Search

BackgroundThe use of naltrexone plus bupropion to treat methamphetamine use disorder has not been well studied.MethodsWe conducted this multisite, double-blind, two-stage, placebo-controlled trial with the use of a sequential parallel comparison design to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extended-release injectable naltrexone (380 mg every 3 weeks) plus oral extended-release bupropion (450 mg per day) in adults with moderate or severe methamphetamine use disorder. In the first stage of the trial, participants were randomly assigned in a 0.26:0.74 ratio to receive naltrexone-bupropion or matching injectable and oral placebo for 6 weeks. Those in the placebo group who did not have a response in stage 1 underwent rerandomization in stage 2 and were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive naltrexone-bupropion or placebo for an additional 6 weeks. Urine samples were obtained from participants twice weekly. The primary outcome was a response, defined as at least three methamphetamine-negative urine samples out of four samples obtained at the end of stage 1 or stage 2, and the weighted average of the responses in the two stages is reported. The treatment effect was defined as the between-group difference in the overall weighted responses.ResultsA total of 403 participants were enrolled in stage 1, and 225 in stage 2. In the first stage, 18 of 109 participants (16.5%) in the naltrexone-bupropion group and 10 of 294 (3.4%) in the placebo group had a response. In the second stage, 13 of 114 (11.4%) in the naltrexone-bupropion group and 2 of 111 (1.8%) in the placebo group had a response. The weighted average response across the two stages was 13.6% with naltrexone-bupropion and 2.5% with placebo, for an overall treatment effect of 11.1 percentage points (Wald z-test statistic, 4.53; P

Buprenorphine has pharmacologic advantages over methadone, especially buprenorphine's better safety profile. The true significance of buprenorphine's introduction lies in returning the care of those suffering from opioid use disorder (OUD) to the hands of the physician. The clinical success of buprenorphine has been meager, in part because most physicians have not been exposed to treating these patients. For physicians inclined to treat OUD, the barriers to buprenorphine's implementation have been onerous and largely counter to the norms of medical practice. Some notable concerns pertain to buprenorphine's clinical pharmacology like street diversion, unintended use and accidental poisoning. Recently, injectable buprenorphine preparations have been introduced to mitigate these latter shortcomings. Yet, the injectable preparations' clinical and commercial success has fallen far short of expectation. Here, we review the clinical pharmacology of these products and their expected clinical advantages for the manufacturers, clinicians, policy makers and patients, and offer our perspective, as clinicians and researchers, on how things can improve. Questions remain whether clinicians are willing to overcome barriers to treat OUD using these medications.

ObjectiveAcute pain management in opioid-dependent persons is complicated because of tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Very high doses of morphine are ineffective in overcoming opioid-induced hyperalgesia and providing antinociception to methadone-maintained patients in an experimental setting. Whether the same occurs in buprenorphine-maintained subjects is unknown.DesignRandomized double-blind placebo-controlled. Subjects were tested on two occasions, at least five days apart, once with intravenous morphine and once with intravenous saline. Subjects were tested at about the time of putative trough plasma buprenorphine concentrations.SettingAmbulatory.SubjectsTwelve buprenorphine-maintained subjects: once daily sublingual dose (range = 2-22 mg); no dose change for 1.5-12 months. Ten healthy controls.MethodsIntravenous morphine bolus and infusions administered over two hours to achieve two separate pseudo-steady-state plasma concentrations one hour apart. Pain tolerance was assessed by application of nociceptive stimuli (cold pressor [seconds] and electrical stimulation [volts]). Ten blood samples were collected for assay of plasma morphine, buprenorphine, and norbuprenorphine concentrations until three hours after the end of the last infusion; pain tolerance and respiration rate were measured to coincide with blood sampling times.ResultsCold pressor responses (seconds): baseline: control 34 ± 6 vs buprenorphine 17 ± 2 (P = 0.009); morphine infusion-end: control 52 ± 11(P = 0.04), buprenorphine 17 ± 2 (P > 0.5); electrical stimulation responses (volts): baseline: control 65 ± 6 vs buprenorphine 53 ± 5 (P = 0.13); infusion-end: control 74 ± 5 (P = 0.007), buprenorphine 53 ± 5 (P > 0.98). Respiratory rate (breaths per minute): baseline: control 17 vs buprenorphine 14 (P = 0.03); infusion-end: control 15 (P = 0.09), buprenorphine 12 (P

