HPTN 035 phase II/IIb randomised safety and effectiveness study of the vaginal microbicides BufferGel and 0.5% PRO 2000 for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections in women.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effectiveness of candidate microbicides BufferGel and 0.5% PRO 2000 Gel (P) (PRO 2000) for prevention of non-ulcerative sexually transmitted infections (STIs). METHODS: Between 2005 and 2007, 3099 women were enrolled in HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) protocol 035, a phase II/IIb evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of BufferGel and PRO 2000 for prevention of STIs, including Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Trichomonas vaginalis (TV). Incidences of STIs were determined by study arm, and HRs of BufferGel and PRO 2000 versus placebo gel or no gel control groups were computed using discrete time Andersen-Gill proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The overall incidence rates were 1.6/100 person-years at risk (PYAR) for NG, 3.9/100 PYAR for CT and 15.3/100 PYAR for TV. For BufferGel versus placebo gel, HRs were 0.99 (95% CI 0.49 to 2.00), 1.00 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.57) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.25) for prevention of NG, CT and TV, respectively. For PRO 2000, HRs were 1.66 (95% CI 0.90 to 3.06), 1.16 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.79) and 1.18 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.53) for prevention of NG, CT and TV, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of STIs was high during HIV Prevention Trials Network 035 despite provision of free condoms and comprehensive risk-reduction counselling, highlighting the need for effective STI prevention programmes in this population. Unfortunately, candidate microbicides BufferGel and PRO2000 had no protective effect against gonorrhoea, chlamydia or trichomoniasis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00074425.

Selegiline transdermal system (STS) as an aid for smoking cessation.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the efficacy and safety of selegiline transdermal system (STS) and brief repeated behavioral intervention (BRBI) for smoking cessation in heavy smokers. We hypothesized that the quit rate of subjects who received STS and BRBI would be significantly greater than that of those who received placebo patch and BRBI. METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group study in which 246 men and women were randomized to receive either STS (n = 121) or placebo patch (n =125) for 9 weeks. Recruitment targeted heavy smokers, defined as individuals with self-reported use of ≥15 cigarettes/day in the 30 days prior to enrollment, who had smoked cigarettes for the past 5 years, and had an expired CO level ≥9 ppm during screening. RESULTS: Although STS was well tolerated, the overall results indicated that STS with BRBI was not more effective than placebo plus BRBI for smoking cessation (p = .58). CONCLUSIONS: The results are discussed in relation to interventions for heavy smokers. Although 2 trials using oral selegiline both showed trends toward improved abstinence, these results indicate that STS with BRBI was not an effective aid for smoking cessation at the end of treatment (10 weeks), 14, or 26 weeks.

Identifying Clinically Relevant Drug-Drug Interactions With Methadone and Buprenorphine: A Translational Approach to Signal Detection.

Methadone and buprenorphine have pharmacologic properties that are concerning for a high risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). We performed high-throughput screening for clinically relevant DDIs with methadone or buprenorphine by combining pharmacoepidemiologic and pharmacokinetic approaches. We conducted pharmacoepidemiologic screening via a series of self-controlled case series studies (SCCS) in Optum claims data from 2000 to 2019. We included persons 18 years or older who experienced an outcome of interest during target drug treatment. Exposures were all overlapping medications (i.e., the candidate precipitants) during target drug treatment. Outcomes were opioid overdose, non-overdose adverse effects, and cardiac arrest. We used conditional Poisson regression to calculate rate ratios, accounting for multiple comparisons with semi-Bayes shrinkage. We explored the impact of key study design choices in analyses that varied the exposure definitions of the target drugs and the candidate precipitant drugs. Pharmacokinetic screening was conducted by incorporating published data on CYP enzyme metabolism into an equation-based static model. In SCCS analysis, 1,432 events were included from 248,069 new users of methadone or buprenorphine. In the primary analysis, statistically significant DDIs included gabapentinoids with either methadone or buprenorphine; baclofen with methadone; and benzodiazepines with methadone. In sensitivity analysis, additional statistically significant DDIs included methocarbamol, quetiapine, or simvastatin with methadone. Pharmacokinetic screening identified two moderate-to-strong potential DDIs (clonidine and fluconazole with buprenorphine). The combination of clonidine and buprenorphine was also associated with a significantly increased risk of opioid overdose in pharmacoepidemiologic screening. These DDI signals may be the most important targets for future confirmation studies.

Extended release injectable naltrexone before vs. after release: A randomized trial of opioid addicted persons who are in prison.

