Role of maintenance treatment in opioid dependence

Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) involves the daily administration of the oral opioid agonist methadone as a treatment for opioid dependence-a persistent disorder with a substantial risk of premature death. MMT improves health and reduces illicit heroin use, infectious-disease transmission, and overdose death. However, its effectiveness is compromised if low maintenance doses of methadone (

Is ultra-rapid opioid detoxification a viable option in the treatment of opioid dependence?

Ultra-rapid opioid detoxification (UROD) involves the acceleration of opioid withdrawal hv administering thp opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone under general anaesthesia. There is evidence from uncontrolled and a few controlled studies that UROD accelerates opioid withdrawal and that it achieves high rates of completion of acute opioid withdrawal. However, there is clear evidence that the use of a general anaesthetic is not required to accelerate withdrawal or to achieve high rates of completion of acute opioid withdrawal. These goals can be achieved by using naltrexone or naloxone to accelerate withdrawal under light sedation, a procedure known as rapid opioid detoxification under sedation (ROD). There is also evidence that use of an opioid antagonist is not required to achieve a high rate of completion of acute opioid withdrawal. The mixed agonist-antagonist buprenorphine has achieved comparable rates of completion in similarly selected patients with fewer withdrawal symptoms. There is no evidence from controlled trials that either UROD or ROD increases the rate of abstinence from opioids 6 or 12 months after withdrawal. UROD and ROD may increase the number of patients who are inducted onto naltrexone maintenance (NM) therapy but extensive experience with NM therapy suggests that it only has a limited role in selected patients. Given the lack of evidence of substantially increased rates of abstinence, and the need for anaesthetists and high dependency beds, UROD has at best a very minor role in the treatment of a handful of opioid dependent patients who are unable to complete withdraw in any other way. ROD may have more of a role as one option for opioid withdrawal in well motivated patients who want to be rapidly inducted onto NM therapy or who want to enter other types of abstinence-oriented treatment.

Methadone maintenance therapy for opioid dependence - A guide to appropriate use

Opioid dependence is a chronic, relapsing condition that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Methadone maintenance therapy involves the provision of a controlled supply of an orally administered opioid, thereby stabilising the opioid-dependent patient. Research studies have shown that methadone maintenance reduces illicit opioid use, opioid-related crime, premature mortality and the risk of HIV infection. It is most effective when prescribed at an adequate dosage (usually 60 to 100 mg/day) and when long term maintenance on methadone is the goal of treatment rather than detoxification from all drugs including methadone. Successful long term methadone maintenance is more likely when it takes place within the context of a well established therapeutic relationship and when the medical, social and psychological needs of patients are met either through direct assistance or referral.

Interindividual variability of the clinical pharmacokinetics of methadone: implications for the treatment of opioid dependence

Methadone is widely used for the treatment of opioid dependence. Although in most countries the drug is administered as a racemic mixture of (R)- and (S)- methadone, (R)-methadone accounts for most, if not all, of the opioid effects. Methadone can be detected in the blood 15-45 minutes after oral administration, with peak plasma concentration at 2.5-4 hours. Methadone has a mean bioavailability of around 75% (range 36-100%). Methadone is highly bound to plasma proteins, in particular to alpha(1)-acid glycoprotein. Its mean free fraction is around 13%, with a 4-fold interindividual variation. Its volume of distribution is about 4 L/kg (range 2-13 L/kg). The elimination of methadone is mediated by biotransformation, followed by renal and faecal excretion. Total body clearance is about 0.095 L/min, with wide interindividual variation (range 0.02-2 L/min). Plasma concentrations of methadone decrease in a biexponential manner, with a mean value of around 22 hours (range 5-130 hours) for elimination half-life. For the active (R)-enantiomer, mean values of around 40 hours have been determined. Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and to a lesser extent 2D6 are probably the main isoforms involved in methadone metabolism. Rifampicin (rifampin), phenobarbital, phenytoin, carbamazepine, nevirapine, and efavirenz decrease methadone blood concentrations, probably by induction of CYP3A4 activity, which can result in severe withdrawal symptoms. Inhibitors of CYP3A4, such as fluconazole, and of CYP2D6, such as paroxetine, increase methadone blood concentrations. There is an up to 17-fold interindividual variation of methadone blood concentration for a given dosage, and interindividual variability of CYP enzymes accounts for a large part of this variation. Since methadone probably also displays large interindividual variability in its pharmacodynamics, methadone treatment must be individually adapted to each patient. Because of the high morbidity and mortality associated with opioid dependence, it is of major importance that methadone is used at an effective dosage in maintenance treatment: at least 60 mg/day, but typically 80-100 mg/day. Recent studies also show that a subset of patients might benefit from methadone dosages larger than 100 mg/day, many of them because of high clearance. In clinical management, medical evaluation of objective signs and subjective symptoms is sufficient for dosage titration in most patients. However, therapeutic drug monitoring can be useful in particular situations. In the case of non-response trough plasma concentrations of 400 microg/L for (R,S)-methadone or 250 microg/L for (R)-methadone might be used as target values.