BACKGROUND:There are sex differences in buprenorphine/naloxone clinical trials for opioid use. While women have fewer opioid-positive urine samples, relative to men, a significant decrease in opioid-positive samples was found during treatment for men, but not women. In order to inform sex-based approaches to improve treatment outcomes, research is needed to determine if opioid use, and predictors of opioid use, differs between men and women during treatment. OBJECTIVES:To test for sex differences in opioid use during a buprenorphine/naloxone clinical trial and determine if sex differences exist in the associations between addiction-related problem areas and opioid use over the course of the trial. METHOD:This secondary data analysis of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) 0003 examined sex differences (men = 347, women = 169) in opioid-positive samples in a randomized clinical trial comparing 7-day vs. 28-day buprenorphine/naloxone tapering strategies. Addiction-related problem areas were defined by Addiction Severity-Lite (ASI-L) domain composite scores. RESULTS:Women were more likely than men to use opioids during the course of the buprenorphine/naloxone clinical trial (B = .33, p = .01) and medical issues were positively related to submitting an opioid-positive sample during treatment for women (B = 1.67, p = .01). No ASI-L domain composite score was associated with opioid-positive samples during treatment for men. CONCLUSION:Women were more likely than men to use opioids during the course of the buprenorphine/naloxone clinical trial, and medical issues predicted opioid use during treatment for women but not men. Complementary treatment for medical problems during opioid replacement therapy may benefit women.

BackgroundMultistage, stepwise HIV testing and treatment procedures can result in lost opportunities to provide timely antiretroviral therapy (ART). Incomplete engagement of patients along the care cascade translates into high preventable mortality. We aimed to identify whether a structural intervention to streamline testing and linkage to HIV health care would improve testing completeness, ART initiation, and viral suppression and reduce mortality.MethodsWe did a cluster-randomised, controlled trial in 12 hospitals in Guangxi, China. All hospitals were required to be level 2A county general hospitals and ART delivery sites. We selected the 12 most similar hospitals in terms of structural characteristics, past patient caseloads, and testing procedures. Hospitals were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the One4All intervention or standard of care. Hospitals were randomised in a block design and stratified by the historical rate of testing completeness of the individual hospital during the first 6 months of 2013. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who were identified as HIV-reactive during screening in study hospitals, who sought inpatient or outpatient care in a study hospital, and who resided in the study catchment area. The One4All strategy incorporated rapid, point-of-care HIV screening and CD4 counts, and in-parallel viral load testing, to promote fast and complete diagnosis and staging and provide immediate ART to eligible patients. Participants in control hospitals received standard care services. All enrolled patients were assessed for the primary outcome, which was testing completeness within 30 days, defined as completion of three required tests and their post-test counselling. Safety assessments were hospital admissions for the first 90 days and deaths up to 12 months after enrolment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02084316.FindingsBetween Feb 24 and Nov 25, 2014, we enrolled 478 patients (232 in One4All, 246 in standard of care). In the One4All group, 177 (76%) of 232 achieved testing completeness within 30 days versus 63 (26%) of 246 in the standard-of-care group (odds ratio 19·94, 95% CI 3·86-103·04, p=0·0004). Although no difference was observed between study groups in the number of hospital admissions at 90 days, by 12 months there were 65 deaths (28%) in the in the One4All group compared with 115 (47%) in the standard-of-care group (Cox proportional hazard ratio 0·44, 0·19-1·01, p=0·0531).InterpretationOur study provides strong evidence for the benefits of a patient-centred approach to streamlined HIV testing and treatment that could help China change the trajectory of its HIV epidemic, and help to achieve the goal of an end to AIDS.FundingUS National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network and China's National Health and Family Planning Commission.

BackgroundThe high rate of attrition along the care cascade of infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) results in lost opportunities to provide timely antiretroviral therapy (ART) and to prevent unnecessarily high mortality. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a structural intervention, the one-stop ("One4All") strategy that streamlines China's HIV care cascade with the intent to improve testing completeness, ART initiation, viral suppression, and mortality.MethodA two-arm, cluster-randomized controlled trial was implemented in twelve county hospitals in Guangxi China to test the effectiveness of the One4All strategy (intervention arm) compared to the current standard of care (SOC; control arm). The twelve study hospitals were selected for homogeneity and allocated one-to-one to the intervention and control arms. All patients screening HIV positive in study hospitals were enrolled. Target study enrollment was 180 participants per arm, 30 participants per hospital. Basic demographic information was collected as well as HIV risk behavior and route of infection. In intervention hospitals, patients then went on to receive point-of-care CD4 testing and in-parallel viral load (VL) testing whereas patients in control hospitals progressed through the usual SOC cascade. The primary outcome measure was testing completeness within 30 days of positive initial HIV screening result. Testing completeness was defined as receipt of all tests, test results, and post-test counseling. The secondary outcome measure was ART initiation (receipt of first ART prescriptions) within 90 days of positive initial HIV screening result. Tertiary outcome measures were viral suppression (≤200 copies/mL) and all-cause mortality at 12 months.DiscussionWe expect that this first-ever, cluster-randomized controlled trial of a bundle of interventions intended to streamline the HIV care cascade in China (the One4All strategy) will provide strong evidence for the benefit of accelerating diagnosis, thorough clinical assessment, and ART initiation via an optimized HIV care cascade. We furthermore anticipate that this evidence will be valuable to policymakers looking to elevate China's overall HIV/AIDS response to meet the UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets and the broader, global goal of eradication of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov # NCT02084316 . (Registered on March 7, 2014).

