Patient perspectives on buprenorphine/naloxone: a qualitative study of retention during the starting treatment with agonist replacement therapies (START) study.

This study examines the barriers and facilitators of retention among patients receiving buprenorphine/naloxone at eight community-based opioid treatment programs across the United States. Participants (n = 105) were recruited up to three and a half years after having participated in a randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone on liver function. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 67 patients provided with buprenorphine/naloxone who had terminated early and 38 patients who had completed at least 24 weeks of the trial. Qualitative data were analyzed using the constant comparison method. Barriers to buprenorphine/naloxone retention that emerged included factors associated with: (1) the design of the clinical trial; (2) negative medication or treatment experience; and (3) personal circumstances. The facilitators comprised: (1) positive experience with the medication; (2) personal determination and commitment to complete; and (3) staff encouragement and support. The themes drawn from interviews highlight the importance of considering patients' prior experience with buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone, medication preference, personal circumstances, and motivation to abstain from illicit use or misuse of opioids, as these may influence retention. Ongoing education of patients and staff regarding buprenorphine/naloxone, especially in comparison to methadone, and support from staff and peers are essential.

NIDA Clinical Trials Network CTN-0051, Extended-Release Naltrexone vs. Buprenorphine for Opioid Treatment (X:BOT): Study design and rationale.

INTRODUCTION: For opioid-dependent patients in the US and elsewhere, detoxification and counseling-only aftercare are treatment mainstays. Long-term abstinence is rarely achieved; many patients relapse and overdose after detoxification. Methadone, buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) and extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) can prevent opioid relapse but are underutilized. This study is intended to develop an evidence-base to help patients and providers make informed choices and to foster wider adoption of relapse-prevention pharmacotherapies. METHODS: The National Institute on Drug Abuse's Clinical Trials Network (CTN) study CTN-0051, X:BOT, is a comparative effectiveness study of treatment for 24weeks with XR-NTX, an opioid antagonist, versus BUP-NX, a high affinity partial opioid agonist, for opioid dependent patients initiating treatment at 8 short-term residential (detoxification) units and continuing care as outpatients. Up to 600 participants are randomized (1:1) to XR-NTX or BUP-NX. RESULTS: The primary outcome is time to opioid relapse (i.e., loss of persistent abstinence) across the 24-week treatment phase. Differences between arms in the distribution of time-to-relapse will be compared (construction of the asymptotic 95% CI for the hazard ratio of the difference between arms). Secondary outcomes include proportions retained in treatment, rates of opioid abstinence, adverse events, cigarette, alcohol, and other drug use, and HIV risk behaviors; opioid cravings, quality of life, cognitive function, genetic moderators, and cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: XR-NTX and BUP-NX differ considerably in their characteristics and clinical management; no studies to date have compared XR-NTX with buprenorphine maintenance. Study design choices and compromises inherent to a comparative effectiveness trial of distinct treatment regimens are reviewed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02032433.

Is exposure to an effective contingency management intervention associated with more positive provider beliefs?

This study empirically examined opinions of treatment providers regarding contingency management (CM) programs while controlling for experience with a specific efficacious CM program. In addition to empirically describing provider opinions, we examined whether the opinions of providers at the sites that implemented the CM program were more positive than those of matched providers at sites that did not implement it. Participants from 7 CM treatment sites (n = 76) and 7 matched nonparticipating sites (n = 69) within the same nodes of the National Institute of Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network completed the Provider Survey of Incentives (PSI), which assesses positive and negative beliefs about incentive programs. An intent-to-treat analysis found no differences in the PSI summary scores of providers in CM program versus matched sites, but correcting for experience with tangible incentives showed significant differences, with providers from CM sites reporting more positive opinions than those from matched sites. Some differences were found in opinions regarding costs of incentives, and these generally indicated that participants from CM sites were more likely to see the costs as worthwhile. The results from the study suggest that exposing community treatment providers to incentive programs may itself be an effective strategy in prompting the dissemination of CM interventions.

Primary outcome indices in illicit drug dependence treatment research: systematic approach to selection and measurement of drug use end-points in clinical trials.

