Quiz

Psychiatry

Weekly and Monthly Subcutaneous Buprenorphine Depot Formulations vs Daily Sublingual Buprenorphine With Naloxone for Treatment of Opioid Use DisorderA Randomized Clinical Trial

Educational Objective
To determine whether treatment involving novel weekly and monthly subcutaneous buprenorphine depot formulations is noninferior to a daily sublingual combination of buprenorphine hydrochloride and naloxone hydrochloride in the treatment of opioid use disorder.

1 Credit CME

JAMA Internal Medicine

June 1, 2018

Original Investigation

Article Information and Disclosures

Michelle R. Lofwall, MD¹; Sharon L. Walsh, PhD¹; Edward V. Nunes, MD²; et al Genie L. Bailey, MD³; Stacey C. Sigmon, PhD⁴; Kyle M. Kampman, MD⁵; Michael Frost, MD⁶; Fredrik Tiberg, PhD⁷; Margareta Linden, PhD⁷; Behshad Sheldon, BS^8,9; Sonia Oosman, BS⁸; Stefan Peterson, PhD¹⁰; Michael Chen, PhD¹¹; Sonnie Kim, PharmD⁸ Author Affiliations

¹Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington
²Division on Substance Use Disorders, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Department of Psychiatry, New York
³Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
⁴Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington
⁵Department of Psychiatry, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
⁶The Frost Medical Group, LLC, Conshocken, Pennsylvania
⁷Camurus AB, Lund, Sweden
⁸Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Princeton, New Jersey
⁹Now affiliated with FORCE Alliance, Princeton, New Jersey
¹⁰StatMind AB, Lund, Sweden
¹¹TDM Group, Inc, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey

Read article on JAMA Network

Read Article Take Quiz

Key Points

Question Are weekly and monthly subcutaneous buprenorphine depot formulations noninferior to a daily sublingual combination of buprenorphine and naloxone when comparing the proportion of urine samples negative for illicit opioids for 24 weeks and the response rate among treatment-seeking adults with moderate-to-severe opioid use disorder?

Findings In this randomized clinical trial of 428 participants, the proportion of opioid-negative urine samples was 1347 of 3834 (35.1%) and response rate was 37 of 213 participants (17.4%) for the subcutaneous depot buprenorphine group compared with 1099 of 3870 (28.4%) and 31 of 215 participants (14.4%), respectively, for the sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone group. Both primary outcomes demonstrated noninferiority.

Meaning Long-acting buprenorphine depot formulations appear to be efficacious for treatment of opioid use disorder.

Abstract

Importance Buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder may be improved by sustained-release formulations.

Objective To determine whether treatment involving novel weekly and monthly subcutaneous (SC) buprenorphine depot formulations is noninferior to a daily sublingual (SL) combination of buprenorphine hydrochloride and naloxone hydrochloride in the treatment of opioid use disorder.

Design, Setting, and Participants This outpatient, double-blind, double-dummy randomized clinical trial was conducted at 35 sites in the United States from December 29, 2015, through October 19, 2016. Participants were treatment-seeking adults with moderate-to-severe opioid use disorder.

Interventions Randomization to daily SL placebo and weekly (first 12 weeks; phase 1) and monthly (last 12 weeks; phase 2) SC buprenorphine (SC-BPN group) or to daily SL buprenorphine with naloxone (24 weeks) with matched weekly and monthly SC placebo injections (SL-BPN/NX group).

Main Outcomes and Measures Primary end points tested for noninferiority were response rate (10% margin) and the mean proportion of opioid-negative urine samples for 24 weeks (11% margin). Responder status was defined as having no evidence of illicit opioid use for at least 8 of 10 prespecified points during weeks 9 to 24, with 2 of these at week 12 and during month 6 (weeks 21-24). The mean proportion of samples with no evidence of illicit opioid use (weeks 4-24) evaluated by a cumulative distribution function (CDF) was an a priori secondary outcome with planned superiority testing if the response rate demonstrated noninferiority.

Results A total of 428 participants (263 men [61.4%] and 165 women [38.6%]; mean [SD] age, 38.4 [11.0] years) were randomized to the SL-BPN/NX group (n = 215) or the SC-BPN group (n = 213). The response rates were 31 of 215 (14.4%) for the SL-BPN/NX group and 37 of 213 (17.4%) for the SC-BPN group, a 3.0% difference (95% CI, −4.0% to 9.9%; P < .001). The proportion of opioid-negative urine samples was 1099 of 3870 (28.4%) for the SL-BPN/NX group and 1347 of 3834 (35.1%) for the SC-BPN group, a 6.7% difference (95% CI, −0.1% to 13.6%; P < .001). The CDF for the SC-BPN group (26.7%) was statistically superior to the CDF for the SL-BPN/NX group (0; P = .004). Injection site adverse events (none severe) occurred in 48 participants (22.3%) in the SL-BPN/NX group and 40 (18.8%) in the SC-BPN group.