BACKGROUND: Usual treatment for persons with opioid use disorders who are in prison is detoxification with referral to treatment after release but failure to engage in treatment and relapse is common. Starting medication treatment before release might improve outcomes. OBJECTIVES: Determine if administering extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) before release (BR) from prison results in less relapse within the first three months after release than when offered by referral after release (AR). METHODS: The study randomized 1:1 persons who had an OUD, expressed interest in XR-NTX, and met study admission criteria to receive XR-NTX BR or at a local program AR, with continued medication and counseling available at that program. RESULTS: Four-hundred and two persons expressed interest in the study, 222 consented, and the study randomized 146. Uncertainty about release dates resulted in a time lag between randomization and final disposition during which 60 of the randomized patients were sentenced to other facilities, withdrew consent, or became otherwise unavailable for study treatment, leaving 86 for outcome analyses (38, BR; 48 AR). Missed follow-up appointments on the remaining 86 led to development of a phone-based questionnaire to determine presence/absence of relapse. Using it to supplement other data, we were able to confirm relapse or nonrelapse for 63 of the 86 (73%). All BR and a third of the AR patients received their first XR-NTX dose, however dropout was high and nonrelapse by month three was not significantly different between BR (39.5%) and AR (25%) (Chisq (2) = 3.23, p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: BR patients were much more likely to receive medication and its extended relapse and overdose protection effects in the first weeks after release. Dropout was high and the study detected no significant difference in relapse by month 3; however, the less-than-planned number of patients and missing data make this finding inconclusive.

Urine and plasma pharmacokinetics of lofexidine after oral delivery in opiate-dependent patients.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate lofexidine urine and plasma pharmacokinetics using three different dosing regimens in opioid dependent subjects. To date, there have been no published studies on lofexidine appearance and excretion in urine of opioid dependent subjects. METHODS: Subjects were stabilized with 100 mg morphine sulphate on days 3-8 of the study. The dosing regimens of lofexidine hydrochloride were .8 mg twice a day (BID), 1.2 mg BID, or .8 mg three times a day (TID) on days 9 through 16 of the study. Plasma and urine samples were collected at appropriate time points. Area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), maximum concentration in plasma (C(max)), time when maximum concentration was reached (T(max)) and fraction excreted unchanged in urine (Fe) were calculated. RESULTS: The average half-life obtained from all profiles was 12.1 +/- 6.3 hr. Steady-state (SS) was reached by study day 15. The plasma pharmacokinetic parameters for 1.2 mg BID and .8 mg TID dosing regimens did not seem to be different at steady state (day 15). T(max) was not statistically significantly different across dosing regimens. Fe values ranged between .01% and 34% with high variability within the same dosing regimen. For the total dose of 2.4 mg/day the two dosing regimens that were evaluated, namely 1.2 mg BID and .8 mg TID, did not show a significant statistical difference in plasma and urine pharmacokinetic parameters. CONCLUSION: Although preliminary due to the limited number of subjects, these findings are the first to document lofexidine urine pharmacokinetics in opiate addicts using a highly sensitive liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometric analysis.

A Phase 3 placebo-controlled, double-blind, multi-site trial of the alpha-2-adrenergic agonist, lofexidine, for opioid withdrawal.

CONTEXT: Lofexidine is an alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist that is approved in the United Kingdom for the treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms. Lofexidine has been reported to have more significant effects on decreasing opioid withdrawal symptoms with less hypotension than clonidine. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that lofexidine is well tolerated and effective in the alleviation of observationally defined opioid withdrawal symptoms in opioid dependent individuals undergoing medically supervised opioid detoxification as compared to placebo. DESIGN: An inpatient, Phase 3, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized multi-site trial with three phases: (1) opioid agonist stabilization phase (days 1-3), (2) detoxification/medication or placebo phase (days 4-8), and (3) post detoxification/medication phase (days 9-11). SUBJECTS: Sixty-eight opioid dependent subjects were enrolled at three sites with 35 randomized to lofexidine and 33 to placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Modified Himmelsbach Opiate Withdrawal Scale (MHOWS) on study day 5 (second opioid detoxification treatment day). RESULTS: Due to significant findings, the study was terminated early. On the study day 5 MHOWS, subjects treated with lofexidine had significantly lower scores (equating to fewer/less severe withdrawal symptoms) than placebo subjects (least squares means 19.5+/-2.1 versus 30.9+/-2.7; p=0.0019). Lofexidine subjects had significantly better retention in treatment than placebo subjects (38.2% versus 15.2%; Log rank test p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Lofexidine is well tolerated and more efficacious than placebo for reducing opioid withdrawal symptoms in inpatients undergoing medically supervised opioid detoxification.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of lofexidine, the alpha 2-adrenergic receptor agonist, in opiate addicts plasma using a highly sensitive liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometric analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this investigation was to characterize the pharmacokinetic profile of lofexidine. Lofexidine is an orally bioavailable alpha 2-adrenergic receptor agonist analogue of clonidine that acts centrally to suppress opiate withdrawal symptoms. METHODS: During the detoxification period of a phase 3 placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial, six subjects were entered in this preliminary pharmacokinetic study. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic analysis of plasma samples collected during study day 7 indicated that C(max) was 3242 +/- 917 ng/L. The mean trough levels between the study days were not significantly different (p > .05), suggesting that the subjects were at steady-state. CONCLUSIONS: Although preliminary due to the limited number of subjects, these findings are the first to document lofexidine clinical pharmacokinetics in opiate addicts using a highly sensitive liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometric analysis.

