Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance therapy: a randomized double-blind trial with 405 opioid-dependent patients. A placebo controlled clinical trial of buprenorphine as a treatment for opioid dependence. A comparison of levomethadyl acetate, buprenorphine, and methadone for opioid dependence. Buprenorphine versus methadone in the treatment of opioid-dependent cocaine users. Comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence. Methadone versus buprenorphine maintenance for the treatment of heroin-dependent outpatients. Controlled, randomized trial in maintenance treatment of intravenous buprenorphine dependence with naltrexone, methadone or buprenorphine: a novel study. A placebo-controlled study of high dose buprenorphine in opiate dependents waiting for medication-assisted rehabilitation in Oslo, Norway. Buprenorphine maintenance treatment of opiate dependence: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. A controlled trial comparing buprenorphine and methadone maintenance in opioid dependence. Desipramine in opioid-dependent cocaine abusers maintained on buprenorphine vs methadone. Randomized clinical trial to compare the effects of methadone and buprenorphine on the immune system in drug abusers. Buprenorphine vs methadone maintenance treatment for concurrent opioid dependence and cocaine abuse. A controlled trial of buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence. Implementing buprenorphine treatment in community settings in Australia: experiences from the Buprenorphine Implementation Trial. Buprenorphine: a controlled clinical trial in the treatment of opioid dependence. Office-based treatment of opiate addiction with a sublingual-tablet formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone. 1-year retention and social function after buprenorphine-assisted relapse prevention treatment for heroin dependence in Sweden: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Methadone versus buprenorphine with contingency management or performance feedback for cocaine and opioid dependence. Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance for the treatment of opioid dependence. Double-blind randomized trial of buprenorphine and methadone in opiate dependence. A controlled trial of buprenorphine treatment for opium dependence: the first experience from Iran. Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Twelve-month maintenance treatment of opium-dependent patients.
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.
                Patients were randomized to receive buprenorphine or methadone over a 13-week treatment period in a double-blind, double-dummy trial.
                Three methadone clinics in Australia.
                Four hundred and five opioid-dependent patients seeking treatment.
                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.
                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.
                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 chi 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 self-reported heroin or other illicit drug use. The majority (85%) of the buprenorphine patients transferred to alternate-day dosing were maintained in alternate-day dosing.
                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. Large-scale placebo controlled clinical trials assessing the efficacy of medications for the treatment of drug dependence have generally been limited to alcohol, cocaine and nicotine dependent populations. The purpose of the present study was to assess the early (1-2 week) clinical effectiveness of buprenorphine versus placebo in an opioid dependent population. The study used a parallel-group design with a behavioral choice component to compare buprenorphine (a mu-opioid partial agonist) to placebo for the treatment of opioid dependence. Opioid dependent volunteer patients participated in a 14-day study to assess the effectiveness and patient acceptance of this new pharmacotherapy for the treatment of opioid dependence. Patients were randomly assigned to placebo (n = 60) or 2 mg (n = 60) or 8 mg (n = 30) daily sublingual buprenorphine. All doses were administered double-blind. On days 6-13 all patients could request a dose change, knowing that their new dose would be randomly chosen from the remaining 2 alternatives. Compared to placebo, patients given buprenorphine (independent of dose) showed greater time on initial dose, requested fewer dose changes, used less illicit opioids (assessed by urinalysis), and rated dose adequacy higher. These results demonstrate that a placebo controlled study with a behavioral choice component is an effective means of assessing the potential efficacy and acceptability of new pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence. Opioid dependence is a chronic, relapsing disorder with important public health implications.
                In a 17-week randomized study of 220 patients, we compared levomethadyl acetate (75 to 115 mg), buprenorphine (16 to 32 mg), and high-dose (60 to 100 mg) and low-dose (20 mg) methadone as treatments for opioid dependence. Levomethadyl acetate and buprenorphine were administered three times a week. Methadone was administered daily. Doses were individualized except in the group assigned to low-dose methadone. Patients with poor responses to treatment were switched to methadone.
