Petra Jacobs

Treatment Retention among Patients Randomized to Buprenorphine/Naloxone Compared to Methadone in A Multi-site Trial

AIMS To examine patient and medication characteristics associated with retention and continued illicit opioid use in methadone (MET) versus buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) treatment for opioid dependence. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS This secondary analysis included 1267 opioid-dependent individuals participating in nine opioid treatment programs between 2006 and 2009 and randomized to receive open-label BUP or MET for 24 weeks. MEASUREMENTS The analyses included measures of patient characteristics at baseline (demographics; use of alcohol, cigarettes and illicit drugs; self-rated mental and physical health), medication dose and urine drug screens during treatment, and treatment completion and days in treatment during the 24-week trial. FINDINGS The treatment completion rate was 74% for MET versus 46% for BUP (P < 0.01); the rate among MET participants increased to 80% when the maximum MET dose reached or exceeded 60 mg/day. With BUP, the completion rate increased linearly with higher doses, reaching 60% with doses of 30-32 mg/day. Of those remaining in treatment, positive opioid urine results were significantly lower [odds ratio (OR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.52-0.76, P < 0.01] among BUP relative to MET participants during the first 9 weeks of treatment. Higher medication dose was related to lower opiate use, more so among BUP patients. A Cox proportional hazards model revealed factors associated with dropout: (i) BUP [versus MET, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.61, CI = 1.20-2.15], (ii) lower medication dose (<16 mg for BUP, <60 mg for MET; HR = 3.09, CI = 2.19-4.37), (iii) the interaction of dose and treatment condition (those with higher BUP dose were 1.04 times more likely to drop out than those with lower MET dose, and (iv) being younger, Hispanic and using heroin or other substances during treatment. CONCLUSIONS Provision of methadone appears to be associated with better retention in treatment for opioid dependence than buprenorphine, as does use of provision of higher doses of both medications. Provision of buprenorphine is associated with lower continued use of illicit opioids.

A multi-site, two-phase, Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study (POATS): rationale, design, and methodology.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network launched the Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study (POATS) in response to rising rates of prescription opioid dependence and gaps in understanding the optimal course of treatment for this population. POATS employed a multi-site, two-phase adaptive, sequential treatment design to approximate clinical practice. The study took place at 10 community treatment programs around the United States. Participants included men and women age > or =18 who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th Edition criteria for dependence upon prescription opioids, with physiologic features; those with a prominent history of heroin use (according to pre-specified criteria) were excluded. All participants received buprenorphine/naloxone (bup/nx). Phase 1 consisted of 4 weeks of bup/nx treatment, including a 14-day dose taper, with 8 weeks of follow-up. Phase 1 participants were monitored for treatment response during these 12 weeks. Those who relapsed to opioid use, as defined by pre-specified criteria, were invited to enter Phase 2; Phase 2 consisted of 12 weeks of bup/nx stabilization treatment, followed by a 4-week taper and 8 weeks of post-treatment follow-up. Participants were randomized at the beginning of Phase 1 to receive bup/nx, paired with either Standard Medical Management (SMM) or Enhanced Medical Management (EMM; defined as SMM plus individual drug counseling). Eligible participants entering Phase 2 were re-randomized to either EMM or SMM. POATS was developed to determine what benefit, if any, EMM offers over SMM in short-term and longer-term treatment paradigm. This paper describes the rationale and design of the study.

From research to the real world: buprenorphine in the decade of the Clinical Trials Network.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) established the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) in 1999 to bring researchers and treatment providers together to develop a clinically relevant research agenda. Initial CTN efforts addressed the use of buprenorphine, a mu-opioid partial agonist, as treatment for opioid dependence. Strong evidence of buprenorphines therapeutic efficacy was demonstrated in clinical trials involving several thousand opioid-dependent participants, and in 2002, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid dependence. With the advent of a sublingual tablet containing both buprenorphine and naloxone to mitigate abuse and diversion (Suboxone), buprenorphine appeared poised to be the first-line treatment for opioid addiction. Notwithstanding its many attributes, certain implementation barriers remained to be addressed in CTN studies, and these efforts have brought a body of knowledge on buprenorphine to frontline clinicians. The purpose of this article is to review CTN-based buprenorphine research and related efforts to overcome challenges to the implementation of buprenorphine therapy in mainstream practice. Furthermore, this article explores current issues and future challenges that may require additional CTN efforts.

Reasons for opioid use among patients with dependence on prescription opioids: the role of chronic pain.

The number of individuals seeking treatment for prescription opioid dependence has increased dramatically, fostering a need for research on this population. The aim of this study was to examine reasons for prescription opioid use among 653 participants with and without chronic pain, enrolled in the Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study, a randomized controlled trial of treatment for prescription opioid dependence. Participants identified initial and current reasons for opioid use. Participants with chronic pain were more likely to report pain as their primary initial reason for use; avoiding withdrawal was rated as the most important reason for current use in both groups. Participants with chronic pain rated using opioids to cope with physical pain as more important, and using opioids in response to social interactions and craving as less important, than those without chronic pain. Results highlight the importance of physical pain as a reason for opioid use among patients with chronic pain.