Injectable, sustained-release naltrexone for the treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Oral naltrexone can completely antagonize the effects produced by opioid agonists. However, poor compliance with naltrexone has been a major obstacle to the effective treatment of opioid dependence. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a sustained-release depot formulation of naltrexone in treating opioid dependence. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial conducted at 2 medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty heroin-dependent adults. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were stratified by sex and years of heroin use (> or = 5 vs < 5) and then were randomized to receive placebo or 192 or 384 mg of depot naltrexone. Doses were administered at the beginning of weeks 1 and 5. All participants received twice-weekly relapse prevention therapy, provided observed urine samples, and completed other assessments at each visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Retention in treatment and percentage of opioid-negative urine samples. RESULTS: Retention in treatment was dose related, with 39%, 60%, and 68% of patients in the placebo, 192 mg of naltrexone, and 384 mg of naltrexone groups, respectively, remaining in treatment at the end of 2 months. Time to dropout had a significant main effect of dose, with mean time to dropout of 27, 36, and 48 days for the placebo, 192 mg of naltrexone, and 384 mg of naltrexone groups, respectively. The percentage of urine samples negative for opioids, methadone, cocaine, benzodiazepines, and amphetamine varied significantly as a function of dose. When the data were recalculated without the assumption that missing urine samples were positive, a main effect of group was not found for any drugs tested except cocaine, where the percentage of cocaine-negative urine samples was lower in the placebo group. Adverse events were minimal and generally mild. This formulation of naltrexone was well tolerated and produced a robust, dose-related increase in treatment retention. CONCLUSION: These data provide new evidence of the feasibility, efficacy, and tolerability of long-lasting antagonist treatments for opioid dependence.

Modafinil and cocaine: a double-blind, placebo-controlled drug interaction study.

Modafinil is a novel compound that is approved for the treatment of narcolepsy. It is now being studied as a potential treatment for cocaine dependence. Cocaine withdrawal symptoms are associated with poor clinical outcome and are likely to be reversed by modafinil. In addition, the neurotransmitter actions of modafinil are opposite to cocaine-induced neuroadaptations affecting dopamine and glutamate reward circuits. Since cocaine-dependent subjects might use cocaine during a clinical trial with modafinil, this study tested the safety of intravenous cocaine (30 mg) in combination with modafinil. Each of seven subjects received a baseline (open-label) cocaine infusion. Three subsequent cocaine infusions were administered after subjects received 4 days of low dose modafinil (200 mg/day), high dose modafinil (400 mg/day), or placebo in randomized double-blind sequences. One subject received placebo prior to all infusions. Our results indicate that co-administering modafinil and a single dose of intravenous cocaine is not associated with medical risk in terms of blood pressure, pulse, temperature, or electrocardiogram measures. Furthermore, pretreatment with modafinil did not intensify cocaine euphoria or cocaine-induced craving. In fact, cocaine euphoria was significantly blunted (P=0.02) in one of our subjective measures.

Transcriptome profiling and pathway analysis of genes expressed differentially in participants with or without a positive response to topiramate treatment for methamphetamine addiction.