                There were 55 patients in each group; 51 percent completed the trial. The mean (+/-SE) number of days that a patient remained in the study was significantly higher for those receiving levomethadyl acetate (89+/-6), buprenorphine (96+/-4), and high-dose methadone (105+/-4) than for those receiving low-dose methadone (70+/-4, P<0.001). Continued participation was also significantly more frequent among patients receiving high-dose methadone than among those receiving levomethadyl acetate (P=0.02). The percentage of patients with 12 or more consecutive opioid-negative urine specimens was 36 percent in the levomethadyl acetate group, 26 percent in the buprenorphine group, 28 percent in the high-dose methadone group, and 8 percent in the low-dose methadone group (P=0.005). At the time of their last report, patients reported on a scale of 0 to 100 that their drug problem had a mean severity of 35 with levomethadyl acetate, 34 with buprenorphine, 38 with high-dose methadone, and 53 with low-dose methadone (P=0.002).
                As compared with low-dose methadone, levomethadyl acetate, buprenorphine, and high-dose methadone substantially reduce the use of illicit opioids. This study compared the efficacy of buprenorphine to methadone for decreasing cocaine use in patients with combined opioid and cocaine use. Participants (n = 51) were enrolled in a 26-week treatment program and randomly assigned to either buprenorphine or methadone. Dosing was double-blind and double-dummy. Patients were stabilized on either 8 mg sublingual buprenorphine or 50 mg oral methadone, with dose increases given in response to continued illicit cocaine use or opioid use through week 16 of treatment. Maximum doses possible were 16 mg buprenorphine and 90 mg methadone. Average doses achieved were 11.2 mg buprenorphine and 66.6 mg methadone; 49% of the patients received the maximum doses possible. Urine samples were collected three times per week, and there was no significant difference in the rate of cocaine positive urines for the intent-to-treat sample (69% for buprenorphine versus 63% for methadone). For patients who remained in treatment through the flexible dosing period (n = 28), there were significant decreases in cocaine positive urines over time (P < 0.01), but no significant differences between groups or group x time effects. Buprenorphine and methadone were equally effective on measures of treatment retention, urine results for opioids, and compliance with attendance and counseling. These results demonstrate no selective efficacy of either buprenorphine or methadone in attenuating cocaine use in this population, but do provide further support for the equivalent efficacy of buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence. This study compared the efficacy of buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence.
                Participants (N = 164) were relatively treatment-naive, opioid-dependent applicants to a 26-week treatment program who were randomly assigned to either methadone or buprenorphine treatment. Dosing was double-blind and double-dummy. Patients were stabilized on a regimen of either methadone, 50 mg, or buprenorphine, 8 mg, with dose changes possible through week 16 of treatment. Urine samples were collected three times a week, and weekly counseling was provided.
                Buprenorphine (mean dose = 8.9 mg/day) and methadone (mean dose = 54 mg/day) were equally effective in sustaining retention in treatment, compliance with medication, and counseling regimens. In both groups, 56% of patients remained in treatment through the 16-week flexible dosing period. Overall opioid-positive urine sample rates were 55% and 47% for buprenorphine and methadone groups, respectively; cocaine-positive urine sample rates were 70% and 58%. Evidence was obtained for the effectiveness of dose increases in suppressing opioid, but not cocaine, use among those who received dose increases.