Background and aimsBuprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NLX) can be used to manage prescription opioid addiction among persons with chronic pain, but post-treatment relapse is common and difficult to predict. This study estimated whether changes in pain over time and pain volatility during BUP-NLX maintenance would predict opioid use during the taper BUP-NLX taper.DesignSecondary analysis of a multi-site clinical trial for prescription opioid addiction, using data obtained during a 12-week BUP-NLX stabilization and 4-week BUP-NLX taper.SettingCommunity clinics affiliated with a national clinical trials network in 10 US cities.ParticipantsSubjects with chronic pain who entered the BUP-NLX taper phase (n = 125) with enrollment occurring from June 2006 to July 2009 (52% male, 88% Caucasian, 31% married).MeasurementsOutcomes were weekly biologically verified and self-reported opioid use from the 4-week taper phase. Predictors were estimates of baseline severity, rate of change and volatility in pain from weekly self-reports during the 12-week maintenance phase.FindingsControlling for baseline pain and treatment condition, increased pain [odds ratio (OR) = 2.38, P = 0.02] and greater pain volatility (OR = 2.43, P = 0.04) predicted greater odds of positive opioid urine screen during BUP-NLX taper. Increased pain (IRR = 1.40, P = 0.04) and greater pain volatility [incidence-rate ratio (IRR) = 1.66, P = 0.009] also predicted greater frequency of self-reported opioid use.ConclusionsAdults with chronic pain receiving out-patient treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NLX) for prescription opioid addiction have an elevated risk for opioid use when tapering off maintenance treatment. Those with relative persistence in pain over time and greater volatility in pain during treatment are less likely to sustain abstinence during BUP-NLX taper.

ObjectivesUncovering heterogeneities in longitudinal patterns (trajectories) of opioid use among individuals with opioid use disorder can increase our understanding of disease progression and treatment responses to improve care. The present study aims to identify distinctive opioid use trajectories and factors associated with these patterns among participants randomized to treatment with methadone (MET) or buprenorphine + naloxone (BUP).MethodsGrowth mixture modeling was applied to identify distinctive opioid use trajectories among 795 opioid users after their enrollment in a multisite trial during 2006 to 2009, with follow-up interviews conducted during 2011 to 2014.ResultsFour distinctive trajectories were identified based on opioid use over the follow-up period: low use (42.0%), high use (22.3%), increasing use (17.1%), and decreasing use (18.6%). Greater odds of being in the high use group (relative to low use) was associated with Hispanics (relative to African American, odds ratio [OR] 3.21), injection drug use (OR 2.12), higher mental health functioning at baseline (OR 1.23), location on the West Coast (vs East Coast, OR 2.15), and randomization to BUP (relative to MET, OR 1.53). High use and increasing use groups had greater severity in problems related to drug, employment, legal, and social/family relationships, and worsened mental health functioning at follow-up. Participation in treatment significantly accounted for both within and between-group differences in opioid use.ConclusionsContinued treatment is necessary to reduce risk for opioid use and related adverse consequences, particularly among individuals (eg, injecting drug) at risk for consistently high level of opioid use.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the blood levels of methadone in participants receiving methadone for the treatment of opioid dependence. After stabilization on methadone for four weeks, blood samples from 95 participants were collected between treatment weeks 4 and 12, before and after receiving doses of methadone, and its blood levels were measured. A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between methadone blood levels and the outcomes of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). Outcome differences between participants who had high (≥2) or low (2 was significantly poorer than those whose ratio was

Four decades of concerted pharmacotherapy research has netted us three medications approved for the treatment of opioid addiction. The clinical pharmacology, safety, efficacy, and clinical use of these medications are familiar to most clinical researchers and clinicians in addiction medicine. Less common is an understanding of the social and political forces behind the choice of these particular agents for their development and how these forces continue to influence how clinicians interact with patients who have opioid use disorder. This review brings into focus those forces and puts into context how we came to have these particular medications. What we know determines our views of the world we live in, including our patients and ourselves, as well as those to whom we give power to govern us. The issues are raised by the author, who does not provide resolutions; answers to the questions of how to address the issues must come from the reader.