Opioid dependence treatment: options in pharmacotherapy.

The development of effective treatments for opioid dependence is of great importance given the devastating consequences of the disease. Pharmacotherapies for opioid addiction include opioid agonists, partial agonists, opioid antagonists, and alpha-2-adrenergic agonists, which are targeted toward either detoxification or long-term agonist maintenance. Agonist maintenance therapy is currently the recommended treatment for opioid dependence due to its superior outcomes relative to detoxification. Detoxification protocols have limited long-term efficacy, and patient discomfort remains a significant therapy challenge. Buprenorphine's effectiveness relative to methadone remains a controversy and may be most appropriate for patients in need of low doses of agonist treatment. Buprenorphine appears superior to alpha-2 agonists, however, and office-based treatment with buprenorphine in the USA is gaining support. Studies of sustained-release formulations of naltrexone suggest improved effectiveness for retention and sustained abstinence; however, randomized clinical trials are needed.

Safety and tolerability of slow-release oral morphine versus methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence

Opioid substitution treatment (OST) for opioid dependence may be limited by adverse events (AEs). Increasing the range of therapeutic options optimizes outcomes and facilitates patient management. An international, multi-center, two-phase study investigated the efficacy and safety of slow-release oral morphine (SROM) versus methadone in patients receiving methadone therapy for opioid dependence. In phase 1 (two way cross-over, 11 weeks each period) patients were randomized to SROM or methadone oral solution. In phase 2 (25 weeks), patients continued treatment with SROM (group A) or switched from methadone to SROM (group B). In total, 211 out of 276 completed phase 1 and 198 entered phase 2 (n = 95 group A, n = 103 group B). Treatment with both SROM and methadone was well tolerated. However, the mean QTc-interval associated with methadone was significantly longer than that under SROM. Higher treatment satisfaction, fewer cravings for heroin, and lower mental stress were reported with SROM. This study adds a significant further weight of evidence that SROM is an effective and well tolerated long-term maintenance treatment for opioid dependence with a beneficial risk profile compared to methadone regarding cardiac effects and supports its clinical utility.

Association between ethnicity and treatment status in opioid dependence therapy using methadone and suboxone drugs

Opioids are drugs with opium-like qualities that are either derived from opiates (drugs created from opium, such as morphine or codeine) or chemically produced. In the U.S. opiate abuse and related deaths have been increasing and traditional maintenance treatment has been Methadone with variable success. However, since 2003 synthetic Buprenorphine has been used since it is prescribed daily by physicians in pill form and should improve outcomes. Comparative studies are limited and the effect of ethnicity on treatment outcome is unknown. ^ Data collected at one clinic from December 2005 through May 2009 were used to compare the association between ethnicity and other socioeconomic variables with treatment status, and to identify factors associated with the dropout among participants. Descriptive tables and multiple logistic regression models were used to examine the data on 1,295 total participants. Of the total, 875 participants (68%) were from the Methadone subsample and 420 participants (32%) from the Buprenorphine subsample; only about 15% stayed in treatment. ^ This study showed that with either Methadone or Buprenorphine maintenance therapy, only about 15% participants stay active over 3.5 years. Methadone treated patients that stayed active in treatment were associated with Caucasian ethnicity and were more likely to be employed. With Buprenorphine maintenance treatment only age over 40 years was associated with continuing activity in the program. Further studies that examine the reasons for the high dropout status and the implication of the socioeconomic and ethnic associations found in this data may help to improve treatment outcomes.^