                The results of this study provide further support for the utility of buprenorphine as a new medication in the treatment of opioid dependence and demonstrate efficacy equivalent to that of methadone when used during a clinically guided flexible dosing procedure. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of methadone compared with buprenorphine maintenance therapy in heroin-dependent patients over a treatment period of 18 weeks. Subjects were randomized to receive either methadone or buprenorphine in a comparative double-blind study and consisted of 164 heroin-dependent male patients who met the DSM-IV criteria for heroin dependence and were seeking treatment. The 164 subjects included 41 patients in 1-mg, 41 patients in 3-mg, and 41 patients in 8-mg dosage group of buprenorphine, and also 41 patients in the 30-mg dosage group of methadone. The mean age was 31.4 years for total buprenorphine group and 33.7 years for methadone group (the mean age differences in 4 groups were not statistically significant). Subjects received buprenorphine at a dose of 1, 3, or 8 mg per day or methadone at a dose of 30 mg per day and were treated in an urban outpatient clinic, offering a 1-hour weekly individual counseling session. Days retained in treatment were measured. Completion rates by buprenorphine dosage group were 29.3% for the 1-mg dose group, 46.3% for the 3-mg dose group, 68.3% for the 8-mg dose group, and 61% for the 30-mg methadone dose group. Retention in the 8-mg dose group was significantly better than in the 1-mg dose group (p=.00041) and in the 3-mg dose group (p=.045); other comparison (1 mg dose with 3 mg dose) was not significant. Methadone group was significantly better than 1mg buprenorphine dose group (p=.004), but was not significantly different from 3 mg buprenorphine dose group (p=.18) or 8 mg buprenorphine dose group (p=.49). The results support the efficacy of buprenorphine for outpatient treatment of heroin dependence and seem to indicate that the highest dose (8 mg) of buprenorphine was the best of the three doses of buprenorphine, and also support the superiority of 30 mg of methadone compared to 1 mg dose of buprenorphine for Iranian heroin-dependent patients to increase their retention in treatment. To test the effect of a 50-mg day-1 dose of naltrexone in the maintenance treatment of intravenous-buprenorphine dependence in comparison with a 50-mg day-1 dose of methadone and also a 5-mg day-1 dose of buprenorphine over a 24-week treatment period.
                Two hundred and four intravenous-buprenorphine-dependent patients who met the DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence were randomized to three equal groups and were treated in a clinic in Iran where they were also offered a weekly 0.5-h counselling session, in 2002.
                The mean age was 31.2 years (range 17-53). The majority [63.2%] was between 20 and 34 years of age. The educational level of most of them [55.4%] was between 6 and 12 years of study. Completion rates by groups were 83.8% for the 50-mg dose methadone group, 58.8% for the 5-mg dose buprenorphine group and 20.6% for the 50-mg dose naltrexone group (P = 0.000). Retention in the 50-mg methadone group was significantly better than in the 5-mg dose buprenorphine group (P = 0.001) and the 50-mg dose naltrexone group (P = 0.000). Retention in the 5-mg buprenorphine group was significantly better than in the 50-mg naltrexone dose group (P = 0.000).
                Evaluation of the Iranian experience on this subject may be useful for other countries. To evaluate whether buprenorphine. even without additional control and psychosocial treatment and support, alleviates the problems faced by patients waiting for medication assisted rehabilitation (MAR).
                A randomized, double-blind, 12-week study of Subutex versus placebo without additional support as an interim therapy.
                One hundred and six patients, 70 males and 36 females, waiting for MAR in Oslo. The average age was 38 years with an average history of heroin use of 20 years. Fifty-five patients were assigned to buprenorphine and 51 to a placebo.
                Subutex or placebo sublingual tablets were given under supervision in a daily dose of 16 mg with the exception of a double dose on Saturday and no dose on Sunday.
                Retention, compliance, self-reported drug-abuse, wellbeing and mental health.
                The average number of days of participation was significantly higher in the buprenorphine group, 42 (median: 29) compared to 14 (median: 11) for the placebo group (P < 0.001). The retention of patients after 12 weeks was 16 patients in the buprenorphine group and one patient in the placebo group. The buprenorphine group had a larger decrease in reported opioid use (p < 0.001) and in reported use of other drugs, tablets and alcohol abuse (p < 0.01). The group also showed a stronger increase in wellbeing (p < 0.01) and life satisfaction (p < 0.05). None of the participants died.
                The patients waiting for MAR benefited significantly from the buprenorphine as an interim therapy according to retention, self-reported use of drugs and wellbeing. However, the patients had difficulties in remaining in treatment over time without psychosocial support. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an 8 mg/day sublingual dose of buprenorphine in the maintenance treatment of heroin addicts by comparison with a 1 mg/day dose over a 16-week treatment period. As a secondary objective, outcomes were determined concurrently for patients treated with two other dose levels.
                Patients were randomized to four dosage groups and treated double-blind.
                Twelve outpatient opiate maintenance treatment centers throughout the United States.
                Two hundred and thirty-nine women and 497 men who met the DSM-III-R criteria for opioid dependence and were seeking treatment.