AimsTo examine the safety and effectiveness of buprenorphine + naloxone sublingual tablets (BUP, as Suboxone(®) ) provided after administration of extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX, as Vivitrol(®) ) to reduce cocaine use in participants who met DSM-IV criteria for cocaine dependence and past or current opioid dependence or abuse.MethodsThis multi-centered, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, conducted under the auspices of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network, randomly assigned 302 participants at sites in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Texas, Georgia, Ohio, New York and Washington DC, USA to one of three conditions provided with XR-NTX: 4 mg/day BUP (BUP4, n = 100), 16 mg/day BUP (BUP16, n = 100, or no buprenorphine (placebo; PLB, n = 102). Participants received pharmacotherapy for 8 weeks, with three clinic visits per week. Cognitive behavioral therapy was provided weekly. Follow-up assessments occurred at 1 and 3 months post-intervention. The planned primary outcome was urine drug screen (UDS)-corrected, self-reported cocaine use during the last 4 weeks of treatment. Planned secondary analyses assessed cocaine use by UDS, medication adherence, retention and adverse events.ResultsNo group differences were found between groups for the primary outcome (BUP4 versus PLB, P = 0.262; BUP16 versus PLB, P = 0.185). Longitudinal analysis of UDS data during the evaluation period using generalized linear mixed equations found a statistically significant difference between BUP16 and PLB [P = 0.022, odds ratio (OR) = 1.71] but not for BUP4 (P = 0.105, OR = 1.05). No secondary outcome differences across groups were found for adherence, retention or adverse events.ConclusionsBuprenorphine + naloxone, used in combination with naltrexone, may be associated with reductions in cocaine use among people who meet DSM-IV criteria for cocaine dependence and past or current opioid dependence or abuse.

BackgroundDespite the growing prevalence of opioid use among offenders, pharmacotherapy remains an underused treatment approach in correctional settings. The aim of this 4-year trial is to assess the clinical utility, effectiveness, and cost implications of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX, Vivitrol®; Alkermes Inc.) alone and in conjunction with patient navigation for jail inmates with opioid use disorder (OUD).MethodsOpioid-dependent inmates will be randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions before being released to the community to include: 1) XR-NTX only; 2) XR-NTX plus patient navigation (PN), and 3) enhanced treatment-as-usual (ETAU) with drug education and a community treatment referral. Before release from jail, participants in the XR-NTX and XR-NTX plus PN conditions will receive their first XR-NTX injection. Those in the XR-NTX plus PN condition also will meet with a patient navigator. Participants in both XR-NTX conditions will be scheduled for medical management sessions twice monthly for months 1-3, monthly medical management sessions for months 4-6, with monthly injections for 5months post-release (which, given the pre-release injection, results in a 6-month medication phase). Follow-up data collection will occur at 1, 3, 6, and 12months post release.ResultsWe discuss the study's rationale, aims, methods, and anticipated findings. The primary outcome is the presence of a DSM 5 OUD diagnosis 1year after randomization (6months after the end of the active treatment phase).DiscussionWe hypothesize that providing XR-NTX prior to release from jail will be particularly beneficial for this extremely high-risk population by reducing opioid use, associated criminal behavior, and injection-related disease risk. ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT02110264.

ObjectivesThis 2-stage open-label pilot study evaluated the safety and potential efficacy of naltrexone + bupropion as a pharmacotherapy for methamphetamine (MA) use disorder.MethodsThe study was conducted in 2 stages of recruitment across 3 sites; 20 participants were enrolled in stage 1 and 29 participants were enrolled in stage 2. Eight weeks of open-label pharmacotherapy with a combination of extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX; Vivitrol) plus extended-release oral bupropion (BRP; Wellbutrin XL) were provided with a smartphone-assisted medication adherence platform. Participants met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition criteria for severe MA use disorder, self-reported ≥20 days of MA use in the 30 days prior to consent, and submitted 3 MA-positive urine drug screens (UDS) out of 4 collected during screening. Participants attended clinic twice weekly for observed BRP dosing, UDS testing, assessments, and medical management; XR-NTX was administered at weeks 1 and 5. A BRP taper and follow-up visit occurred in week 9.ResultsAnalyses evaluated effects of XR-NTX + BRP to determine the number of "responders" according to a statistically predefined response criterion (6 of 8 MA-negative UDS during the last 4 weeks of medication). The 2-stage design required that stage 1 yield ≥3 responders to continue to stage 2; 11 of the 49 participants met responder criteria across both stages (5 in stage 1, 6 in stage 2).ConclusionsUnder the statistical analysis plan, study "success" required ≥9 responders. With 11 responders, the study demonstrated sufficient potential of naltrexone plus bupropion as a combination pharmacotherapy for MA use disorder to warrant further study.