Conclusions and Relevance Compared with SL buprenorphine, depot buprenorphine did not result in an inferior likelihood of being a responder or having urine test results negative for opioids and produced superior results on the CDF of no illicit opioid use. These data suggest that depot buprenorphine is efficacious and may have advantages.

Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02651584

Take Quiz

Buy This Activity

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: February 16, 2018.

Corresponding Author: Michelle R. Lofwall, MD, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky, 845 Angliana Ave, Lexington, KY 40508 (michelle.lofwall@uky.edu).

Published Online: May 14, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.1052

Author Contributions: Drs Chen and Kim had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Lofwall, Walsh, Bailey, Frost, Tiberg, Linden, Sheldon, Oosman, Peterson, Chen, Kim.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Lofwall, Walsh, Nunes, Bailey, Sigmon, Kampman, Tiberg, Linden, Peterson, Chen, Kim.

Drafting of the manuscript: Lofwall, Walsh, Bailey, Sigmon, Kampman, Frost, Tiberg, Linden, Kim.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Lofwall, Walsh, Nunes, Tiberg, Peterson, Chen, Kim.

Obtained funding: Sheldon, Kim.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Walsh, Nunes, Bailey, Sigmon, Kampman, Linden, Oosman, Kim.

Study supervision: Tiberg, Sheldon, Oosman, Kim.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lofwall reported receiving research funding from Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and consulting fees from Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Indivior. Dr Walsh reported receiving contract research funding and consulting fees from Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Inc, consulting fees from Camurus AB, and travel support from Indivior. Dr Nunes reported receiving contract research funding from Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Alkermes, Inc, and Brainsway, Inc, and unpaid consulting for Alkermes, Inc. Dr Bailey reported receiving research funding, advisory board, and traveling support from Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Inc; advisory board, speaker bureau fees, and travel support from BioDelivery Science International, Inc, and Alkermes, Inc; and research funding and speaker fees from Indivior. Dr Kampman reported receiving research funding from Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Indivior, and Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Frost reported receiving research funding and consulting fees from Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Inc; honorarium for talks from Indivior; and consulting fees and speaking honorarium from BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. Drs Tiberg and Linden reported being employees of Camurus AB. Mss Sheldon and Oosman and Dr Kim reported being employees of Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Chen reported receiving consulting fees from Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Peterson reported receiving consulting fees from Camurus AB and AstraZeneca Ltd. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: The study was supported by Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and by grant UL1TR001998 from the University of Kentucky Center for Clinical and Translational Science for research services and facilities for the study at this site.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Inc, had a role in the design and conduct of the study; management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. They had no role in collection of the data.

References

Hedegaard H, Warner M, Minino AM. Drug overdose deaths in the United States, 1999-2015. NCHS Data Brief. 2017;(273):1-8.PubMed Google Scholar

Rudd RA, Seth P, David F, Scholl L. Increases in drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths: United States, 2010-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(5051):1445-1452.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

Strathdee SA, Beyrer C. Threading the needle: how to stop the HIV outbreak in rural Indiana. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(5):397-399.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

Schwartz RP, McKenzie M, Rich JD. Opioid addiction and incarceration: an overview. Med Health R I. 2007;90(5):157-158.PubMed Google Scholar

Suryaprasad AG, White JZ, Xu F, et al. Emerging epidemic of hepatitis C virus infections among young nonurban persons who inject drugs in the United States, 2006-2012. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(10):1411-1419.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Table 5.2 A. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015.htm. Accessed August 26, 2017.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. European Drug Report 2017: Trends and Development. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; June 2017. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/4541/TDAT17001ENN.pdf. Accessed March 23, 2018.

Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, Davoli M. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(2):CD002207.PubMed Google Scholar

Schuckit MA. Treatment of opioid-use disorders. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(16):1596-1597.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

10.

Lofwall MR, Walsh SL. A review of buprenorphine diversion and misuse: the current evidence base and experiences from around the world. J Addict Med. 2014;8(5):315-326.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

11.

Toce MS, Burns MM, O’Donnell KA. Clinical effects of unintentional pediatric buprenorphine exposures: experience at a single tertiary care center. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2017;55(1):12-17.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

12.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Emergency department visits and hospitalizations for buprenorphine ingestion by children: United States, 2010-2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62(3):56.PubMed Google Scholar

13.

The Mental Health & Substance Use Disorder Parity Task Force. Final Report, October 2016. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/mental-health-substance-use-disorder-parity-task-force-final-report.pdf. Accessed March 23, 2018.

14.

Volkow ND, Frieden TR, Hyde PS, Cha SS. Medication-assisted therapies: tackling the opioid-overdose epidemic. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2063-2066.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

15.

Tiberg F, Johnnson M, Jankunec M, et al. Phase behavior, functions, and medical applications of soy phosphatidylcholine and diglyceride lipid compositions. Chem Lett. 2012;41:1090-1092.Google Scholar Crossref

16.

Albayaty M, Linden M, Olsson H, Johnsson M, Strandgården K, Tiberg F. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of once-weekly and once-monthly buprenorphine subcutaneous injection depots (CAM2038) versus intravenous and sublingual buprenorphine in healthy volunteers under naltrexone blockade: an open-label phase 1 study. Adv Ther. 2017;34(2):560-575.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

17.