                Patients received either 1, 4, 8 or 16 mg/day of buprenorphine and were treated in the usual clinical context, including a 1-hour weekly clinical counseling session.
                Retention in treatment, illicit opioid use as determined by urine toxicology, opioid craving and global ratings by patient and staff. Safety outcome measures were provided by clinical monitoring and by analysis of the reported adverse events.
                Outcomes in the 8 mg group were significantly better than in the 1 mg group in all four efficacy domains. No deaths occurred in either group. The 8 mg group did not show an increase in the frequency of adverse events. Most reported adverse effects were those commonly seen in patients treated with opioids.
                The findings support the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine and suggest that an adequate dose of buprenorphine will be a useful addition to pharmacotherapy. Buprenorphine is a partial agonist at the mu-opioid receptor that has been proposed as an alternative to traditional full agonist maintenance therapy for the treatment of opioid addiction. We report on a clinical trial in which the relative safety and efficacy of long-term fixed-dose buprenorphine maintenance was examined in comparison to low- and high-dose methadone maintenance.
                Two hundred twenty-five treatment-seeking opioid addicts (46 women, 179 men) were randomly assigned to receive, in a double-blind manner, either 8 mg/d of buprenorphine, 30 mg/d of methadone, or 80 mg/d of methadone maintenance over a 1-year period. Objective and subjective measures of efficacy (urine toxicology, retention, craving, and withdrawal symptoms) were examined at the study midpoint and at termination, and safety data were tabulated over the entire 52-week study period.
                Patients assigned to high-dose methadone maintenance performed significantly better on measures of retention, opioid use, and opioid craving than either the low-dose methadone or the buprenorphine group at both 26-week and 52-week time points. Performance on these measures was virtually identical between the latter two groups. No serious adverse health effects attributable to buprenorphine were noted.
                Buprenorphine maintenance at 8 mg/d appears to be less than optimally efficacious under the conditions of the present study. Continued research is needed to reconcile these findings with the more positive results reported by other investigative groups. There are no apparent health risks associated with long-term buprenorphine maintenance at this dosage. Cocaine abuse occurs in 40% to 60% of patients entering opioid maintenance treatment, and effective pharmacotherapies are needed for this combined dependence.
                This 13-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of desipramine hydrochloride (0 or 150 mg/d) plus buprenorphine hydrochloride (12 mg/d) or methadone hydrochloride (65 mg/d) in 180 opioid-dependent cocaine abusers (124 men, 56 women). Supervised urine samples were obtained thrice weekly, and self-reported cocaine and heroin use was reported once weekly. Desipramine plasma levels were determined at weeks 4 and 10.
                In men, opioid abstinence was increased more rapidly over time when treated with methadone than with buprenorphine, whereas cocaine abstinence was increased more with buprenorphine than with methadone. In women, opioid abstinence was increased the least rapidly when treated with buprenorphine plus placebo, while cocaine abstinence was increased more rapidly over time when treated with methadone than with buprenorphine. Regardless of sex or opioid medication, desipramine increased opioid and cocaine abstinence more rapidly over time than placebo. Self-reported opioid use confirmed these findings. Desipramine plasma levels were higher in women than in men, particularly those on buprenorphine maintenance. Higher desipramine plasma levels were associated with greater opioid, but not cocaine, abstinence.
                Desipramine may be a useful adjunctive medication in facilitating opioid and cocaine abstinence in opioid-maintained patients. The efficacy of opioid medications to treat opioid or cocaine dependence may differ by sex. These findings highlight the importance of including sex as a factor when examining treatment outcome in these types of trials. Buprenorphine may be a useful alternative option to methadone in addicts. Opioids can produce severe changes in the immune system.
                The objectives of this study are to compare the effect of sublingual buprenorphine and methadone on the immune system and to compare the two substances on the drying-out program compliance.