AimsTo compare long-term outcomes among participants randomized to buprenorphine or methadone.Design, setting and participantsFollow-up was conducted in 2011-14 of 1080 opioid-dependent participants entering seven opioid treatment programs in the United States between 2006 and 2009 and randomized (within each program) to receive open-label buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone for up to 24 weeks; 795 participants completed in-person interviews (~74% follow-up interview rate) covering on average 4.5 years.MeasurementsOutcomes were indicated by mortality and opioid use. Covariates included demographics, site, cocaine use and treatment experiences.FindingsMortality was not different between the two randomized conditions, with 23 (3.6%) of 630 participants randomized to buprenorphine having died versus 26 (5.8%) of 450 participants randomized to methadone. Opioid use at follow-up was higher among participants randomized to buprenorphine relative to methadone [42.8 versus 31.7% positive opioid urine specimens, P < 0.01, effect size (h) = 0.23 (0.09, 0.38); 5.8 days versus 4.4 days of past 30-day heroin use, P < 0.05, effect size (d) = 0.14 (0.00, 0.28)]. Opioid use during the follow-up period by randomization condition was also significant (F(7,39,600) = 3.16; P < 0.001) due mainly to less treatment participation among participants randomized to buprenorphine than methadone. Less opioid use was associated with both buprenorphine and methadone treatment (relative to no treatment); no difference was found between the two treatments. Individuals who are white or used cocaine at baseline responded better to methadone than to buprenorphine.ConclusionsThere are few differences in long-term outcomes between buprenorphine and methadone treatment for opioid dependence, and treatment with each medication is associated with a strong reduction in opioid use.

BackgroundPatients who are newly screened HIV positive by EIA are lost to follow-up due to complicated HIV testing procedures. Because this is the first step in care, it affects the entire continuum of care. This is a particular concern in rural China.Objective(s)To assess the routine HIV testing completeness and treatment initiation rates at 18 county-level general hospitals in rural Guangxi.MethodsWe reviewed original hospital HIV screening records. Investigators also engaged with hospital leaders and key personnel involved in HIV prevention activities to characterize in detail the routine care practices in place at each county.Results699 newly screened HIV-positive patients between January 1 and June 30, 2013 across the 18 hospitals were included in the study. The proportion of confirmatory testing across the 18 hospitals ranged from 14% to 87% (mean of 43%), and the proportion of newly diagnosed individuals successfully initiated antiretroviral treatment across the hospitals ranged from 3% to 67% (mean of 23%). The average interval within hospitals for individuals to receive the Western Blot (WB) and CD4 test results from HIV positive screening (i.e. achieving testing completion) ranged from 14-116 days (mean of 41.7 days) across the hospitals. The shortest interval from receiving a positive EIA screening test result to receiving WB and CD4 testing and counseling was 0 day and the longest was 260 days.ConclusionThe proportion of patients newly screened HIV positive that completed the necessary testing procedures for HIV confirmation and received ART was very low. Interventions are urgently needed to remove barriers so that HIV patients can have timely access to HIV/AIDS treatment and care in rural China.

The combination of prescription opioid dependence and chronic pain is increasingly prevalent and hazardous to public health. Variability in pain may explain poor prescription opioid addiction treatment outcomes in persons with chronic pain. This study examined pain trajectories and pain volatility in patients with chronic pain receiving treatment for prescription opioid addiction. We conducted secondary analyses of adults with chronic pain (n = 149) who received buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NLX) and counseling for 12 weeks in an outpatient, multisite clinical trial. Good treatment outcome was defined as urine-verified abstinence from opioids at treatment endpoint (Week 12) and during at least 2 of the previous 3 weeks. Pain severity significantly declined over time during treatment (b = -0.36, p < .001). Patients with greater pain volatility were less likely to have a good treatment outcome (odds ratio = 0.55, p < .05), controlling for baseline pain severity and rate of change in pain over time. A 1 standard deviation increase in pain volatility was associated with a 44% reduction in the probability of endpoint abstinence. The significant reduction in subjective pain during treatment provides observational support for the analgesic effects of BUP/NLX in patients with chronic pain and opioid dependence. Patients with greater volatility in subjective pain during treatment have increased risk of returning to opioid use by the conclusion of an intensive treatment with BUP/NLX and counseling. Future research should examine underlying mechanisms of pain volatility and identify related therapeutic targets to optimize interventions for prescription opioid addiction and co-occurring chronic pain.

