Methadone is widely used as a replacement for illicit opioid use such as heroin in medically-supported opioid substitution maintenance programmes. Two other drugs have been used to help reduce illicit opioid use, specifically buprenorphine and LAAM (levo-alpha-acetylmethadol). LAAM is not used in current clinical practice. Buprenorphine is currently used and can reduce illicit opioid use compared with placebo, although it is less effective than methadone. Buprenorphine is an opioid drug that is not as potent as heroin and methadone, although the effects of buprenorphine may last longer. Buprenorphine can be taken once every two days. The trials include different formulations of buprenorphine: sublingual solution, sublingual tablets, combined buprenorphine/naloxone sublingual tablet and an implant. Key results The review of trials found that buprenorphine at high doses (16 mg) can reduce illicit opioid use effectively compared with placebo, and buprenorphine at any dose studied retains people in treatment better than placebo. Buprenorphine appears to be less effective than methadone in retaining people in treatment, if prescribed in a flexible dose regimen or at a fixed and low dose (2 - 6 mg per day). Buprenorphine prescribed at fixed doses (above 7 mg per day) was not different from methadone prescribed at fixed doses (40 mg or more per day) in retaining people in treatment or in suppression of illicit opioid use.

/pdf/buprenorphine-maintenance-versus-placebo-or-methadone-24jzybj00e.pdf

Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence

Background Methadone, a full mu-opioid agonist, is the recommended treatment for opioid dependence during pregnancy. However, prenatal exposure to methadone is associated with a neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) characterized by central nervous system hyperirritability and autonomic nervous system dysfunction, which often requires medication and extended hospitalization. Buprenorphine, a partial mu-opioid agonist, is an alternative treatment for opioid dependence but has not been extensively studied in pregnancy. Methods We conducted a double-blind, double-dummy, flexible-dosing, randomized, controlled study in which buprenorphine and methadone were compared for use in the comprehensive care of 175 pregnant women with opioid dependency at eight international sites. Primary outcomes were the number of neonates requiring treatment for NAS, the peak NAS score, the total amount of morphine needed to treat NAS, the length of the hospital stay for neonates, and neonatal head circumference. Results Treatment wa...

/pdf/neonatal-abstinence-syndrome-after-methadone-or-3jmrujizza.pdf

Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome after Methadone or Buprenorphine Exposure