BACKGROUND: Developing efficacious medications to treat methamphetamine dependence is a global challenge in public health. Topiramate (TPM) is undergoing evaluation for this indication. The molecular mechanisms underlying its effects are largely unknown. Examining the effects of TPM on genome-wide gene expression in methamphetamine addicts is a clinically and scientifically important component of understanding its therapeutic profile. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 140 individuals who met the DSM-IV criteria for methamphetamine dependence were randomized to receive either TPM or placebo, of whom 99 consented to participate in our genome-wide expression study. The RNA samples were collected from whole blood for 50 TPM- and 49 placebo-treated participants at three time points: baseline and the ends of weeks 8 and 12. Genome-wide expression profiles and pathways of the two groups were compared for the responders and non-responders at Weeks 8 and 12. To minimize individual variations, expression of all examined genes at Weeks 8 and 12 were normalized to the values at baseline prior to identification of differentially expressed genes and pathways. RESULTS: At the single-gene level, we identified 1054, 502, 204, and 404 genes at nominal P values < 0.01 in the responders vs. non-responders at Weeks 8 and 12 for the TPM and placebo groups, respectively. Among them, expression of 159, 38, 2, and 21 genes was still significantly different after Bonferroni corrections for multiple testing. Many of these genes, such as GRINA, PRKACA, PRKCI, SNAP23, and TRAK2, which are involved in glutamate receptor and GABA receptor signaling, are direct targets for TPM. In contrast, no TPM drug targets were identified in the 38 significant genes for the Week 8 placebo group. Pathway analyses based on nominally significant genes revealed 27 enriched pathways shared by the Weeks 8 and 12 TPM groups. These pathways are involved in relevant physiological functions such as neuronal function/synaptic plasticity, signal transduction, cardiovascular function, and inflammation/immune function. CONCLUSION: Topiramate treatment of methamphetamine addicts significantly modulates the expression of genes involved in multiple biological processes underlying addiction behavior and other physiological functions.

Fine-grain analysis of the treatment effect of topiramate on methamphetamine addiction with latent variable analysis.

BACKGROUND: As reported previously, 140 methamphetamine-dependent participants at eight medical centers in the U.S. were assigned randomly to receive topiramate (N=69) or placebo (N=71) in a 13-week clinical trial. The study found that topiramate did not appear to reduce methamphetamine use significantly for the primary outcome (i.e., weekly abstinence from methamphetamine in weeks 6-12). Given that the treatment responses varied considerably among subjects, the objective of this study was to identify the heterogeneous treatment effect of topiramate and determine whether topiramate could reduce methamphetamine use effectively in a subgroup of subjects. METHODS: Latent variable analysis was used for the primary and secondary outcomes during weeks 6-12 and 1-12, adjusting for age, sex, and ethnicity. RESULTS: Our analysis of the primary outcome identified 30 subjects as responders, who either reduced methamphetamine use consistently over time or achieved abstinence. Moreover, topiramate recipients had a significantly steeper slope in methamphetamine reduction and accelerated to abstinence faster than placebo recipients. For the secondary outcomes in weeks 6-12, we identified 40 subjects as responders (who had significant reductions in methamphetamine use) and 65 as non-responders; topiramate recipients were more than twice as likely as placebo recipients to be responders (odds ratio=2.67; p=0.019). Separate analyses of the outcomes during weeks 1-12 yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Methamphetamine users appear to respond to topiramate treatment differentially. Our findings show an effect of topiramate on the increasing trend of abstinence from methamphetamine, suggesting that a tailored intervention strategy is needed for treating methamphetamine addiction.

Modafinil for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence.

AIM: Modafinil was tested for efficacy in decreasing use in methamphetamine-dependent participants, compared to placebo. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, with 12 weeks of treatment and a 4-week follow-up. Eight outpatient substance abuse treatment clinics participated in the study. There were 210 treatment-seekers randomized, who all had a DSM-IV diagnosis of methamphetamine dependence; 68 participants to placebo, 72 to modafinil 200mg, and 70 to modafinil 400mg, taken once daily on awakening. Participants came to the clinic three times per week for assessments, urine drug screens, and group psychotherapy. The primary outcome measure was a methamphetamine non-use week, which required all the week's qualitative urine drug screens to be negative for methamphetamine. RESULTS: Regression analysis showed no significant difference between either modafinil group (200 or 400mg) or placebo in change in weekly percentage having a methamphetamine non-use week over the 12-week treatment period (p=0.53). Similarly, a number of secondary outcomes did not show significant effects of modafinil. However, an ad-hoc analysis of medication compliance, by urinalysis for modafinil and its metabolite, did find a significant difference in maximum duration of abstinence (23 days vs. 10 days, p=0.003), between those having the top quartile of compliance (>85% of urines were positive for modafinil, N=36), and the lower three quartiles of modafinil 200 and 400mg groups (N=106). CONCLUSIONS: Although these data suggest that modafinil, plus group behavioral therapy, was not effective for decreasing methamphetamine use, the study is probably inconclusive because of inadequate compliance with taking medication.