BackgroundThe Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) is used to assess withdrawal in clinical trials and practice. The aims of this study were to examine the inter-item correlations and factor structure of the COWS in opioid-dependent men and women.MethodsThis is a secondary data analysis of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network 0003, a randomized clinical trial that compared buprenorphine/naloxone tapering strategies. The trial included 11 sites in 10 US cities. Participants were opioid-dependent individuals (n=516) that had data on the COWS. The COWS at study baseline was analyzed in this study.ResultsInter-item correlations showed weak to moderate relationships among the items. A 1-factor model did not fit the data for men (comparative fit index (CFI)=.801, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=.073, weighted root mean square residual (WRMR)=1.132) or women (CFI=.694, RMSEA=.071, WRMR=.933), where resting pulse rate was not related to withdrawal for men, and yawning and gooseflesh skin was not related to withdrawal for women. A reduced model comprised of only the 8 items that were significantly related to the construct of withdrawal in both men and women, and an exploratory 2-factor model, were also assessed but not retained due to inconsistencies across gender.ConclusionsWhen traditional psychometric models are applied to the COWS, it appears that the scale may not relate to a single underlying construct of withdrawal. Further research testing the hypothesized factor structure in other opioid-dependent samples is needed.

ObjectivesOnce-monthly intramuscular extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) has demonstrated efficacy for the prevention of relapse in opioid dependence, providing an alternative to agonist or partial agonist maintenance (ie, methadone and buprenorphine). The question remains, for whom is this unique treatment most efficacious and can patient-treatment matching factors be identified?MethodsA moderator analysis was conducted on a previously reported 24-week, placebo-controlled, multisite, randomized controlled trial of XR-NTX (n = 126) versus placebo (n = 124) among recently detoxified opioid-dependent adults in Russia, which showed XR-NTX superior to placebo in proportion of opioid abstinent weeks. The moderator analysis examined a dichotomous indicator of good clinical response-achieving at least 90% of weeks abstinent over the 24-week trial. A series of logistic regression models were fit for this outcome as functions of treatment (XR-NTX vs placebo), each baseline moderator variable, and their interactions. The 25 baseline variables included demographics, clinical severity (Addiction Severity Index, SF-36, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity), functioning (EQ-5D), craving, and HIV serostatus (HIV+).ResultsMore XR-NTX patients achieved 90% abstinence (64/126, 51%) versus placebo (39/124, 31%; P = 0.002). There were no significant interactions between baseline variables and treatment. There was a significant main effect of Clinical Global Impression-Severity score (P = 0.02), such that higher severity score was associated with a lower rate of Good Clinical Response.ConclusionsThe absence of significant baseline by treatment interactions indicates that no patient-treatment matching variables could be identified. This suggests that XR-NTX was effective in promoting abstinence from opioids across a range of demographic and severity characteristics.

BackgroundResearch grounded in behavioral economics has previously linked addictive behavior to disrupted decision-making and reward-processing, but these principles have not been examined in prescription opioid addiction, which is currently a major public health problem. This study examined whether pre-treatment drug reinforcement value predicted opioid use during outpatient treatment of prescription opioid addiction.MethodsSecondary analyses examined participants with prescription opioid dependence who received 12 weeks of buprenorphine-naloxone and counseling in a multi-site clinical trial (N=353). Baseline measures assessed opioid source and indices of drug reinforcement value, including the total amount and proportion of income spent on drugs. Weekly urine drug screens measured opioid use.ResultsObtaining opioids from doctors was associated with lower pre-treatment drug spending, while obtaining opioids from dealers/patients was associated with greater spending. Controlling for demographics, opioid use history, and opioid source frequency, patients who spent a greater total amount (OR=1.30, p

AimsMethadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is widely available in China; but, high rates of illicit opiate use and dropout are problematic. The aim of this study was to test whether cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in conjunction with MMT can improve treatment retention and reduce opiate use.MethodA total of 240 opiate-dependent patients in community-based MMT clinics were randomly assigned to either weekly CBT plus standard MMT (CBT group, n=120) or standard MMT (control group, n=120) for 26 weeks. The primary outcomes were treatment retention and opiate-negative urine test results at 12 weeks and 26 weeks. The secondary outcomes were composite scores on the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) and total scores on the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) at 12 weeks and 26 weeks.ResultsCompared to the control group in standard MMT, the CBT group had higher proportion of opiate-negative urine tests at both 12 weeks (59% vs. 69%, p

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.

Background and aimsNo effective pharmacotherapy for methamphetamine (MA) use disorder has yet been found. This study evaluated sustained-release methylphenidate (MPH-SR) compared with placebo (PLA) for treatment of MA use disorder in people also undergoing behavioral support and motivational incentives.DesignThis was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with MPH-SR or PLA provided for 10 weeks (active phase) followed by 4 weeks of single-blind PLA. Twice-weekly clinic visits, weekly group counseling (CBT) and motivational incentives (MI) for MA-negative urine drug screens (UDS) were included.SettingTreatment sites were in Los Angeles, California (LA) and Honolulu, Hawaii (HH), USA.ParticipantsA total of 110 MA-dependent (via DSM-IV) participants (LA = 90; HH = 20).MeasurementsThe primary outcome measure is self-reported days of MA use during the last 30 days of the active phase. Included in the current analyses are drug use (UDS and self-report), retention, craving, compliance (dosing, CBT, MI), adverse events and treatment satisfaction.FindingsNo difference was found between treatment groups in self-reported days of MA use during the last 30 days of the active phase (P = 0.22). In planned secondary outcomes analyses, however, the MPH group had fewer self-reported MA use days from baseline through the active phase compared with the PLA group (P = 0.05). The MPH group also had lower craving scores and fewer marijuana-positive UDS than the PLA group in the last 30 days of the active phase. The two groups had similar retention, other drug use, adverse events and treatment satisfaction.ConclusionsMethylphenidate may lead to a reduction in concurrent methamphetamine use when provided as treatment for patients undergoing behavioral support for moderate to severe methamphetamine use disorder, but this requires confirmation.

