A randomized controlled trial of buprenorphine in the management of short-term ambulatory heroin withdrawal

Aim: To determine whether buprenorphine is more effective than clondine and other symptomatic medications in managing ambulatory heroin withdrawal.
Design: Open label. prospective randomized controlled trial examining
withdrawal and 4-week postwithdrawal outcomes on intention-to-treat.
Setting: Two specialist, out-patient drug treatment centres in inner city
Melbourne and Sydney, Australia.
Participants: One hundred and fourteen dependent heroin users were recruited. Participants were 18 yea rs or over. and with no significant other drug dependence, medical or psychiatric conditions or recent methadone treatment. One hundred and one (89%) participants completed a day 8 research interview examining withdrawal outcomes, and 92 (81%) completed day 35 research interview examining postwithdrawal outcomes.
Interventions: Participants randomized to control (n = 56) (up to 8 days or
clonidine and other symptomatic medications) or experimental (n = 58) (up to 5 days of buprenorphine) withdrawal groups. Following the 8-day withdrawal episode, participants could self-select from range of postwithdrawal options (naltrexone, substitution maintenance or counselling).
Measurements: Retention in withdrawal: heroin use during withdrawl: and
retention in drug treatment 4 weeks after withdrawal.
Secondary outcomes: Withdrawal severity: adverse events, and heroin use in the postwithdrawal period.
Findings: The experimental group had better treatment retention at day 8 (86% versus 57%, P = 0.001, 95% CI for numbers needed to treat (NNT) = 3-8) and day 35 (62% versus 39%, P = 0.02, 95% CI for NNT = 4-18): used heroin on fewer days during the withdralwal programlme (2.6 ± 2.5 versus 4.5 ± 2. 3.
P < 0.001. 95% CI = 1- 2.5 days) and in the postwithdrawal period (9.0±8.2
versus 14.6± 10. P<O.Ol. 95% CI = I .8- 9.4): and reported less withdrawal
severity. No severe adverse events reported.
Conclusions: Buprenorphine is effective for short-term ambulatory heroin
withdrawaI, with greater retention, less heroin use and less withdrawal discomfort during withdrawal: and increased postwithdrawal treatment retention than symptomatic medications.

Reboxetine add on therapy to haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia: a preliminary double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study.

The negative symptoms of schizophrenia remain a major clinical challenge. Reboxetine is an antidepressant whose major mechanism of action is as a noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor. This study was a 6-week randomized placebo-controlled trial of reboxetine or placebo add on to haloperidol 5 mg in the treatment of 30 patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia. The trial failed to demonstrate any significant difference between the placebo and reboxetine groups on any of the outcome measures. This trial does not suggest that increased noradreneregic drive mediated by reuptake inhibition in patients taking dopamine antagonists is of therapeutic value in schizophrenia.

Midazolam for sedation before procedures

BACKGROUND: Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular. OBJECTIVES: To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.