                We studied 62 randomized outpatients for a period of 12 months. Subjects (55 males and 7 females; mean age 25+/-4 years; average history of heroin abuse being 2 years) on maintenance treatment were assigned in two groups (A and B). Methadone chloride (medium dose 100 mg/day) was administered to group A, whereas group B received sublingual buprenorphine (32.40+/-2.8 mg/day). Urine toxicological screening, plasma levels of TNF-alpha interleukin-1, interleukin-beta, lymphocyte CD14 and a self-rating depression questionnaire were measured.
                Urine screening was negative for opiates in 17.6% of group A and in 10.7% of group B (p<0.001; r = 0.62). Depression score was 62+/-2 in group A and 55+/-3 in group B (p < 0.01). Cytokine and CD14 revealed higher concentrations both in groups A and B without significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two groups.
                The effects of buprenorphine and methadone tested on the immune system were overlapping in our patients. The elevated cytokine levels observed may suggest that the two drugs stimulate immunologic hyperactivation of an immune system that was formerly inhibited by heroin. Furthermore, our data suggest that buprenorphine can be a valid alternative to methadone in maintenance treatment of chronic heroin abuse and referred a marked decline in depression. Buprenorphine, a partial mu-agonist and kappa-antagonist, has been proposed as an alternative to methadone for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence, especially for patients with concurrent cocaine dependence or abuse. This study evaluated whether higher maintenance doses of buprenorphine and methadone are superior to lower doses for reducing illicit opioid use and whether buprenorphine is superior to methadone for reducing cocaine use.
                A total of 116 subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 maintenance treatment groups involving higher or lower daily doses of sublingual buprenorphine (12 or 4 mg) or methadone (65 or 20 mg) in a double-blind, 24-week clinical trial. Outcome measures included retention in treatment and illicit opioid and cocaine use as determined by urine toxicology testing and self-report.
                There were significant effects of maintenance treatment on rates of illicit opioid use, but no significant differences in treatment retention or the rates of cocaine use. The rates of opioid-positive toxicology tests were lowest for treatment with 65 mg of methadone (45%), followed by 12 mg of buprenorphine (58%), 20 mg of methadone (72%), and 4 mg of buprenorphine (77%), with significant contrasts found between 65 mg of methadone and both lower-dose treatments and between 12 mg of buprenorphine and both lower-dose treatments.
                The results support the superiority of higher daily buprenorphine and methadone maintenance doses vs lower doses for reducing illicit opioid use, but the results do not support the superiority of buprenorphine compared with methadone for reducing cocaine use. To assess the efficacy of buprenorphine for short-term maintenance/detoxification.
                A randomized, double-blind, parallel group study comparing buprenorphine, 8 mg/d, methadone, 60 mg/d, and methadone, 20 mg/d, in a 17-week maintenance phase followed by an 8-week detoxification phase.
                Outpatient facilities at the Addiction Research Center, Baltimore, Md.
                One hundred sixty-two volunteers seeking treatment for opioid dependence.
                In addition to the medication, counseling using a relapse prevention model was offered but not required.
                Retention time in treatment, urine samples negative for opioids, and failure to maintain abstinence.
                Throughout the maintenance phase, retention rates were significantly greater for buprenorphine (42%) than for methadone, 20 mg/d (20%, P less than .04); the percentage of urine samples negative for opioids was significantly greater for buprenorphine (53%, P less than .001) and methadone, 60 mg/d (44%, P less than .04), than for methadone, 20 mg/d (29%). Failure to maintain abstinence during the maintenance phase was significantly greater for methadone, 20 mg/d, than for buprenorphine (P less than .03). During the detoxification phase, no differences were observed between groups with respect to urine samples negative for opioids. For the entire 25 weeks, retention rates for buprenorphine (30%, P less than .01) and methadone, 60 mg/d (20%, P less than .05), were significantly greater than for methadone, 20 mg/d (6%). All treatments were well tolerated, with similar profiles of self-reported adverse effects. The percentages of patients who received counseling did not differ between groups.
