Examining the benefit of a higher maintenance dose of extended-release buprenorphine in opioid-injecting participants treated for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: BUP-XR (SUBLOCADE®) is the first buprenorphine extended-release subcutaneous injection approved in the USA for monthly treatment of moderate-to-severe opioid use disorder (OUD). Among patients with OUD, those who inject or use high doses of opioids likely require higher doses of buprenorphine to maximize treatment efficacy. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of 100-mg versus 300-mg maintenance doses of BUP-XR in OUD patients who inject opioids. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which adults with moderate or severe OUD received monthly injections of BUP-XR (2 × 300-mg doses, then 4 × 100-mg or 300-mg maintenance doses) or placebo for 24 weeks. Abstinence was defined as opioid-negative urine drug screens combined with negative self-reports collected weekly. Each participant's percentage abstinence was calculated after the first, second, and third maintenance doses in opioid-injecting and non-injecting participants. The proportion of participants achieving opioid abstinence in each group was also calculated weekly. Treatment retention rate following the first maintenance dose was estimated for opioid-injecting participants with Kaplan-Meier method. Risk-adjusted comparisons were made via inverse propensity weighting using propensity scores. Buprenorphine plasma concentration-time profiles were compared between injecting and non-injecting participants. The percentages of participants reporting treatment-emergent adverse events were compared between maintenance dose groups within injecting and non-injecting participants separately. RESULTS: BUP-XR 100-mg and 300-mg maintenance doses were equally effective in non-injecting participants. However, in opioid-injecting participants, the 300-mg maintenance dose delivered clinically meaningful improvements over the 100-mg maintenance dose for treatment retention and opioid abstinence. Exposure-response analyses confirmed that injecting participants would require higher buprenorphine plasma concentrations compared to non-injecting opioid participants to achieve similar efficacy in terms of opioid abstinence. Importantly, both 100- and 300-mg maintenance doses had comparable safety profiles, including hepatic safety events. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses show clear benefits of the 300-mg maintenance dose in injecting participants, while no additional benefit was observed in non-injecting participants relative to the 100-mg maintenance dose. This is an important finding as opioid-injecting participants represent a high-risk and difficult-to-treat population. Optimal buprenorphine dosing in this population might facilitate harm reduction by improving abstinence and treatment retention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02357901.

Treating Opioid Use Disorder With a Monthly Subcutaneous Buprenorphine Depot Injection: 12-Month Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy Analysis.

BACKGROUND: BUP-XR (RBP-6000 or SUBLOCADE) is the first Food and Drug Administration-approved subcutaneously administered monthly extended-release buprenorphine medication for the treatment of moderate or severe opioid use disorder. The primary objective of this phase III study was to assess the long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of BUP-XR. METHODS: This open-label multicenter study in adults with moderate or severe opioid use disorder enrolled 257 participants from a previously conducted placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III study (rollover group) and 412 de novo participants not previously treated with BUP-XR. Participants received an initial injection of BUP-XR 300 mg and subsequent monthly 300 mg or 100 mg flexible doses. By study end, participants received up to 12 injections. RESULTS: Overall, 66.8% of participants reported more than 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Injection-site TEAEs (13.2% of participants) were mostly mild or moderate in severity. There were no clinically meaningful changes in safety assessments. An integrated analysis of the double-blind and open-label study participants showed that the incidence of TEAEs, including injection-site TEAEs, was lower in the second 6 months of treatment versus the first 6 months. After 12 months of treatment, 61.5% of the rollover participants and 75.8% of the de novo participants were abstinent. Retention rates after 12 months were 50.6% for the participants who initiated BUP-XR in the double-blind study and 50.5% for de novo participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the clinical benefits and acceptable safety profile of BUP-XR demonstrated in the 6-month double-blind study are sustained over a 12-month open-label study, with lower incidence of TEAEs in the second 6 months of treatment.