Rosenthal RN, Lofwall MR, Kim S, Chen M, Beebe KL, Vocci FJ; PRO-814 Study Group. Effect of buprenorphine implants on illicit opioid use among abstinent adults with opioid dependence treated with sublingual buprenorphine: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(3):282-290.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

18.

Walsh SL, Comer SD, Lofwall MR, et al. Effect of buprenorphine weekly depot (CAM2038) and hydromorphone blockade in individuals with opioid use disorder: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(9):894-902. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1874 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

19.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

20.

Mercer D, Woody G. Addiction counseling. [unpublished manual] Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania/VAMC Center for Studies of Addiction; 1992.

21.

Rosenthal RN, Ling W, Casadonte P, et al. Buprenorphine implants for treatment of opioid dependence: randomized comparison to placebo and sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone. Addiction. 2013;108(12):2141-2149.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

22.

Krupitsky E, Nunes EV, Ling W, Illeperuma A, Gastfriend DR, Silverman BL. Injectable extended-release naltrexone for opioid dependence: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9776):1506-1513.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

23.

Handelsman L, Cochrane KJ, Aronson MJ, Ness R, Rubinstein KJ, Kanof PD. Two new rating scales for opiate withdrawal. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1987;13(3):293-308.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

24.

Fals-Stewart W, O’Farrell TJ, Freitas TT, McFarlin SK, Rutigliano P. The Timeline Followback reports of psychoactive substance use by drug-abusing patients: psychometric properties. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68(1):134-144.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

25.

Posner K, Brown GK, Stanley B, et al. The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults. Am J Psychiatry. 2011;168(12):1266-1277.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

26.

Dmitrienko A, Offen WW, Westfall PH. Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant. Stat Med. 2003;22(15):2387-2400.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

27.

Weiss RD, Potter JS, Fiellin DA, et al. Adjunctive counseling during brief and extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for prescription opioid dependence: a 2-phase randomized controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(12):1238-1246.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

28.

Weiss RD, Potter JS, Griffin ML, et al. Long-term outcomes from the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;150:112-119.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

29.

Hser YI, Evans E, Huang D, et al. Long-term outcomes after randomization to buprenorphine/naloxone versus methadone in a multi-site trial. Addiction. 2016;111(4):695-705.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

30.

Hser YI, Huang D, Saxon AJ, et al. Distinctive trajectories of opioid use over an extended follow-up of patients in a multisite trial on buprenorphine + naloxone and methadone. J Addict Med. 2017;11(1):63-69.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

31.

Kampman K, Jarvis M. American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) national practice guideline for the use of medications in the treatment of addiction involving opioid use. J Addict Med. 2015;9(5):358-367.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

32.

Fareed A, Vayalapalli S, Casarella J, Drexler K. Effect of buprenorphine dose on treatment outcome. J Addict Dis. 2012;31(1):8-18.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

33.

Hser YI, Saxon AJ, Huang D, et al. Treatment retention among patients randomized to buprenorphine/naloxone compared to methadone in a multi-site trial. Addiction. 2014;109(1):79-87.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

34.

Ronan MV, Herzig SJ. Hospitalizations related to opioid abuse/dependence and associated serious infections increased sharply, 2002-12. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(5):832-837.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

35.

D’Onofrio G, O’Connor PG, Pantalon MV, et al. Emergency department–initiated buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1636-1644.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

36.

Volkow ND, Collins FS. The role of science in addressing the opioid crisis. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(4):391-394.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

37.

Woods JS, Joseph H. Stigma from the viewpoint of the patient. J Addict Dis. 2015;34(2-3):238-247.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

38.

Kakko J, Svanborg KD, Kreek MJ, Heilig M. 1-Year retention and social function after buprenorphine-assisted relapse prevention treatment for heroin dependence in Sweden: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2003;361(9358):662-668.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

Weekly and Monthly Subcutaneous Buprenorphine Depot Formulations vs Daily Sublingual Buprenorphine With Naloxone for Treatment of Opioid Use DisorderA Randomized Clinical Trial

Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing of Opioids to Physicians and Subsequent Opioid Prescribing

Opioid Standard of Practice Adoption and Intravenous Opioid Exposure in Hospitalized Patients

Weekly and Monthly Subcutaneous Buprenorphine Depot Formulations vs Daily Sublingual Buprenorphine With Naloxone for Treatment of Opioid Use DisorderA Randomized Clinical Trial

Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing of Opioids to Physicians and Subsequent Opioid Prescribing

Opioid Standard of Practice Adoption and Intravenous Opioid Exposure in Hospitalized Patients

See More About

If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:

A subscription to JN Learning (CME from JAMA Network) provides:

Sign in to access

If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:

Sign in to customize your interests

With a personal account, you can:

Name Your Search

Sign in to save your search

With a personal account, you can:

Lookup An Activity

My Saved Searches

Sign in to customize your interests

With a personal account, you can:

Purchase access