HIV risk reduction with buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone: Findings from a randomized trial

Objectives:Compare HIV injecting and sex risk in patients being treated with methadone (MET) or buprenorphine–naloxone (BUP). Methods:Secondary analysis from a study of liver enzyme changes in patients randomized to MET or BUP who completed 24 weeks of treatment and had 4 or more blood draws. The initial 1:1 randomization was changed to 2:1 (BUP:MET) after 18 months due to higher dropout in BUP. The Risk Behavior Survey measured HIV risk before 30 days at baseline and weeks 12 and 24. Results:Among 529 patients randomized to MET, 391 (74%) were completers; among 740 randomized to BUP, 340 (46%) were completers; 700 completed the Risk Behavior Survey. There were significant reductions in injecting risk (P < 0.0008) with no differences between groups in mean number of times reported injecting heroin, speedball, other opiates, and number of injections; or percent who shared needles; did not clean shared needles with bleach; shared cookers; or engaged in front/back loading of syringes. The percent having multiple sex partners decreased equally in both groups (P < 0.03). For males on BUP, the sex risk composite increased; for males on MET, the sex risk decreased resulting in significant group differences over time (P < 0.03). For females, there was a significant reduction in sex risk (P < 0.02) with no group differences. Conclusions:Among MET and BUP patients who remained in treatment, HIV injecting risk was equally and markedly reduced; however, MET retained more patients. Sex risk was equally and significantly reduced among females in both treatment conditions, but it increased for males on BUP and decreased for males on MET.

Brief strategic family therapy™ for adolescent drug abusers: A multi-site effectiveness study

Brief strategic family therapy (BSFT) is a manualized treatment designed to address aspects of family functioning associated with adolescent drug use and behavior problems (J. Szapocznik, U. Hervis, S. Schwartz, (2003). Brief strategic family therapy for adolescent drug abuse. (NIH Publication No. 03-4751). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse). Within the National Institute on Drug Abuses (NIDAs) Clinical Trials Network, BSFT is being compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in a multisite, prospective randomized clinical trial for drug using adolescents and their families in outpatient settings. The effectiveness of BSFT is being compared to TAU in reducing adolescent drug use, conduct problems, and sexually risky behaviors as well as in improving family functioning and adolescent prosocial behaviors. This paper describes the following aspects of the study: specific aims, research design and study organization, assessment of primary and secondary outcomes, study treatments, data analysis plan, and data monitoring and safety reporting.

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

Abstract 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.

Research design considerations for clinical studies of abuse-deterrent opioid analgesics: IMMPACT recommendations

TOC summary Research conducted to evaluate abuse deterrence should include studies assessing: (1) abuse liability, (2) the likelihood that opioid abusers will find methods to circumvent the deterrent properties of the formulation, (3) measures of misuse and abuse in randomized clinical trials involving pain patients with both low risk and high risk of abuse, and (4) postmarketing epidemiological studies. ABSTRACT Opioids are essential to the management of pain in many patients, but they also are associated with potential risks for abuse, overdose, and diversion. A number of efforts have been devoted to the development of abuse‐deterrent formulations of opioids to reduce these risks. This article summarizes a consensus meeting that was organized to propose recommendations for the types of clinical studies that can be used to assess the abuse deterrence of different opioid formulations. Because of the many types of individuals who may be exposed to opioids, an opioid formulation will need to be studied in several populations using various study designs to determine its abuse‐deterrent capabilities. It is recommended that the research conducted to evaluate abuse deterrence should include studies assessing: (1) abuse liability, (2) the likelihood that opioid abusers will find methods to circumvent the deterrent properties of the formulation, (3) measures of misuse and abuse in randomized clinical trials involving pain patients with both low risk and high risk of abuse, and (4) postmarketing epidemiological studies.

Conducting Clinical Research with Prescription Opioid Dependence: Defining the Population

Most treatment studies of opioid-dependent populations have focused predominantly on heroin users, despite a recent increase in those dependent upon prescription opioids. A key methodological challenge involved in studying the latter group involves defining the population. Specifically, researchers must decide whether to include (1) concurrent heroin users and (2) individuals with pain. The multi-site Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study is examining treatments for this population. This paper describes various inclusion criteria considered by the study team related to heroin use and pain. The goal was to recruit a distinct but generalizable population of individuals dependent upon prescription opioids. (Am J Addict 2010;00:1-6).

Treatment outcomes in opioid dependent patients with different buprenorphine/naloxone induction dosing patterns and trajectories

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Induction is a crucial period of opioid addiction treatment. This study aimed to identify buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) induction patterns and examine their association with outcomes (opioid use, retention, and related adverse events [AEs]). METHODS The secondary analysis of a study of opioid-dependent adults seeking treatment in eight treatment settings included 740 participants inducted on BUP with flexible dosing. RESULTS Latent class analysis models detected six distinctive induction trajectories: bup1-started and remained on low; bup2-started low, shifted slowly to moderate; bup3-started low, shifted quickly to moderate; bup4-started high, shifted to low; bup5-started and remained on moderate; bup6-started moderate, shifted to high dose (Fig. 1). Baseline characteristics, including Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS), were important predictors of retention. When controlled for the baseline characteristics, bup6 participants were three times less likely to drop out the first 7 days than bup1 participants (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = .28, p = .03). Opioid use and AEs were similar across trajectories. Participants on ≥16 mg BUP compared to those on <16 mg at Day 28 were less likely to drop out (aHR = .013, p = .001) and less likely to have AEs during the first 28 days (aOR = .57, p = .03). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS BUP induction dosing was guided by an objective measure of opioid withdrawal. Participants with higher baseline COWS whose BUP doses were raised more quickly were less likely to drop out in the first 7 days than those whose doses were raised slower. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE This study supports the use of an objective measure of opioid withdrawal (COWS) during BUP induction to improve retention early in treatment.