Efficacy and safety of a monthly buprenorphine depot injection for opioid use disorder: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: RBP-6000, referred to as BUP-XR (extended-release buprenorphine), is a subcutaneously injected, monthly buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. BUP-XR provides sustained buprenorphine plasma concentrations to block drug-liking of abused opioids over the entire monthly dosing period, while controlling withdrawal and craving symptoms. Administration of BUP-XR in a health-care setting also mitigates abuse, misuse, diversion, and unintentional exposure. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of different BUP-XR dosing regimens in participants with opioid use disorder. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 36 treatment centres in the USA. Treatment-seeking adults aged 18-65 years who had moderate or severe opioid use disorder (as defined by the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) entered an open-label run-in phase of up to 2 weeks' treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual film. Eligible participants were then randomly assigned (4:4:1:1) with an interactive voice/web-response system to receive BUP-XR 300 mg/300 mg (six injections of 300 mg), BUP-XR 300 mg/100 mg (two injections of 300 mg plus four injections of 100 mg), or volume-matched placebo every 28 days, and received weekly individual drug counselling. No supplemental buprenorphine was allowed. The primary efficacy endpoint was participants' percentage abstinence from opioid use, defined as the percentage of each participant's negative urine samples and self-reports of illicit opioid use from week 5 to week 24, analysed in the full analysis set. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of BUP-XR or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02357901. FINDINGS: From Jan 28, 2015, to Nov 12, 2015, 1187 potential participants were screened, 665 entered run-in, and 504 received BUP-XR 300 mg/300 mg (n=201), BUP-XR 300 mg/100 mg (n=203), or placebo (n=100). Mean participants' percentage abstinence was 41·3% (SD 39·7) for BUP-XR 300 mg/300 mg and 42·7% (38·5) for 300 mg/100 mg, compared with 5·0% (17·0) for placebo (p<0·0001 for both BUP-XR regimens). No compensatory non-opioid drug use was observed during BUP-XR treatment. The most common adverse events were headache (17 [8%] participants in the BUP-XR 300 mg/300 mg group vs 19 [9%] participants in the BUP-XR 300 mg/100 mg group vs six [6%] participants in the placebo group), constipation (16 [8%] vs 19 [9%] vs 0), nausea (16 [8%] vs 18 [9%] vs five [5%]), and injection-site pruritis (19 [9%] vs 13 [6%] vs four [4%]). The BUP-XR safety profile was consistent with other buprenorphine products for treatment of opioid use disorder, except for injection-site reactions, which were reported in more than 5% of all participants who received BUP-XR, but were mostly mild and not treatment-limiting. INTERPRETATION: Participants' percentage abstinence was significantly higher in both BUP-XR groups than in the placebo group. Treatment with BUP-XR was also well tolerated. The availability of this monthly formulation, delivered by health-care providers, represents an advance in treatment for opioid use disorder that enhances the benefits of buprenorphine by delivering sustained, optimal exposure, while reducing risks of current buprenorphine products. FUNDING: Indivior.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effect of sustained-release bupropion on blood pressure in individuals with mild untreated hypertension.

The effects of bupropion on blood pressure and heart rate were evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of community volunteers with untreated mild (stage 1) hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP], 140-159 mm Hg, and/or diastolic blood pressure, 90-99 mm Hg). Three hundred subjects were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to 4 weeks of placebo or bupropion sustained release (SR) 150, 300, or 400 mg/d. Mean clinical blood pressures decreased from baseline to the end of protocol in all groups (n = 296): -6.53, -6.46, -4.20, -4.87 mm Hg for SBP; and -2.36, -2.27, -1.95, -1.55 mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure, for each group, respectively. Although decreases in mean clinical blood pressure were observed in all groups, the reduction in SBP was less on bupropion SR 300 mg/d than on placebo (-4.20 vs -6.53 mm Hg, respectively; Delta = 2.33, P = 0.020). Neither mean 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements nor the proportion of subjects with clinically significant increases in blood pressure differed between any bupropion SR dose and placebo. Mean heart rate increases were small but statistically significant at 400 mg/d versus placebo (2.28 vs -0.64 beats/min; Delta = 2.92, P = 0.004). Although only minor effects on blood pressure were observed in this trial, an infrequent association of bupropion therapy and treatment-emergent hypertension cannot be ruled out.

Bupropion in pregnancy and the prevalence of congenital malformations.