OBJECTIVES To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) and methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) for the management of opioid-dependent individuals. DATA SOURCES Major electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2005. Industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence were accessed. REVIEW METHODS The assessment of clinical effectiveness was based on a review of existing reviews plus an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A decision tree with Monte Carlo simulation model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of BMT and MMT. Retention in treatment and opiate abuse parameters were sourced from the meta-analysis of RCTs directly comparing flexible MMT with flexible dose BMT. Utilities were derived from a panel representing a societal perspective. RESULTS Most of the included systematic reviews and RCTs were of moderate to good quality, and focused on short-term (up to 1-year follow-up) outcomes of retention in treatment and the level of opiate use (self-report or urinalysis). Most studies employed a trial design that compared a fixed-dose strategy (i.e. all individuals received a standard dose) of MMT or BMT and were conducted in predominantly young men who fulfilled criteria as opiate-dependent or heroin-dependent users, without significant co-morbidities. RCT meta-analyses have shown that a fixed dose of MMT or BMT has superior levels of retention in treatment and opiate use than placebo or no treatment, with higher fixed doses being more effective than lower fixed doses. There was evidence, primarily from non-randomised observational studies, that fixed-dose MMT reduces mortality, HIV risk behaviour and levels of crime compared with no therapy and one small RCT has shown the level of mortality with fixed-dose BMT to be significantly less than with placebo. Flexible dosing (i.e. individualised doses) of MMT and BMT is more reflective of real-world practice. Retention in treatment was superior for flexible MMT than flexible BMT dosing but there was no significant difference in opiate use. Indirect comparison of data from population cross-sectional studies suggests that mortality with BMT may be lower than that with MMT. A pooled RCT analysis showed no significant difference in serious adverse events with MMT compared with BMT. Although treatment modifier evidence was limited, adjunct psychosocial and contingency interventions (e.g. financial incentives for opiate-free urine samples) appeared to enhance the effects of both MMT and BMT. Also, MMT and BMT appear to be similarly effective whether delivered in a primary care or outpatient clinic setting. Although most of the included economic evaluations were considered to be of high quality, none used all of the appropriate parameters, effectiveness data, perspective and comparators required to make their results generalisable to the NHS context. One company (Schering-Plough) submitted cost-effectiveness evidence based on an economic model that had a 1-year time horizon and sourced data from a single RCT of flexible-dose MMT compared with flexible-dose BMT and utility values obtained from the literature; the results showed that for MMT vs no drug therapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was pound 12,584/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), for BMT versus no drug therapy, the ICER was pound 30,048/QALY and in a direct comparison, MMT was found to be slightly more effective and less costly than BMT. The assessment group model found for MMT versus no drug therapy that the ICER was pound 13,697/QALY, for BMT versus no drug therapy that the ICER was pound 26,429/QALY and, as with the industry model, in direct comparison, MMT was slightly more effective and less costly than BMT. When considering social costs, both MMT and BMT gave more health gain and were less costly than no drug treatment. These findings were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS Both flexible-dose MMT and BMT are more clinically effective and more cost-effective than no drug therapy in dependent opiate users. In direct comparison, a flexible dosing strategy with MMT was found be somewhat more effective in maintaining individuals in treatment than flexible-dose BMT and therefore associated with a slightly higher health gain and lower costs. However, this needs to be balanced by the more recent experience of clinicians in the use of buprenorphine, the possible risk of higher mortality of MMT and individual opiate-dependent users' preferences. Future research should be directed towards the safety and effectiveness of MMT and BMT; potential safety concerns regarding methadone and buprenorphine, specifically mortality and key drug interactions; efficacy of substitution medications (in particular patient subgroups, such as within the criminal justice system, or within young people); and uncertainties in cost-effectiveness identified by current economic models.

/pdf/methadone-and-buprenorphine-for-the-management-of-opioid-1wuauwzc8i.pdf

Methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

An overview of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of opiate maintenance therapies: available evidence to inform clinical practice and research.

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers' products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use. Guidelines for the psychosocially assisted pharmacological treatment of opioid dependence. 1.Opioid-related disorders-drug therapy. 2.Opioid-related disorders-psychology. 3.Substance abuse-prevention and control. 4.

https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/17408/1/opioid_dependence_guidelines.pdf

Guidelines for the Psychosocially Assisted Pharmacological Treatment of Opioid Dependence

Aims To assess the efficacy of buprenorphine compared with methadone maintenance therapy for opioid dependence in a large sample using a flexible dosing regime and the marketed buprenorphine tablet. Design Patients were randomized to receive buprenorphine or methadone over a 13-week treatment period in a double-blind, double-dummy trial. Setting Three methadone clinics in Australia. Participants Four hundred and five opioid-dependent patients seeking treatment. Intervention Patients received buprenorphine or methadone as indicated clinically using a flexible dosage regime. During weeks 1‐6, patients were dosed daily. From weeks 7‐13, buprenorphine patients received double their week 6 dose on alternate days. Measurements Retention in treatment, and illicit opioid use as determined by urinalysis. Self-reported drug use, psychological functioning, HIV-risk behaviour, general health and subjective ratings were secondary outcomes. Findings Intention-to-treat analyses revealed no significant difference in completion rates at 13 weeks. Methadone was superior to buprenorphine in time to termination over the 13-week period (Wald c 2 = 4.371, df = 1, P = 0.037), but not separately for the single-day or alternate-day dosing phases. There were no significant between-group differences in morphine-positive urines, or in selfreported heroin or other illicit drug use. The majority (85%) of the buprenorphine patients transferred to alternate-day dosing were maintained in alternate-day dosing. Conclusions Buprenorphine did not differ from methadone in its ability to suppress heroin use, but retained approximately 10% fewer patients. This poorer retention was due possibly to too-slow induction onto buprenorphine. For the majority of patients, buprenorphine can be administered on alternate days.

Cath Danz

Papers

Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance therapy: a randomized double-blind trial with 405 opioid-dependent patients.

Relationship between LAAM-methadone preference and treatment outcomes.