Genie L. Bailey

Buprenorphine Implants for Treatment of Opioid Dependence: A Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT Limitations of existing pharmacological treatments for opioid dependence include low adherence, medication diversion, and emergence of withdrawal symptoms. OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy of buprenorphine implants that provide a low, steady level of buprenorphine over 6 months for the treatment of opioid dependence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized, placebo-controlled, 6-month trial conducted at 18 sites in the United States between April 2007 and June 2008. One hundred sixty-three adults, aged 18 to 65 years, diagnosed with opioid dependence. One hundred eight were randomized to receive buprenorphine implants and 55 to receive placebo implants. INTERVENTION After induction with sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone tablets, patients received either 4 buprenorphine implants (80 mg per implant) or 4 placebo implants. A fifth implant was available if a threshold for rescue use of sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone treatment was exceeded. Standardized individual drug counseling was provided to all patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE The percentage of urine samples negative for illicit opioids for weeks 1 through 16 and for weeks 17 through 24. RESULTS The buprenorphine implant group had significantly more urine samples negative for illicit opioids during weeks 1 through 16 (P = .04). Patients with buprenorphine implants had a mean percentage of urine samples that tested negative for illicit opioids across weeks 1 through 16 of 40.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.2%-46.7%) and a median of 40.7%; whereas those in the placebo group had a mean of 28.3% (95% CI, 20.3%-36.3%) and a median of 20.8%. A total of 71 of 108 patients (65.7%) who received buprenorphine implants completed the study vs 17 of 55 (30.9%) who received placebo implants (P < .001). Those who received buprenorphine implants also had fewer clinician-rated (P <.001) and patient-rated (P = .004) withdrawal symptoms, had lower patient ratings of craving (P <.001), and experienced a greater change on clinician global ratings of severity of opioid dependence (P<.001) and on the clinician global ratings of improvement (P < .001) than those who received placebo implants. Minor implant site reactions were the most common adverse events: 61 patients (56.5%) in the buprenorphine group and 29 (52.7%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSION Among persons with opioid dependence, the use of buprenorphine implants compared with placebo resulted in less opioid use over 16 weeks as assessed by urine samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00447564.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Osmotic-Release Methylphenidate with Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Substance Use Disorders.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of osmotic-release methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) compared with placebo for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and the impact on substance treatment outcomes in adolescents concurrently receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for substance use disorders (SUD). METHOD This was a 16-week, randomized, controlled, multi-site trial of OROS-MPH + CBT versus placebo + CBT in 303 adolescents (aged 13 through 18 years) meeting DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for ADHD and SUD. Primary outcome measures included the following: for ADHD, clinician-administered ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS), adolescent informant; for substance use, adolescent-reported days of use in the past 28 days. Secondary outcome measures included parent ADHD-RS and weekly urine drug screens (UDS). RESULTS There were no group differences on reduction in ADHD-RS scores (OROS-MPH: -19.2, 95% confidence interval [CI], -17.1 to -21.2; placebo, -21.2, 95% CI, -19.1 to -23.2) or reduction in days of substance use (OROS-MPH: -5.7 days, 95% CI, 4.0-7.4; placebo: -5.2 days, 95% CI, 3.5-7.0). Some secondary outcomes favored OROS-MPH, including lower parent ADHD-RS scores at 8 (mean difference = 4.4, 95% CI, 0.8-7.9) and 16 weeks (mean difference =6.9; 95% CI, 2.9-10.9) and more negative UDS in OROS-MPH (mean = 3.8) compared with placebo (mean = 2.8; p = .04). CONCLUSIONS OROS-MPH did not show greater efficacy than placebo for ADHD or on reduction in substance use in adolescents concurrently receiving individual CBT for co-occurring SUD. However, OROS-MPH was relatively well tolerated and was associated with modestly greater clinical improvement on some secondary ADHD and substance outcome measures. Clinical Trial Registration Information-Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adolescents with Substance Use Disorders (SUD); http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00264797.

Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), an opioid antagonist, and sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), a partial opioid agonist, are pharmacologically and conceptually distinct interventions to prevent opioid relapse. We aimed to estimate the difference in opioid relapse-free survival between XR-NTX and BUP-NX. METHODS We initiated this 24 week, open-label, randomised controlled, comparative effectiveness trial at eight US community-based inpatient services and followed up participants as outpatients. Participants were 18 years or older, had Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 opioid use disorder, and had used non-prescribed opioids in the past 30 days. We stratified participants by treatment site and opioid use severity and used a web-based permuted block design with random equally weighted block sizes of four and six for randomisation (1:1) to receive XR-NTX or BUP-NX. XR-NTX was monthly intramuscular injections (Vivitrol; Alkermes) and BUP-NX was daily self-administered buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual film (Suboxone; Indivior). The primary outcome was opioid relapse-free survival during 24 weeks of outpatient treatment. Relapse was 4 consecutive weeks of any non-study opioid use by urine toxicology or self-report, or 7 consecutive days of self-reported use. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02032433. FINDINGS Between Jan 30, 2014, and May 25, 2016, we randomly assigned 570 participants to receive XR-NTX (n=283) or BUP-NX (n=287). The last follow-up visit was Jan 31, 2017. As expected, XR-NTX had a substantial induction hurdle: fewer participants successfully initiated XR-NTX (204 [72%] of 283) than BUP-NX (270 [94%] of 287; p<0·0001). Among all participants who were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population, n=570) 24 week relapse events were greater for XR-NTX (185 [65%] of 283) than for BUP-NX (163 [57%] of 287; hazard ratio [HR] 1·36, 95% CI 1·10-1·68), most or all of this difference accounted for by early relapse in nearly all (70 [89%] of 79) XR-NTX induction failures. Among participants successfully inducted (per-protocol population, n=474), 24 week relapse events were similar across study groups (p=0·44). Opioid-negative urine samples (p<0·0001) and opioid-abstinent days (p<0·0001) favoured BUP-NX compared with XR-NTX among the intention-to-treat population, but were similar across study groups among the per-protocol population. Self-reported opioid craving was initially less with XR-NTX than with BUP-NX (p=0·0012), then converged by week 24 (p=0·20). With the exception of mild-to-moderate XR-NTX injection site reactions, treatment-emergent adverse events including overdose did not differ between treatment groups. Five fatal overdoses occurred (two in the XR-NTX group and three in the BUP-NX group). INTERPRETATION In this population it is more difficult to initiate patients to XR-NTX than BUP-NX, and this negatively affected overall relapse. However, once initiated, both medications were equally safe and effective. Future work should focus on facilitating induction to XR-NTX and on improving treatment retention for both medications. FUNDING NIDA Clinical Trials Network.

Design and Methodological Considerations of an Effectiveness Trial of a Computer-assisted Intervention: An Example from the NIDA Clinical Trials Network

Computer-assisted interventions hold the promise of minimizing two problems that are ubiquitous in substance abuse treatment: the lack of ready access to treatment and the challenges to providing empirically-supported treatments. Reviews of research on computer-assisted treatments for mental health and substance abuse report promising findings, but study quality and methodological limitations remain an issue. In addition, relatively few computer-assisted treatments have been tested among illicit substance users. This manuscript describes the methodological considerations of a multi-site effectiveness trial conducted within the National Institute on Drug Abuses (NIDAs) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN). The study is evaluating a web-based version of the Community Reinforcement Approach, in addition to prize-based contingency management, among 500 participants enrolled in 10 outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. Several potential effectiveness trial designs were considered and the rationale for the choice of design in this study is described. The study uses a randomized controlled design (with independent treatment arm allocation), intention-to-treat primary outcome analysis, biological markers for the primary outcome of abstinence, long-term follow-up assessments, precise measurement of intervention dose, and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Input from community providers during protocol development highlighted potential concerns and helped to address issues of practicality and feasibility. Collaboration between providers and investigators supports the utility of infrastructures that enhance research partnerships to facilitate effectiveness trials and dissemination of promising, technologically innovative treatments. Outcomes from this study will further the empirical knowledge base on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted treatment in clinical treatment settings.

Predictors of Treatment Response in Adolescents with Comorbid Substance Use Disorder and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) frequently co-occurs with substance use disorder (SUD) and is associated with poor substance-use treatment outcomes. A trial evaluating osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) for adolescents with ADHD and SUD, concurrently receiving behavioral therapy, revealed inconsistent medication effects on ADHD or SUD. Clinical care for this population would be advanced by knowledge of treatment outcome predictors. Data from the randomized placebo-controlled trial (n = 299) were analyzed. Significant treatment predictors included: 1) Substance use severity, associated with poorer ADHD and SUD outcomes, 2) ADHD severity, associated with better ADHD and SUD outcomes, 3) comorbid conduct disorder, associated with poorer ADHD outcomes, and 4) court-mandated status, associated with better SUD outcomes but poorer treatment completion. An interaction effect showed that OROS-MPH improved SUD outcomes in adolescents with comorbid conduct disorder compared to placebo. While severe SUD may require more intensive psychosocial treatment, OROS-MPH may improve substance treatment outcomes in adolescents with co-morbid attention and conduct problems.

