illicit substances (opioids, benzodiazepines, cocaine) were observed, irrespective of treatment group or medication. However, patients receiving slow‐release morphine had significantly lower depression (P < 0.001) and anxiety scores (P = 0.008) and fewer physical complaints (P < 0.001). Conclusions Oral slow‐release morphine is as effective as methadone in the treatment of opioid dependency, with comparable safety and tolerability and a greater benefit on patient wellbeing. Greater pharmaceutical diversity represents a modern development in mainstream medicine. Slow‐release morphine might represent a future treatment option that will improve long‐term outcomes for this target group.