Topiramate for the treatment of methamphetamine addiction: a multi-center placebo-controlled trial.

AIMS: Topiramate has shown efficacy at facilitating abstinence from alcohol and cocaine abuse. This double-blind, placebo-controlled out-patient trial tested topiramate for treating methamphetamine addiction. DESIGN: Participants (n = 140) were randomized to receive topiramate or placebo (13 weeks) in escalating doses from 25 mg/day [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] to the target maintenance of 200 mg/day in weeks 6-12 (tapered in week 13). Medication was combined with weekly brief behavioral compliance enhancement treatment. SETTING: The trial was conducted at eight medical centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and forty methamphetamine-dependent adults took part in the trial. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was abstinence from methamphetamine during weeks 6-12. Secondary outcomes included use reduction versus baseline, as well as psychosocial variables. FINDINGS: In the intent-to-treat analysis, topiramate did not increase abstinence from methamphetamine during weeks 6-12. For secondary outcomes, topiramate reduced weekly median urine methamphetamine levels and observer-rated severity of dependence scores significantly. Subjects with negative urine before randomization (n = 26) had significantly greater abstinence on topiramate versus placebo during study weeks 6-12. Topiramate was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Topiramate does not appear to promote abstinence in methamphetamine users but can reduce the amount taken and reduce relapse rates in those who are already abstinent.

Long-acting injectable versus oral naltrexone maintenance therapy with psychosocial intervention for heroin dependence: a quasi-experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a quasi-experimental comparison of early clinical outcomes between injectable, sustained-release, depot naltrexone formulation versus oral naltrexone maintenance therapy in individuals with opiate dependence. METHOD: Early retention in treatment and urine-confirmed opiate use in the first 8 weeks postdetoxification were compared between patients (diagnosed as opiate-dependent according to DSM-IV criteria) participating in 2 concurrently run randomized clinical trials of oral (n = 69; patients treated from September 1999 to May 2002) and long-acting injectable (n = 42; patients treated from November 2000 to June 2003) naltrexone maintenance therapy with psychosocial therapy. RESULTS: Long-acting injectable naltrexone produced significantly better outcome than oral naltrexone on days retained in treatment (F(1,106) = 6.49, P = .012) and for 1 measure of opiate use (F(1,106) = 5.26, P = .024); other measures were not significantly different, but differences were in the same direction. In subanalyses, there were interaction effects between baseline heroin use severity and type of treatment. In subanalyses, heroin users with more severe baseline use showed better retention with oral naltrexone maintenance therapy combined with intensive psychotherapy (behavioral naltrexone therapy) as compared to retention shown by severe heroin users treated with long-acting naltrexone injections combined with standard cognitive-behavioral therapy (χ²(1)= 9.31, P = .002); less severe heroin users evidenced better outcomes when treated with long-acting injectable naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: This quasi-experimental analysis provides tentative indications of superior outcomes for heroin-dependent patients treated with long-acting injectable naltrexone compared to oral naltrexone. The finding that heroin users with more severe baseline use achieved better outcomes with oral naltrexone is most probably attributable to the intensive nature of the psychosocial treatments provided and points to the opportunity for continued research in augmenting injectable naltrexone with psychosocial strategies to further improve outcome, especially in individuals with more severe use. The results should be considered exploratory given the quasi-experimental nature of the study.

Nicotine intervention during detoxification and treatment for other substance use.

This preliminary study evaluated the efficacy of a brief smoking cessation intervention (30 controls, 34 intervention groups) on a smoke-free inpatient unit for substance use detoxification. Controls received usual care, including the transdermal nicotine patch and referral to an outpatient smoking program. The intervention group additionally received a structured motivational enhancement program. Biochemically confirmed smoking cessation rate and abstinence/reduction of alcohol or other drug use were the main outcome measures taken 6 months after treatment initiation. The smoking cessation intervention did not result in greater participation in formal outpatient smoking cessation treatment and was not associated with either enhanced smoking cessation (6 vs. 0%) or greater smoking reduction at follow-up. Both groups significantly reduced the number of cigarettes smoked per day (cpd) from about 24 at baseline to 10cpd. The groups did not differ on abstinence from nonnicotine addictive substances. Smoking cessation treatment in substance users undergoing detoxification resulted in little or no smoking cessation advantage.