Search

Background: Buprenorphine is a partial agonist at the mu-opioid receptor that has been proposed as an alternative to traditional full agonist maintenance therapy for the treatment of opioid addiction. We report on a clinical trial in which the relative safety and efficacy of long-term fixed-dose buprenorphine maintenance was examined in comparison to low- and high-dose methadone maintenance., Methods: Two hundred twenty-five treatment-seeking opioid addicts (46 women, 179 men) were randomly assigned to receive, in a double-blind manner, either 8 mg/d of buprenorphine, 30 mg/d of methadone, or 80 mg/d of methadone maintenance over a 1-year period. Objective and subjective measures of efficacy (urine toxicology, retention, craving, and withdrawal symptoms) were examined at the study midpoint and at termination, and safety data were tabulated over the entire 52-week study period., Results: Patients assigned to high-dose methadone maintenance performed significantly better on measures of retention, opioid use, and opioid craving than either the low-dose methadone or the buprenorphine group at both 26-week and 52-week time points. Performance on these measures was virtually identical between the latter two groups. No serious adverse health effects attributable to buprenorphine were noted., Conclusions: Buprenorphine maintenance at 8 mg/d appears to be less than optimally efficacious under the conditions of the present study. Continued research is needed to reconcile these findings with the more positive results reported by other investigative groups. There are no apparent health risks associated with long-term buprenorphine maintenance at this dosage.

This was an open clinical trial of methadyl acetate (LAAM) compared with methadone in the maintenance of 636 heroin addicts who had previously been stabilized on a maintenance regimen of methadone. The starting sample assembled by the 13 cooperating clinics were randomly assigned to continued maintenance on methadone (= 308) or crossed over to methadyl acetate (= 328) for a period of 40 weeks. The starting dose was identical to the previously established dose of methadone, but beginning with the second visit, dosage was flexible. Safety was evaluated by clinical and laboratory observations conducted at four-week intervals throughout the study. Relative efficacy was evaluated by illicit drug use, program retention and attendance, and global staff judgments. It is concluded that methadyl acetate is as safe as methadone and, when given three times a week, is an acceptable and effective maintenance drug for many heroin addicts.

Sixty-eight heroin addicts maintained for 40 weeks on a regimen of methadyl acetate or methadone hydrochloride in a double-blind study were transferred to a uniform dose of 60 mg of methadone daily at the end of their tenure in the study. They were observed for the ensuing six weeks, during which their daily methadone doses were adjusted according to their clinical needs. Patients were observed for symptoms and signs of discomfort and for the amount of illicit drug use during this period of transition. The results indicate that patients maintained on a regimen of methadyl acetate can be readily restabilized with methadone and that sudden decrease of the methadone dose tends to result in the patient's supplementing with illicit heroin. Conversely, increasing methadone doses resulted in a corresponding reduction in illicit drug use. It is suggested that a chronic covert abstinence syndrome may exist in some patients receiving long-term methadone maintenance therapy, and that while it may contribute to their continued illicit drug use, it may have a different pathophysiologic basis and require different therapeutic considerations.

This was a double-blind comparison of methadyl acetate and two dose levels of methadone hydrochloride in the maintenance of 430 street heroin addicts from 12 Veterans Administration hospitals. The starting sample consisted of 146 patients receiving low-dose methadone, 142 patients receiving methadyl acetate. Patients were first given 30 mg of both drugs, and doses were incremented by 10 mg/week until they stabilized at methadyl acetate, 80 mg three times a week, and methadone hydrochloride, 50 mg daily or 100 mg daily. Dosage was fixed for the balance of the 40-week treatment period. Safety was evaluated by clinical and laboratory observations conducted at frequent intervals throughout the study. Relative efficacy was evaluated by illicit drug use, program retention and attendance, and global staff judgments. It is concluded that methadyl acetate is as safe a drug as methadone and that it compares favorably with highdose methoadone in terms of efficacy. Both methyadyl acetate and high-dose methadone appear to be better maintenance regimens than low-dose methadone under the conditions of this study.