                Buprenorphine was as effective as methadone, 60 mg/d, and both were superior to methadone, 20 mg/d, in reducing illicit opioid use and maintaining patients in treatment for 25 weeks. Buprenorphine was registered in Australia as a maintenance and detoxification agent for the management of opioid dependence in November, 2000, and became widely available in August, 2001. This paper provides an overview of key developments in the introduction of buprenorphine treatment in Australia, with an emphasis upon the delivery of services in community-based (primary care) settings. A central study in this work was the Buprenorphine Implementation Trial (BIT), a randomized, controlled trial comparing buprenorphine and methadone maintenance treatment delivered under naturalistic conditions by specialist and community-based service providers (general practitioners and community pharmacists) in 139 subjects across nineteen treatment sites. In addition to conventional patient outcome measures (treatment retention, drug use, psychosocial functioning, and cost effectiveness), the BIT study also involved the development and evaluation of clinical guidelines, training programs for clinicians, and client literature, which are described here. Integration of treatment systems (methadone with buprenorphine, specialist and primary-care programs) and factors thought to be important in the uptake of buprenorphine treatment in Australia since registration are discussed. Clinical trials carried out to compare methadone and buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid dependence have generally employed an alcoholic solution of buprenorphine, which has a bioavailability superior to that of the tablets. Since the product available for large scale use is in tablet form, one intended to verify the efficacy of this formulation. In a multicentre randomised controlled double blind study, 72 opioid dependent patients were assigned to treatment with buprenorphine (8 mg/day) or methadone (60 mg/day) for a period of 6 months. The two compounds did not show any significant difference with regard to urinalyses: the average percentage of analyses proving negative was 60.4% for patients assigned to buprenorphine, and 65.5% for those assigned to methadone. With regard to retention, a non-significant trend in favour of methadone was observed. Patients completing the trial improved significantly in terms of psychosocial adjustment and global functioning, as ascertained by the DSM-IV-GAF and symptom checklist-90 (SCL-90) scales, and this was independent of the treatment group. Finally, in the case of buprenorphine, patients who dropped out differed significantly from those who stayed, in terms of a higher level of psychopathological symptoms, and a lower level of psychosocial functioning. The results of the study further support the utility of buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid dependence. Office-based treatment of opiate addiction with a sublingual-tablet formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone has been proposed, but its efficacy and safety have not been well studied.
                We conducted a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 326 opiate-addicted persons who were assigned to office-based treatment with sublingual tablets consisting of buprenorphine (16 mg) in combination with naloxone (4 mg), buprenorphine alone (16 mg), or placebo given daily for four weeks. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of urine samples negative for opiates and the subjects' self-reported craving for opiates. Safety data were obtained on 461 opiate-addicted persons who participated in an open-label study of buprenorphine and naloxone (at daily doses of up to 24 mg and 6 mg, respectively) and another 11 persons who received this combination only during the trial.
                The double-blind trial was terminated early because buprenorphine and naloxone in combination and buprenorphine alone were found to have greater efficacy than placebo. The proportion of urine samples that were negative for opiates was greater in the combined-treatment and buprenorphine groups (17.8 percent and 20.7 percent, respectively) than in the placebo group (5.8 percent, P<0.001 for both comparisons); the active-treatment groups also reported less opiate craving (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). Rates of adverse events were similar in the active-treatment and placebo groups. During the open-label phase, the percentage of urine samples negative for opiates ranged from 35.2 percent to 67.4 percent. Results from the open-label follow-up study indicated that the combined treatment was safe and well tolerated.
                Buprenorphine and naloxone in combination and buprenorphine alone are safe and reduce the use of opiates and the craving for opiates among opiate-addicted persons who receive these medications in an office-based setting.
                Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society The partial opiate-receptor agonist buprenorphine has been suggested for treatment of heroin dependence, but there are few long-term and placebo-controlled studies of its effectiveness. We aimed to assess the 1-year efficacy of buprenorphine in combination with intensive psychosocial therapy for treatment of heroin dependence.
                40 individuals aged older than 20 years, who met DSM-IV criteria for opiate dependence for at least 1 year, but did not fulfil Swedish legal criteria for methadone maintenance treatment were randomly allocated either to daily buprenorphine (fixed dose 16 mg sublingually for 12 months; supervised daily administration for a least 6 months, possible take-home doses thereafter) or a tapered 6 day regimen of buprenorphine, thereafter followed by placebo. All patients participated in cognitive-behavioural group therapy to prevent relapse, received weekly individual counselling sessions, and submitted thrice weekly supervised urine samples for analysis to detect illicit drug use. Our primary endpoint was 1-year retention in treatment and analysis was by intention to treat.