Chronic Pain in HIV-Infected Patients: Relationship to Depression, Substance Use, and Mental Health and Pain Treatment

OBJECTIVE As the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy, HIV has become a chronic disease for most individuals in developed countries. Chronic pain is a common occurrence for HIV-infected patients and has an impact on quality of life and antiretroviral adherence. The objective of this study was to examine relationships between chronic pain and depression, substance use, mental health treatment, and pain treatment in HIV-infected patients. DESIGN Cross-sectional study. SETTING Three primary care sites where HIV+ patients receive treatment. SUBJECTS Two hundred and thirty eight HIV-infected primary care patients. METHODS We collected self-report and chart-review information on demographics, HIV clinical status, chronic pain, depression, substance use, mental health treatment, and pain treatment. We collected data between October 2012 and November 2013. RESULTS Of the patients enrolled in this study, 107 reported no chronic pain, 24 reported mild chronic pain, and 107 reported moderate-severe chronic pain. Participants in the moderate-severe pain group were more likely to have high levels of depressive symptoms than those in the no chronic pain group. Similarly, there was a significant relationship between chronic pain status and interference with life activities due to pain. Participants with moderate-severe chronic pain were more likely to be taking an antidepressant medication than those with mild chronic pain, and more likely to be taking a prescription opioid than the other two groups. We did not find a significant relationship between problematic substance use and chronic pain status. CONCLUSIONS Despite pharmacologic treatment, moderate-severe chronic pain and elevated depression symptoms are common among HIV-infected patients and frequently co-occur.

Perceived Relapse Risk and Desire for Medication Assisted Treatment among Persons Seeking Inpatient Opiate Detoxification

Most patients with opioid addiction do not receive medication at the time of discharge from brief inpatient detoxification programs despite the high risk of relapse and the availability of three FDA-approved medications. We surveyed 164 inpatient opioid detoxification patients to assess desire for pharmacotherapy following detoxification program discharge. Participants were predominantly male (71.3%) and 80% had detoxed in the past. Reporting on their most recent previous inpatient detoxification, 27% had relapsed the day they were discharged, 65% within a month of discharge, and 90% within a year of discharge. 63% reported they wanted medication-assisted treatment (MAT) after discharge from the current admission. The odds of desiring a treatment medication increased by a factor of 1.02 for every 1% increase in perceived relapse risk (p<.01). These data suggest patient preference discussions including relapse risk could increase post-detox abstinence.

Cost-effectiveness of an internet-delivered treatment for substance abuse: Data from a multisite randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND Substance misuse and excessive alcohol consumption are major public health issues. Internet-based interventions for substance use disorders (SUDs) are a relatively new method for addressing barriers to access and supplementing existing care. This study examines cost-effectiveness in a multisite, randomized trial of an internet-based version of the community reinforcement approach (CRA) with contingency management (CM) known as the Therapeutic Education System (TES). METHODS Economic evaluation of the 12-week trial with follow-up at 24 and 36 weeks. 507 individuals who were seeking therapy for alcohol or other substance use disorders at 10 outpatient community-based treatment programs were recruited and randomized to either treatment as usual (TAU) or TES+TAU. Sub-analyses were completed on participants with a poorer prognosis (i.e., those not abstinent at study entry). RESULTS From the providers perspective, TES+TAU as it was implemented in this study costs

Group therapy for women with substance use disorders: Results from the Women's Recovery Group Study

278 (SE=87) more than TAU alone after 12 weeks. The quality-adjusted life years gained by TES+TAU and TAU were similar; however, TES+TAU has at least a 95% chance of being considered cost-effective for providers and payers with willingness-to-pay thresholds as low as

A Study of Multiple Behavioral Addictions in a Substance Abuse Sample

20,000 per abstinent year. Findings for the subgroup not abstinent at study entry are slightly more favorable. CONCLUSIONS With regard to the clinical outcome of abstinence, our cost-effectiveness findings of TES+TAU compare favorably to those found elsewhere in the CM literature. The analyses performed here serve as an initial economic framework for future studies integrating technology into SUD therapy.