A double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, prospective pilot study of the partial mu opiate agonist, buprenorphine, for acute detoxification from heroin.

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, and Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System, 1660 South Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108, USA.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence (Impact Factor: 3.28). 02/2005; 77(1):71-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.07.008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The optimum dose of buprenorphine for acute inpatient heroin detoxification has not been determined. This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, pilot study compares two buprenorphine sublingual tablet dosing schedules to oral clonidine. Heroin users (N = 30) who met DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence and achieved a Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score of 13 (moderate withdrawal), were randomized to receive higher dose buprenorphine (HD, 8-8-8-4-2 mg/day on days 1-5), lower dose buprenorphine (LD, 2-4-8-4-2 mg/day on days 1-5), or clonidine (C, 0.2-0.3-0.3-0.2-0.1 mg QID on days 1-5). COWS scores were obtained QID. Twenty-four hours after randomization, the percentages of subjects who achieved suppression of withdrawal, as defined by four consecutive COWS scores <12, were: C = 11%, LD = 40%, and HD = 60%. Generalized estimating equation regression models, controlling for baseline COWS and time, indicated that COWS scores over the course of 5 days were lower in both LD and HD compared to C (chi(2)(2) = 13.28, P = 0.001). Similar analyses examining scores over time on the Adjective Rating Scale for Withdrawal (ARSW) and on a Visual Analog Scale of Opiate Craving (VAS) indicated an overall treatment effect on the VAS accounted for by a significant difference between HD and C, but no overall treatment effect on the ARSW. There were no discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events. Both HD and LD regimens are safe and efficacious treatment for opioid detoxification, but HD demonstrated superiority to C on a greater number of measures.

  • Source
    Drug and Alcohol Dependence 03/2015; · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prevalence of opioid addiction has alarmingly increased over the recent years. In South Asian region alone there are more than 10 million opioid abusers amounting to 2% of world population. Detoxification remains to be the first step for the successful treatment of opioid addiction. The present study was carried out to compare the relative efficacy and safety of buprenorphine -naloxone and clonidine hydrochloride in the detoxification of opioid-dependents. Present trial was conducted at De- addiction centre of Institute of Mental and Neurosciences (IMNS), GMC Srinagar. Fifty four (54) treatment seeking subjects, 15-50 years of age, fulfilling DSM-1V TR (American Psychiatric association`s Mental Disorders-1V text revision) criteria for opioid dependence were included and randomized into two groups. The groups received either clonidine hydrochloride (Group A) or buprenorphine- naloxone (Bup-Nax) (Group B) for the duration of 10 days. The efficacy of the two drugs in controlling the opioid withdrawal was evaluated by Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS) and their effect on the desire for the abused substance was measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The safety of the two drugs was measured by taking the side effect profile of the two compared drugs into consideration. There was significant difference of COWS-score between the two groups which was evident from day 3 (14.85 ± 3.43 vs. 11.67 ± 2.40, p<0.005) and continued till day 6 (2.56 ± 1.40 vs. 0.30 ± 0.61, p<0.005), for Group A and group B respectively. The effect of two drugs in controlling the craving for the abused substance also showed significant difference from day 2 (66.30 ± 10.80 vs. 47.40 ± 12.90, p<0.005) till day 5 (7.78 ± 6.41 vs. 1.85 ± 6.22, p<0.005), for Group A and Group B respectively. Administration of buprenorphine-naloxone was more efficient in reducing the signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal and in controlling the craving for the abused substance during the first few days of detoxification.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: The present analysis describes the longitudinal change in buprenorphine treatment outcome. It also examines several participant characteristics to predict response to buprenorphine. Methods: Participants (n=501, age>15 years) received buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for 4 weeks, and then were randomly assigned to undergo dose tapering over either 7 days or 28 days. An empirical model was developed to describe the longitudinal changes in treatment outcome. Several patient characteristics were also examined as possible factors influencing treatment outcome. Results: We have developed a model that captures the general behavior of the longitudinal change in the probability of having an opioid-negative urine sample following buprenorphine treatment. The model captures both the initial increase (i. e., initial response) and the subsequent decrease (i. e., relapse to opioid) in the likelihood of providing an opioid-negative urine sample. Characteristics associated with successful buprenorphine treatment outcome include: having a negative urine test for drugs, having alcohol problems [assessed using alcohol domain of addiction severity index (ASI-alcohol)] at screening, being older, and receiving low cumulative buprenorphine dose. However, ASI-alcohol values were generally low which make the application of the proposed alcohol effect for patients with more severe alcohol problems questionable. Conclusions: A novel approach for analyzing buprenorphine treatment outcome is presented in this manuscript. This approach describes the longitudinal change in the probability of providing an opioid-free urine sample instead of considering opioid use outcome at a single time point. Additionally, this model successfully describes relapse to opioid. Finally, several patient characteristics are identified as predictors of treatment outcome.
    Pharmacopsychiatry 10/2014; 47(7). DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1390467 · 2.17 Impact Factor