Serious adverse events in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD)

Aims The study estimated serious adverse event (SAE) rates among entrants to pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence, during treatment and after leaving treatment. Design A longitudinal study based on data from 12 trials included in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD). Participants and settings A total of 1.244 heroin users and methadone patients treated in hospital, community and GP settings. Intervention Six trials included detoxification; all included treatment with methadone, buprenorphine, levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol (LAAM) or naltrexone. Findings During 394 person-years of observation, 79 SAEs of 28 types were recorded. Naltrexone participants experienced 39 overdoses per 100 person-years after leaving treatment (44% occurred within 2 weeks after stopping naltrexone). This was eight times the rate recorded among participants who left agonist treatment. Rates of all other SAEs were similar during treatment versus out of treatment, for both naltrexone-treated and agonist-treated participants. Five deaths occurred, all among participants who had left treatment, at a rate of six per 100 person-years. Total SAE rates during naltrexone and agonist treatments were similar (20, 14 per 100 person-years, respectively). Total SAE and death rates observed among participants who had left treatment were three and 19 times the corresponding rates during treatment. Conclusions Individuals who leave pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence experience higher overdose and death rates compared with those in treatment. This may be due partly to a participant self-selection effect rather than entirely to pharmacotherapy being protective. Clinicians should alert naltrexone treatment patients in particular about heroin overdose risks. Duty of care may extend beyond cessation of dosing.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of heroin detoxification methods in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD)

This economic evaluation was part of the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD) project. Data from four trials of heroin detoxification methods, involving 365 participants, were pooled to enable a comprehensive comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five inpatient and outpatient detoxification methods. This study took the perspective of the treatment provider in assessing resource use and costs. Two short-term outcome measures were used-achievement of an initial 7-day period of abstinence, and entry into ongoing post-detoxification treatment. The mean costs of the various detoxification methods ranged widely, from AUD $491 (buprenorphine-based outpatient); to AUD $605 for conventional outpatient; AUD $1404 for conventional inpatient; AUD $1990 for rapid detoxification under sedation; and to AUD $2689 for anaesthesia per episode. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using conventional outpatient detoxification as the base comparator. The buprenorphine-based outpatient detoxification method was found to be the most cost-effective method overall, and rapid opioid detoxification under sedation was the most costeffective inpatient method.

Does naltrexone treatment lead to depression? Findings from a randomized controlled trial in subjects with opioid dependence

Objective: Dysphoria and depression have been cited as side effects of the opioid antagonist naltrexone. We aimed to assess whether depressive symptoms are a clinically relevant side effect in a population receiving naltrexone as a treatment for opioid dependence. Methods: We carried out a randomized controlled, open-label trial comparing rapid opiate detoxification under anesthesia and naltrexone treatment with continued methadone maintenance at the Alcohol and Drug Service, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. The study subjects were patients stabilized on methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence who wished to transfer to naltrexone treatment. The Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Opiate Treatment Index subscales for heroin use and social functioning were used at baseline and follow-up assessments at 1, 2, 3 and 6 months. Results: Forty-two participants were allocated to receive naltrexone treatment, whereas 38 continued methadone maintenance as the control condition. Participants who received naltrexone did not exhibit worsening of depressive symptoms. In participants attending all follow-up assessments, there was a trend for those receiving naltrexone to exhibit an improvement in depression over time compared with the control group. Participants who were adherent to naltrexone treatment exhibited fewer depressive symptoms than those who were nonadherent. Conclusions: These results suggest that depression need not be considered a common adverse effect of naltrexone treatment or a treatment contraindication and that engaging with or adhering to naltrexone treatment may be associated with fewer depressive symptoms.

Pharmacological enhancement of naltrexone treatment for opioid dependence: a review.