                1-year retention in treatment was 75% and 0% in the buprenorphine and placebo groups, respectively (p=0.0001; risk ratio 58.7 [95% CI 7.4-467.4]). Urine screens were about 75% negative for illicit opiates, central stimulants, cannabinoids, and benzodiazepines in the patients remaining in treatment.
                The combination of buprenorphine and intensive psychosocial treatment is safe and highly efficacious, and should be added to the treatment options available for individuals who are dependent on heroin. Physicians may prescribe buprenorphine for opioid agonist maintenance treatment outside of narcotic treatment programs, but treatment guidelines for patients with co-occurring cocaine and opioid dependence are not available. This study compares effects of buprenorphine and methadone and evaluates the efficacy of combining contingency management with maintenance treatment for patients with co-occurring cocaine and opioid dependence.
                Subjects with cocaine and opioid dependence (N=162) were provided manual-guided counseling and randomly assigned in a double-blind design to receive daily sublingual buprenorphine (12-16 mg) or methadone (65-85 mg p.o.) and to contingency management or performance feedback. Contingency management subjects received monetary vouchers for opioid- and cocaine-negative urine tests, which were conducted three times a week; voucher value escalated during the first 12 weeks for consecutive drug-free tests and was reduced to a nominal value in weeks 13-24. Performance feedback subjects received slips of paper indicating the urine test results. The primary outcome measures were the maximum number of consecutive weeks abstinent from illicit opioids and cocaine and the proportion of drug-free tests. Analytic models included two-by-two analysis of variance and mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of variance.
                Methadone-treated subjects remained in treatment significantly longer and achieved significantly longer periods of sustained abstinence and a greater proportion drug-free tests, compared with subjects who received buprenorphine. Subjects receiving contingency management achieved significantly longer periods of abstinence and a greater proportion drug-free tests during the period of escalating voucher value, compared with those who received performance feedback, but there were no significant differences between groups in these variables during the entire 24-week study.
                Methadone may be superior to buprenorphine for maintenance treatment of patients with co-occurring cocaine and opioid dependence. Combining methadone or buprenorphine with contingency management may improve treatment outcome. To evaluate the effectiveness of buprenorphine compared with methadone maintenance therapy in opiate addicts over a treatment period of 24 weeks.
                Subjects were randomized to receive either buprenorphine or methadone in an open, comparative study.
                Subjects were recruited and treated at the drug addiction outpatient clinic at the University of Vienna.
                Sixty subjects (19 females and 41 males) who met DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence and were seeking treatment.
                Subjects received either sublingual buprenorphine (2-mg or 8-mg tablets; maximum daily dose 8 mg) or oral methadone (racemic D -/+ L-methadone; maximum daily dose 80 mg). A stable dose was maintained following the 6-day induction phase.
                Assessment of treatment retention and illicit substance use (opiates, cocaine and benzodiazepines) was made by urinalysis.
                The retention rate was significantly better in the methadone maintained group (p < 0.05) but subjects completing the study in the buprenorphine group had significantly lower rates of illicit opiate consumption (p = 0.04).
                The results support the superiority of methadone with respect to retention rate. However, they also confirm previous reports of buprenorphine use as an alternative in maintenance therapy for opiate addiction, suggesting that a specific subgroup may be benefiting from buprenorphine. This is the first comparative trial to use sublingual buprenorphine tablets: previously published comparison studies refer to 30% solutions of buprenorphine in alcohol. This study compared the safety and efficacy of sublingual buprenorphine tablets with oral methadone in a population of opioid-dependent individuals in a double-blind, randomized, 6-week trial using a flexible dosing procedure. Fifty-eight patients seeking treatment for opioid dependence were recruited in three outpatient facilities and randomly assigned to substitution with buprenorphine or methadone. The retention rate was significantly better in the methadone maintained group (90 vs. 56%; P<0.001). Subjects completing the study in both the treatment groups had similar proportions of opioid positive urine samples (buprenorphine 62%; methadone 59%) and positive urine specimens, as well as mean heroin craving scores decreased significantly over time (P=0.035 and P<0.001). The proportion of cocaine-positive toxicology results did not differ between groups. At week six mean stabilization doses were 10.5 mg per day for the sublingual buprenorphine tablet, and 69.8 mg per day for methadone, respectively. Patient performance during maintenance was similar in both the groups. The high attrition rate in the buprenorphine group during the induction phase might reflect inadequate induction doses. Thus, buprenorphine is a viable alternative for methadone in short-term maintenance treatment for heroin dependence if treatment induction is done with adequate dosages. To evaluate the effect of a 4 mg/day sublingual dose of buprenorphine in the maintenance treatment of opium dependence in comparison with a 1 mg/day dose over an 18-week treatment period. As a secondary objective, the results were determined concurrently for subjects treated with a 2 mg/day dose.