ObjectivesCompare HIV injecting and sex risk in patients being treated with methadone (MET) or buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP).MethodsSecondary 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionsAmong 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.

AimsTo 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 participantsThis 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.MeasurementsThe 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.FindingsThe treatment completion rate was 74% for MET versus 46% for BUP (P

The "Medication-Assisted Therapy for Opioid Addiction" session was chaired by Dr. Betty Tai and had three presenters. The presenters (and their topics) were: Dr. Andrew J. Saxon (Methadone and Buprenorphine for Treatment of Opioid Addiction and HIV Risk Reduction), Dr. Walter Ling (Opioid Antagonist Treatment for Opioid Addiction), and Dr. Betty Tai (Chronic Care Model for Substance Use Disorder).

AimsTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine implants (BI) versus placebo implants (PI) for the treatment of opioid dependence. A secondary aim compared BI to open-label sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone tablets (BNX).DesignRandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Subjects received either four buprenorphine implants (80 mg/implant) (n = 114), four placebo implants (n = 54) or open-label BNX (12-16 mg/day) (n = 119).SettingTwenty addiction treatment centers.ParticipantsAdult out-patients (ages 18-65) with DSM-IV-TR opioid dependence.MeasurementsThe primary efficacy end-point was the percentage of urine samples negative for opioids collected from weeks 1 to 24, examined as a cumulative distribution function (CDF).FindingsThe BI CDF was significantly different from placebo (P < 0.0001). Mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] proportions of urines negative for opioids were: BI = 31.2% (25.3, 37.1) and PI = 13.4% (8.3, 18.6). BI subjects had a higher study completion rate relative to placebo (64 versus 26%, P < 0.0001), lower clinician-rated (P < 0.0001) and patient-rated (P < 0.0001) withdrawal, lower patient-ratings of craving (P < 0.0001) and better subjects' (P = 0.031) and clinicians' (P = 0.022) global ratings of improvement. BI also resulted in significantly lower cocaine use (P = 0.0016). Minor implant-site reactions were comparable in the buprenorphine [27.2% (31 of 114)] and placebo groups [25.9% (14 of 54)]. BI were non-inferior to BNX on percentage of urines negative for opioids [mean (95% CI) = 33.5 (27.3, 39.6); 95% CI for the difference of proportions = (-10.7, 6.2)].ConclusionsCompared with placebo, buprenorphine implants result in significantly less frequent opioid use and are non-inferior to sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone tablets.

Among agents for treatment of opioid addiction, methadone is a full mu-opioid receptor agonist, whereas buprenorphine is a partial agonist. Both are long-acting. Buprenorphine has a superior safety profile. Methadone is formulated for oral administration and buprenorphine for sublingual administration. A subdermal buprenorphine implant with a 6-month duration of action is being considered for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Both medications reduce mortality rates and improve other outcomes. Data from a recent randomized controlled comparison of both medications (N = 1269) show better treatment retention with methadone but reduced illicit opioid use early in treatment with buprenorphine. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk behaviors were measured using the Risk Behavior Survey at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks for study completers. In the 30 days prior to treatment entry, 14.4% of the completers randomized to treatment with buprenorphine (n = 340) and 14.1% of the completers randomized to methadone treatment (n = 391) shared needles. The percent sharing needles decreased to 2.4% for buprenorphine and 4.8 for methadone in the 30 days prior to Week 24 (p < 0.0001). In the 30 days prior to treatment entry, 6.8% of the completers randomized to buprenorphine and 8.2% of the completers randomized to methadone had multiple sexual partners, with only 5.2% and 5.1%, respectively, reporting multiple partners at Week 24 (p < 0.04).