PURPOSE: Opioid dependence (OD) is a serious and growing clinical condition with increasing social costs that requires expanding treatment beyond opioid agonist substitution. The opioid antagonist naltrexone has displayed a remarkable association of theoretical effectiveness and poor clinical utility in treating OD due to noncompliant behavior and low acceptability among patients, only partly modified by psychosocial interventions. We reviewed pharmacological studies, including naltrexone depot formulations and combination treatments. METHOD: We searched PubMed for clinical studies on the use of naltrexone implants and slow-release injections in OD, and investigations using adjunct medications to improve naltrexone maintenance therapy of OD. We discussed the results in view of their application to the clinical practice. RESULTS: Significant reduction in opioid use and improved retention in treatment have been found in several studies using depot naltrexone formulations, some of which are controlled clinical trials. Pilot investigations have gathered initial positive results on the use of naltrexone in combination with serotonin reuptake inhibitors, α-2 adrenergic, opioid, and γ-aminobutyric acid agonist medications. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that more research on effectiveness and safety is needed in support of depot naltrexone treatment for OD. Further research comparing slow-release with oral naltrexone and opioid agonist medications will help characterize the role of opioid antagonist-mediated treatment of OD. Preliminary investigations on naltrexone combination treatments suggest the opportunity to continue study of new mixed receptor activities for the treatment of OD and other drug addictions.

Jurisdictional trends in opioid overdose deaths, 1988-96

This report analysed data on opioid overdose mortality between 1988 and 1996 to: examine differences between jurisdictions in the rate of fatal opioid overdose and the rate of increase in overdose; and estimate the proportion of all deaths which were attributed to opioid overdose. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data were obtained on the number of deaths attributed to opioid dependence (ICD 9 codes 304.0, 304.7) and accidental opioid poisoning (ICD 9 codes E850.0, E850.1). The highest rate of fatal overdose occurred in NSW, followed by Victoria. The standardised mortality rate among other jurisdictions fluctuated quite markedly. While the rate of opioid overdose has increased throughout Australia, the rate of increase has been greater in some of the less-populous states and territories than it has in NSW or Victoria. In 1996, approximately 6.5% of all deaths among people aged 15-24 years and approximately 10% of all deaths among those aged 25-34 were due to opioid overdose. During the interval from 1988 to 1996, the proportion of deaths attributed to opioid overdose increased. From 1988 to 1996, the proportion of deaths attributed to opioid overdose among individuals aged 25-34 years was approximately one-third that attributed to suicide, but this proportion had increased to approximately one-half by 1996. The rate of increase in the proportion of deaths attributed to opioid overdose was higher than the rate of increase in the proportion of deaths attributed to suicide.

Opioid overdose mortality in Australia, 1964-1997: birth-cohort trends

Objective: To examine trends in rates of opioid overdose deaths from 1964 to 1997 in different birth cohorts. Design: Age-period-cohort analysis of national data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Main outcome measures: Annual population rates of death attributed to opioid dependence or accidental opioid poisoning in people aged 15-44 years, by sex and birth cohort tin five-year intervals, 1940-1944 to 1975-1979). Results: The rate of opioid overdose deaths increased 55-fold between 1964 and 1997, from 1.3 to 71.5 per million population aged 15-44 years. The rate of opioid overdose deaths also increased substantially over the eight birth cohorts, with an incidence rate ratio of 20.70 (95% confidence interval, 13.60-31.46) in the 1975-1979 cohort compared with the 1940-1944 cohort. The age at which the cumulative rate of opioid overdose deaths reached 300 per million fell in successive cohorts (for men, from 28 years among those born 1955-1959 to 22 years among those born 1965-1974; for women, from 33 years among those born 1955-1959 to 27 years among those born 1965-1969). Conclusions: Heroin use in Australia largely began in the early 1970s and rates of heroin use have markedly increased in birth cohorts born since 1950.

Breaking the deadlock over an Australian trial of injectable opioid maintenance

INJECTABLE HEROIN MAINTENANCE has been advocated as a form of treatment for opioid dependence that would attract, and retain in treatment, addicts who have either not sought treatment or who have failed at other forms of treatment, including methadone maintenance. Advocates of heroin maintenance argue that it would increase the proportion of addicts in treatment and reduce heroin use, drug related crime, and deaths due to overdose.