Buprenorphine for the management of opioid withdrawal

University of Adelaide, Department of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology, DASC Evidence-Bsed Practice Unit, Adelaide, AUSTRALIA, 5005.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 02/2006; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002025.pub3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment. It may also represent the end point of maintenance treatment.
To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of buprenorphine to manage opioid withdrawal, for withdrawal signs and symptoms, completion of withdrawal and adverse effects.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register, Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2005), EMBASE (January 1985 to August 2005), PsycINFO (1967 to August 2005), CINAHL(1982 to July 2005) and reference lists of articles.
Experimental interventions involved the use of buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha2 adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine-based regimes.
One reviewer assessed studies for inclusion and methodological quality, and undertook data extraction. Inclusion decisions and the overall process was confirmed by consultation between all three reviewers.
Eighteen studies (14 randomised controlled trials), involving 1356 participants, were included. Ten studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine; four compared buprenorphine with methadone; one compared buprenorphine with oxazepam; three compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction; two compared different starting doses of buprenorphine. (Two studies included more than one comparison.)Relative to clonidine, buprenorphine is more effective in ameliorating the symptoms of withdrawal, patients treated with buprenorphine stay in treatment for longer, particularly in an outpatient setting (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.06, P < 0.001), and are more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.47, P = 0.003). At the same time there is no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but drop-out due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine. Severity of withdrawal is similar for withdrawal managed with buprenorphine and withdrawal managed with methadone, but withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine. There is a trend towards completion of withdrawal treatment being more likely with buprenorphine relative to methadone (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.73, P = 0.08).
Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine for the management of opioid withdrawal. There appears to be no significant difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of completion of treatment, but withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines for the treatment of substance abuse, harmful use, addiction and comorbidity with psychiatric disorders primarily focus on their pharmacological management. They are based explicitly on the available evidence and presented as recommendations to aid clinical decision making for practitioners alongside a detailed review of the evidence. A consensus meeting, involving experts in the treatment of these disorders, reviewed key areas and considered the strength of the evidence and clinical implications. The guidelines were drawn up after feedback from participants. The guidelines primarily cover the pharmacological management of withdrawal, short- and long-term substitution, maintenance of abstinence and prevention of complications, where appropriate, for substance abuse or harmful use or addiction as well management in pregnancy, comorbidity with psychiatric disorders and in younger and older people.
    Journal of Psychopharmacology 05/2012; 26(7):899-952. DOI:10.1177/0269881112444324 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Opioid addiction affects over 2 million patients in the United States. The advent of buprenorphine and the passage of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act in 2000 have revolutionized the opioid treatment delivery system by granting physicians the ability to administer office-based opioid treatment (OBOT), thereby giving patients greater access to treatment. The purpose of this consensus panel was to synthesize the most current evidence on the use of buprenorphine in the office-based setting and to make recommendations that will enable and allow additional physicians to begin to treat opioid-addicted individuals. Literature published from 2000 to 2009 was searched using the PubMed search engine and yielded over 375 articles published in peer-reviewed journals, including some that were published guidelines. These articles were submitted to a consensus panel composed of researchers, educators, and clinicians who are leaders in the field of addiction medicine with specific expertise in the use of OBOT. The panel discussed results and agreed upon consensus recommendations for several facets of OBOT. : On the basis of the literature review and consensus discussions, the panel developed a series of findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the use of buprenorphine in office-based treatment of opioid addiction. Therapeutic outcomes for patients who self-select office-based treatment with buprenorphine are essentially comparable to those seen in patients treated with methadone programs. There are few absolute contraindications to the use of buprenorphine, although the experience and skill levels of treating physicians can vary considerably, as can access to the resources needed to treat comorbid medical or psychiatric conditions--all of which affect outcomes. It is important to conduct a targeted assessment of every patient to confirm that the provider has resources available to meet the patient's needs. Patients should be assessed for a broad array of biopsychosocial needs in addition to opioid use and addiction, and should be treated, referred, or both for help in meeting all their care needs, including medical care, psychiatric care, and social assistance. Current literature demonstrates promising efficacy of buprenorphine, though further research will continue to demonstrate its effectiveness for special populations, such as adolescents, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations. Since the time of this review, several new studies have provided new data to continue to improve our understanding of the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine for special patient populations.
    Journal of Addiction Medicine 12/2011; 5(4):254-63. DOI:10.1097/ADM.0b013e3182312983 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The association between buprenorphine taper duration and treatment outcomes is not well understood. This review evaluated whether duration of outpatient buprenorphine taper is significantly associated with treatment outcomes. Studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals, administered buprenorphine as an outpatient taper to opioid-dependent participants, and provided data on at least one of three primary treatment outcome measures (opioid abstinence, retention, peak withdrawal severity) were reviewed. Primary treatment outcomes were evaluated as a function of taper duration using hierarchical linear regressions with pre-taper maintenance duration as a cofactor. Twenty-eight studies were reviewed. Taper duration significantly predicted percent of opioid-negative samples provided during treatment, however pre-taper maintenance period predicted percent participants abstinent on the final day of treatment. High rates of relapse were reported. No significant association between taper duration and retention in treatment or peak withdrawal severity was observed. The data reviewed here suggest taper duration is associated with opioid abstinence achieved during detoxification but not with other markers of treatment outcome. The reviewed studies varied widely on several parameters (e.g., frequency of urinalysis testing, provision of ancillary medications) that may influence treatment outcome and thus could have interfered with the ability to identify relationships between taper duration and outcomes. Future studies evaluating opioid detoxification should utilize rigorous experimental methods and report a wider range of outcome measures in order to help advance our understanding of the association between taper duration and treatment outcomes.
    Drug and alcohol dependence 07/2011; 119(1-2):1-9. DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.05.033 · 3.28 Impact Factor