PURPOSE: Reports from the GlaxoSmithKline Bupropion Pregnancy Registry suggested an increase in cardiovascular defects following exposure to bupropion during pregnancy. We conducted a study of congenital malformations among infants born to women exposed to bupropion during their first trimester. METHODS: The study used data from UnitedHealthcare between January 1995 and September 2004. We calculated the prevalence of all congenital malformations and cardiovascular malformations associated with bupropion exposure in the estimated first trimester (1213 infants), compared with (1) other antidepressant exposure in the first trimester (4743 infants) and (2) bupropion exposure outside the first trimester (1049 infants). Malformation cases were confirmed through medical record abstraction. We calculated adjusted odds ratios (AORs) using the GEE form of logistic regression. RESULTS: For all congenital malformations, the prevalence associated with bupropion first trimester was 23.1 per 1000 infants. The AORs were 0.95 (95%CI 0.62-1.45) and 1.00 (95%CI 0.57-1.73) in comparison to other antidepressants (prevalence 23.2 per 1000) and bupropion outside the first trimester (prevalence 21.9 per 1000), respectively. For cardiovascular malformations, the prevalence associated with bupropion first trimester was 10.7 per 1000 infants. The AORs were 0.97 (95%CI 0.52-1.80) and 1.07 (95%CI 0.48-2.40) in comparison to other antidepressants (prevalence 10.8 per 1000) and bupropion outside the first trimester (prevalence 9.5 per 1000), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results do not support a hypothesis of a teratogenic effect of first trimester bupropion exposure. The prevalence of malformations associated with bupropion exposure in the first trimester was not increased relative to the comparison groups.

A double-blind comparison between bupropion XL and venlafaxine XR: sexual functioning, antidepressant efficacy, and tolerability.

In this double-blind, multicenter study, bupropion XL, a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and venlafaxine XR, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, were compared with regard to sexual functioning, efficacy, and tolerability. A total of 348 sexually active adult outpatients with depression were randomized to receive bupropion XL (titrated to a target dose of 300-450 mg/d) or venlafaxine XR (titrated to a target dose of 150-225 mg/d) for 12 weeks. Total scores on the primary dependent variable, the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (self-report), increased for subjects receiving bupropion XL and decreased for those treated with venlafaxine XR; the mean change scores differed significantly between groups from week 2 onward. Among subjects with normal pretreatment sexual functioning, Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire total scores remained essentially unchanged for the bupropion XL group but were decreased significantly for the venlafaxine XR group; mean change scores also differed between groups from week 2 onward. Although the therapies resulted in similar change on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, remission rates were significantly higher among those treated with bupropion XL (46%) versus venlafaxine XR (33%) (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.46). Aside from adverse effects of venlafaxine XR on sexual function, both treatments were reasonably well tolerated. In conclusion, in this patient population (ie, relatively young, sexually active outpatients), bupropion XL was at least as effective as venlafaxine XR and had a significantly more favorable sexual side effect profile.

Use of bupropion in combination with serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Incomplete symptom remission and sexual side effects are common problems for which bupropion often is added to treatment with selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs and SNRIs) for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This article reviews the literature on combining bupropion with SSRIs or SNRIs. We used MEDLINE to select studies that included patients diagnosed with MDD treated with any combination of bupropion and an SSRI or SNRI, either to enhance antidepressant response or to ameliorate antidepressant-associated sexual dysfunction. Bibliographies of located articles were searched for additional studies. Controlled and open-label studies support the effectiveness of bupropion in reversing antidepressant-associated sexual dysfunction, whereas open trials suggest that combination treatment with bupropion and an SSRI or SNRI is effective for the treatment of MDD in patients refractory to the SSRI, SNRI, or bupropion alone. The available data suggest that, although not an approved indication, the combination of bupropion and either an SSRI or an SNRI is generally well tolerated, can boost antidepressant response, and can reduce SSRI or SNRI-associated sexual side effects. Additional randomized controlled studies are needed to answer important questions, such as those regarding optimal dose and duration of treatment.

Remission rates following antidepressant therapy with bupropion or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: a meta-analysis of original data from 7 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Although it is widely believed that the various classes of antidepressants are equally effective, clinically meaningful differences may be obscured in individual studies because of a lack of statistical power. The present report describes a meta-analysis of original data from a complete set of studies comparing the norepinephrine/dopamine reuptake inhibitor (NDRI) bupropion with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; sertraline, fluoxetine, or paroxetine). METHOD: Individual patient data were pooled from a complete set of 7 randomized, double-blind studies comparing bupropion (N = 732) with SSRIs (fluoxetine, N = 339; sertraline, N = 343; paroxetine, N = 49) in outpatients with major depressive disorder (DSM-III-R or DSM-IV); 4 studies included placebo (N = 512). Response and remission rates were compared at week 8 or endpoint in both the intent-to-treat sample, using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) method to account for attrition, and the observed cases. Tolerability data, including incidence of sexual side effects, were also compared. RESULTS: The LOCF response and remission rates for the bupropion (62% and 47%) and SSRI (63% and 47%) groups were similar; both active therapies were superior to placebo (51% and 36%; all comparisons, p < .001). The same pattern of results was demonstrated on the observed cases analyses. Although bupropion and SSRIs were generally well tolerated, SSRI therapy resulted in significantly higher rates of sexual side effects as compared to both bupropion and placebo. SSRIs were also associated with more somnolence and diarrhea, and bupropion was associated with more dry mouth. CONCLUSION: Bupropion and the SSRIs were equivalently effective and, overall, both treatments were well tolerated. The principal difference between these treatments was that sexual dysfunction commonly complicated SSRI therapy, whereas treatment with bupropion caused no more sexual dysfunction than placebo.