AIMS: Clinical trials test the safety and efficacy of behavioral and pharmacological interventions in drug-dependent individuals. However, there is no consensus about the most appropriate outcome(s) to consider in determining treatment efficacy or on the most appropriate methods for assessing selected outcome(s). We summarize the discussion and recommendations of treatment and research experts, convened by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, to select appropriate primary outcomes for drug dependence treatment clinical trials, and in particular the feasibility of selecting a common outcome to be included in all or most trials. METHODS: A brief history of outcomes employed in prior drug dependence treatment research, incorporating perspectives from tobacco and alcohol research, is included. The relative merits and limitations of focusing on drug-taking behavior, as measured by self-report and qualitative or quantitative biological markers, are evaluated. RESULTS: Drug-taking behavior, measured ideally by a combination of self-report and biological indicators, is seen as the most appropriate proximal primary outcome in drug dependence treatment clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the most appropriate outcome will vary as a function of salient variables inherent in the clinical trial, such as the type of intervention, its target, treatment goals (e.g. abstinence or reduction of use) and the perspective being taken (e.g. researcher, clinical program, patient, society). It is recommended that a decision process, based on such trial variables, be developed to guide the selection of primary and secondary outcomes as well as the methods to assess them.

Predictors of outcome for short-term medically supervised opioid withdrawal during a randomized, multicenter trial of buprenorphine-naloxone and clonidine in the NIDA clinical trials network drug and alcohol dependence.

Few studies in community settings have evaluated predictors, mediators, and moderators of treatment success for medically supervised opioid withdrawal treatment. This report presents new findings about these factors from a study of 344 opioid-dependent men and women prospectively randomized to either buprenorphine-naloxone or clonidine in an open-label 13-day medically supervised withdrawal study. Subjects were either inpatient or outpatient in community treatment settings; however not randomized by treatment setting. Medication type (buprenorphine-naloxone versus clonidine) was the single best predictor of treatment retention and treatment success, regardless of treatment setting. Compared to the outpatient setting, the inpatient setting was associated with higher abstinence rates but similar retention rates when adjusting for medication type. Early opioid withdrawal severity mediated the relationship between medication type and treatment outcome with buprenorphine-naloxone being superior to clonidine at relieving early withdrawal symptoms. Inpatient subjects on clonidine with lower withdrawal scores at baseline did better than those with higher withdrawal scores; inpatient subjects receiving buprenorphine-naloxone did better with higher withdrawal scores at baseline than those with lower withdrawal scores. No relationship was found between treatment outcome and age, gender, race, education, employment, marital status, legal problems, baseline depression, or length/severity of drug use. Tobacco use was associated with worse opioid treatment outcomes. Severe baseline anxiety symptoms doubled treatment success. Medication type (buprenorphine-naloxone) was the most important predictor of positive outcome; however the paper also considers other clinical and policy implications of other results, including that inpatient setting predicted better outcomes and moderated medication outcomes.

Bringing buprenorphine-naloxone detoxification to community treatment providers: the NIDA Clinical Trials Network field experience.

In October 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone) sublingual tablets as an opioid dependence treatment available for use outside traditionally licensed opioid treatment programs. The NIDA Center for Clinical Trials Network (CTN) sponsored two clinical trials assessing buprenorphine-naloxone for short-term opioid detoxification. These trials provided an unprecedented field test of its use in twelve diverse community-based treatment programs. Opioid-dependent men and women were randomized to a thirteen-day buprenorphine-naloxone taper regimen for short-term opioid detoxification. The 234 buprenorphine-naloxone patients averaged 37 years old and used mostly intravenous heroin. Direct and rapid induction onto buprenorphine-naloxone was safe and well tolerated. Most patients (83%) received 8 mg buprenorphine-2 mg naloxone on the first day and 90% successfully completed induction and reached a target dose of 16 mg buprenorphine-4 mg naloxone in three days. Medication compliance and treatment engagement was high. An average of 81% of available doses was ingested, and 68% of patients completed the detoxification. Most (80.3%) patients received some ancillary medications with an average of 2.3 withdrawal symptoms treated. The safety profile of buprenorphine-naloxone was excellent. Of eighteen serious adverse events reported, only one was possibly related to buprenorphine-naloxone. All providers successfully integrated buprenorphine-naloxone into their existing treatment milieus. Overall, data from the CTN field experience suggest that buprenorphine-naloxone is practical and safe for use in diverse community treatment settings, including those with minimal experience providing opioid-based pharmacotherapy and/or medical detoxification for opioid dependence.