Since DSM-IV was published in 1994, its approach to substance use disorders has come under scrutiny. Strengths were identified (notably, reliability and validity of dependence), but concerns have also arisen. The DSM-5 Substance-Related Disorders Work Group considered these issues and recommended revisions for DSM-5. General concerns included whether to retain the division into two main disorders (dependence and abuse), whether substance use disorder criteria should be added or removed, and whether an appropriate substance use disorder severity indicator could be identified. Specific issues included possible addition of withdrawal syndromes for several substances, alignment of nicotine criteria with those for other substances, addition of biomarkers, and inclusion of nonsubstance, behavioral addictions.This article presents the major issues and evidence considered by the work group, which included literature reviews and extensive new data analyses. The work group recommendations for DSM-5 revisions included combining abuse and dependence criteria into a single substance use disorder based on consistent findings from over 200,000 study participants, dropping legal problems and adding craving as criteria, adding cannabis and caffeine withdrawal syndromes, aligning tobacco use disorder criteria with other substance use disorders, and moving gambling disorders to the chapter formerly reserved for substance-related disorders. The proposed changes overcome many problems, while further studies will be needed to address issues for which less data were available.

The fields of addiction medicine and addiction research have long sought an efficient yet comprehensive instrument to assess patient progress in treatment and recovery. Traditional tools are expensive, time consuming, complex, and based on topics that clinicians or researchers think are important. Thus, they typically do not provide patient-centered information that is meaningful and relevant to the lives of patients with substance use disorders. To improve our ability to understand patients' progress in treatment from their perspectives, the authors and colleagues developed a patient-oriented assessment instrument that has considerable advantages over existing instruments: brevity, simplicity, ease of administration, orientation to the patient, and cost (none). The resulting Treatment Effectiveness Assessment (TEA) elicits patient responses that help the patient and the clinician quickly gauge patient progress in treatment and in recovery, according to the patients' sense of what is important within four domains established by prior research. Patients provide both numerical responses and representative details on their substance use, health, lifestyle, and community. No software is required for data entry or scoring, and no formal training is required to administer the TEA. This article describes the development of the TEA and the initial phases of its application in clinical practice and in research.

Pharmacotherapies for opioid addiction under active development in the US include lofexidine (primarily for managing withdrawal symptoms) and Probuphine®, a distinctive mode of delivering buprenorphine for six months, thus relieving patients, clinicians, and regulatory personnel from most concerns about diversion, misuse, and unintended exposure in children. In addition, two recently approved formulations of previously proven medications are in early phases of implementation. The sublingual film form of buprenorphine + naloxone (Suboxone®) provides a less divertible, more quickly administered, more child-proof version than the buprenorphine + naloxone sublingual tablet. The injectable depot form of naltrexone (Vivitrol®) ensures consistent opioid receptor blockade for one month between administrations, removing concerns about medication compliance. The clinical implications of these developments have attracted increasing attention from clinicians and policymakers in the US and around the world, especially given that human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and other infectious diseases are recognized as companions to opioid addiction, commanding more efforts to reduce opioid addiction. While research and practice improvement efforts continue, reluctance to adopt new medications and procedures can be expected, especially considerations in the regulatory process and in the course of implementation. Best practices and improved outcomes will ultimately emerge from continued development efforts that reflect input from many quarters.

Background: This analysis describes participants' opioid use disorder (OUD) outcomes for 18 months after discontinuing extended-release buprenorphine injection (BUP-XR, SUBLOCADE). Methods: The RECOVER (Remission From Chronic Opioid Use: Studying Environmental and Socioeconomic Factors on Recovery) study recruited participants from BUP-XR clinical trials (NCT02357901, NCT025100142, and NCT02896296) to assess whether there were sustained benefits after leaving the trial. Abstinence from opioids and from all illicit substances (excluding medical cannabis), health-related quality of life, depression, and employment were measured after BUP-XR discontinuation and change in outcomes assessed at 6, 12, and 18 months. Results were analyzed within the full cohort and by duration of BUP-XR treatment (0–2 months, 3–5 months, 6–11 months, 12 months, or 13–18 months) with and without inverse probability weights adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics. Results: Of 533 participants, 529 were assessed over the 18-month study period. Further posttrial pharmacotherapy was reported by 33% of participants. At RECOVER baseline, longer BUP-XR was associated with higher abstinence (0–2 months BUP-XR [n = 116]: 38.8%; 3–5 months BUP-XR [n = 61]: 41.0%; 6–11 months BUP-XR [n = 86]: 68.6%; 12 months BUP-XR [n = 135]: 71.9%; 18 months BUP-XR [n = 131]: 88.2%) and greater 12-Item Short Form Health Survey mental component scores. Over 60% of participants had stable or improved outcomes at 6, 12, and 18 months assessments. Overall 47% of participants self-reported sustained opioid abstinence for the full 18-month follow-up, with greater sustained abstinence associated with longer BUP-XR treatment duration. A sensitivity analysis, removing patients receiving medications for OUD, yielded similar results. Conclusions: Participants from BUP-XR clinical trials who continued into RECOVER maintained or improved on numerous outcomes over 18 months, demonstrating the long-term positive impact of OUD pharmacotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]