                Subjects were assigned randomly to three dosage groups.
                330 consecutive (320 men and 10 women) opium addicts who met the DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence and were seeking treatment.
                Subjects received a 1, 2 or 4 mg/day dose of buprenorphine and were treated in an outpatient clinic where they also received a weekly 1-hour clinical counseling session.
                Addiction Severity Index, retention in treatment, and illegal opioid use as determined by random urine testing.
                The mean age was 37.5 years (SD=11.4, range 19-72). Overall, 194 (58.8%) of the patients completed the 18 week study. Completion rates by dosage groups were 47.3% for the 1 mg group, 58.2% for the 2 mg group and 70.9% for the 4 mg group (chi(2)=12.7, df=2, P=0.0017).
                The results support the efficacy and safety of buprenorphine for opium addiction and suggest that an adequate dose of buprenorphine would help to increase the success rate. Buprenorphine at 2 mg and 6 mg daily was compared with methadone at 35 mg and 65 mg during 24 weeks of maintenance among 125 opioid-dependent patients. As hypothesized, 6 mg of buprenorphine were superior to 2 mg of buprenorphine in reducing illicit opioid use, but higher dosage did not improve treatment retention. Self-reported illicit opioid use declined substantially in all groups, but by the third month, significantly more heroin abuse was reported at 2 mg than at 6 mg of buprenorphine or of methadone. From an initial average of $1860/month, month 3 usage dropped to $41 (methadone 65 mg), $73 (methadone 35 mg), $118 (buprenorphine 6 mg), and $351/month (buprenorphine 2 mg). Days of use also dropped from 29 days to 1.7 (methadone 65 mg), 2.8 (methadone 35 mg), 4.0 (buprenorphine 6 mg), and 6.6 days/month (buprenorphine 2 mg). This relatively low efficacy for 2 mg of buprenorphine persisted through month 6 of the trial, with 7.2 days/month and $235/month of use for buprenorphine at 2 mg versus 1.9 days/month and $65/month for the other three groups. Increased opioid abuse also was associated with significantly greater and persistent opioid withdrawal symptoms. Our secondary hypothesis, that buprenorphine would be equivalent to methadone in efficacy, was not supported. Treatment retention was significantly better on methadone (20 vs. 16 weeks), and methadone patients had significantly more opioid-free urines (51% vs. 26%). Abstinence for at least 3 weeks was also more common on methadone than buprenorphine (65% vs. 27%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) The goal of this study was to compare the effects of 1, 3 and 8 mg per day doses of buprenorphine in the maintenance treatment of opium-dependent subjects in Iran over a treatment period of 12 months. Participants were randomized to three equal groups (171 subjects per group) of opium-dependent individuals who met the DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence and were seeking treatment. They were treated in an urban outpatient clinic, offering a 1-hour weekly individual counseling session. Overall, 282 subjects (55%) completed the 12 months study. Completion rates by dosage group were 46 (26.9%) for the 1 mg dose group, 102 (59.6%) for the 3 mg dose group, and 134 (78.4%) for the 8 mg dose group (p =.000). These findings are consistent with previous reports of effective buprenorphine use in western countries as a suitable maintenance treatment for opium dependence.
Buprenorphine is an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, but it is less effective than methadone delivererd at adequate dosages.