Does pretreatment insomnia or anxiety predict acute response to bupropion SR?

BACKGROUND: This retrospective analysis was conducted to determine whether pretreatment levels of insomnia or anxiety were associated with likelihood of or time to antidepressant response with bupropion sustained release (SR). METHODS: Data from an open-label, 8-week, acute phase multicenter study of 797 adult outpatients with recurrent, nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who received bupropion SR (300 mg/day) were used. Depressive symptom severity was measured by the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17), insomnia by totaling the three HAM-D17 insomnia items (early, middle, late), and anxiety by the 14-item Hamilton Rating Scale forAnxiety. RESULTS: Overall, 67% (533/797) of patients responded (defined as > or = 50% reduction in baseline HAM-D17). Neither baseline insomnia nor baseline anxiety was related to the likelihood of achieving response. Higher baseline insomnia and lower baseline anxiety were associated with an earlier onset of response (about one week sooner in each). CONCLUSIONS: Predicting the likelihood of antidepressant response with bupropion SR cannot be based on either baseline insomnia or anxiety levels.

Bupropion XL in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Data remain limited on treatment strategies for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of an extended-release, once-daily formulation of bupropion (XL) in the treatment of adults with ADHD. METHODS: This multisite, placebo-controlled, 8-week prospective trial evaluated 162 adult patients diagnosed with ADHD (combined and inattentive types). Subjects were treated with up to 450 mg/day of bupropion XL. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of ADHD responders (defined as at least a 30% reduction in the investigator-rated ADHD Rating Scale score) at week 8 (last observation carried forward [LOCF]). RESULTS: Bupropion XL responders (53%) exceeded placebo responders (31%) (p =.004 at week 8) with a significantly greater proportion of bupropion XL responders as early as week 2 (p = .01). Treatment effect size calculated for the ADHD Rating Scale total score was .6. Bupropion XL appeared to provide sustained benefit throughout the day compared with placebo (morning p =.033, afternoon p =.004, evening p = .024). Bupropion XL was safe and well tolerated, with no serious or unexpected adverse events and a low rate of drug-related study discontinuation (5%). CONCLUSIONS: The results from this multisite study indicate that bupropion XL is an effective and well-tolerated nonstimulant treatment for adult ADHD.

A Review of the Neuropharmacology of Bupropion, a Dual Norepinephrine and Dopamine Reuptake Inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: The neurochemical and biological effects of antidepressant medications have become better defined over the last decade. When the anti-depressant bupropion was introduced in the United States in 1989, the specific pharmacologic basis of its clinical effects was uncertain. Research conducted over the past decade has significantly advanced the understanding of the neuropharmacology of bupropion and has demonstrated a novel mechanism of antidepressant activity. This article discusses the mechanism of action of bupropion and relates the drug's neuropharmacologic effects to its clinical efficacy and tolerability profiles. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained via the MEDLINE database in an English-language search spanning the period 1965 to May 2002 and using the search terms bupropion, bupropion SR, and antidepressants, as well as from the manufacturer's bupropion databases. CONCLUSIONS: The preclinical and clinical data show that bupropion acts via dual inhibition of norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake and is devoid of clinically significant serotonergic effects or direct effects on postsynaptic receptors. Dual norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibition is associated with a unique clinical profile. Bupropion has demonstrated efficacy comparable to that of other antidepressants. However, because bupropion is a selective norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor with no serotonergic activity, common antidepressant-associated side effects, such as sexual dysfunction, weight gain, and sedation, are not associated with bupropion therapy.