Preference for buprenorphine/naloxone and buprenorphine among patients receiving buprenorphine maintenance therapy in France: a prospective, multicenter study.

Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine tablets (Subutex) has been associated with reductions in heroin use; however, concerns for intravenous misuse exist. A buprenorphine/naloxone formulation (Suboxone) was designed to reduce this misuse risk while retaining buprenorphine's efficacy and safety. This prospective, open-label, multicenter trial compared preferences for buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone in 53 opioid-dependent patients stabilized on buprenorphine. Buprenorphine was first administered at the patient's current dose (Days 1-2), followed by a direct switch to buprenorphine/naloxone (Days 3-5). Global satisfaction rates were high and similar between buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone; however, patients preferred the tablet taste, size, and sublingual dissolution time of buprenorphine/naloxone. At the end of the study, 54% of patients preferred buprenorphine/naloxone, 31% preferred buprenorphine, and 15% had no preference; most patients (71%) wished to continue treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone. This study did not identify any impediments to a direct buprenorphine-to-buprenorphine/naloxone switch and revealed some characteristics that may facilitate treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone.

[High-dose buprenorphine substitution during incarceration.] / Substitution par buprénorphine haut dosage lors d'une incarcération.

MANAGEMENT OF OPIATE ADDICTS: OBJECTIVE: To describe the social and medical profiles of incarcerated (in detention or after sentencing) opiate addicts, whether or not they had already begun substitution treatment at arrival, and assess the impact of high-dose buprenorphine substitution therapy on the health of prisoners and the course of their incarceration. METHODS: A prospective survey was conducted on opiate addicts on admission to prison and after 2 months of incarceration, from December 2001 to February 2003, in 6 prison centres in the South East of France. RESULTS: During incarceration, no significant difference (other than in medical follow-up) appeared between the prisoners receiving substitution treatment and those who went through withdrawal on arrival. The first group differed from the second in several respects: their occupational history before incarceration was less stable, their history of drug addiction and incarceration was more serious (injection, psychotropic use, number of prior incarcerations, early age at first incarceration). The buprenorphine patients also differed in their more intense use of medical follow-up before incarceration. CONCLUSION: The impact of buprenorphine substitution therapy during incarceration could not be demonstrated, but prisoners receiving this treatment had a substantially different profile than those who were not receiving treatment when they arrived in prison.

[High-dose buprenorphine substitution during incarceration. Management of opiate addicts]. / Substitution par buprénorphine haut dosage lors d'une incarcération. Prise en charge de détenus pharmacodépendants aux opiacés.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the social and medical profiles of incarcerated (in detention or after sentencing) opiate addicts, whether or not they had already begun substitution treatment at arrival, and assess the impact of high-dose buprenorphine substitution therapy on the health of prisoners and the course of their incarceration. METHODS: A prospective survey was conducted on opiate addicts on admission to prison and after 2 months of incarceration, from December 2001 to February 2003, in 6 prison centres in the South East of France. RESULTS: During incarceration, no significant difference (other than in medical follow-up) appeared between the prisoners receiving substitution treatment and those who went through withdrawal on arrival. The first group differed from the second in several respects: their occupational history before incarceration was less stable, their history of drug addiction and incarceration was more serious (injection, psychotropic use, number of prior incarcerations, early age at first incarceration). The buprenorphine patients also differed in their more intense use of medical follow-up before incarceration. CONCLUSION: The impact of buprenorphine substitution therapy during incarceration could not be demonstrated, but prisoners receiving this treatment had a substantially different profile than those who were not receiving treatment when they arrived in prison.