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
Introduction
Heroin dependence continues to be a serious public health issue throughout many parts of the world, and there is a need for better access to effective treatments (SAMHSA NSDUH, 2004; SAMHSA, TEDS, 2004). Buprenorphine–naloxone (Suboxone®) has been found to be effective in many diverse treatment settings (Bickel et al., 1988, Bickel and Amass, 1995, Boatwright, 2002, Johnson et al., 2003, Amass et al., 2004, Ling et al., 2005). However, there have been few studies of predictors, mediators, and moderators of outcome for medication treatment for opioid dependence (Morral et al., 1997), and these studies have focused on the inpatient setting and clonidine medication. In the inpatient setting, factors such as gender, age, duration of drug use, education, psychopathology, and employment did not predict better or worse treatment outcome in some studies (San et al., 1989, Armenian et al., 1999); however other reports have found worse outcomes for younger age (Jeremiah et al., 1995, Armenian et al., 1999, Gossling et al., 2001, Backmund et al., 2001, Ghodse et al., 2002) being single (Armenian et al., 1999; Perez de los Cobos et al., 1997) and having more severe drug and medical problems (Franken and Hendriks, 1999). One study found worse outcomes amongst those with less education, less regular contact with a counselor, no aftercare plans, history of imprisonment, and not being on probation (Backmund et al., 2001). Another inpatient study found that the intensity of withdrawal symptoms and craving was not related to premature termination from treatment (Scherbaum et al., 2004). In the outpatient setting, worse clonidine treatment outcomes have been found for heroin addicts versus other opioids (Strobbe et al., 2003, McCann et al., 1997), higher levels of subjective withdrawal symptoms (Strobbe et al., 2003, Rounsaville et al., 1985), intravenous users (McCann et al., 1997), benzodiazepine use pre-detoxification (McCann et al., 1997), and depression (Ziedonis and Kosten, 1991).
This report focuses on predictors, moderators, and mediators for buprenorphine–naloxone and clonidine medication treatment and expands on an earlier report of the primary finding that buprenorphine–naloxone had better clinical outcomes compared to clonidine (Ling et al., 2005). This report presents new findings about how predictors, mediators, and moderators are the same (or different) for the two medications. Two prior reports provide more detail about the field experience of using these medications in community-based addiction treatment settings and more details regarding the study design, procedures, medications and settings (Amass et al., 2004, Ling et al., 2005). This study evaluates new variables and the nature of these variables (predictors, moderators, and mediators).
Section snippets
Overview
Study subjects were treatment seeking opioid-dependent men and women who were at least 15 years of age and in general good health. They were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to either buprenorphine–naloxone or clonidine for 13 days. Ancillary medications were available as needed. Doses of study medication were lowered gradually over 13 days. The treatment setting was self-selected or clinically selected, and not randomized (six inpatient; six outpatient sites). “Setting” was categorized at the
Primary hypotheses
Three primary hypotheses were tested: (1) subjects receiving buprenorphine–naloxone will have better outcomes than those receiving clonidine; (2) subjects treated in the inpatient setting would have better outcomes than in the outpatient; and (3) subjects with more severe withdrawal symptoms, regardless of which medication they received, would drop out of treatment earlier and have worse outcomes than subjects with lower levels of withdrawal. Hypothesis 1 was also a primary hypothesis of the
Sample
Of the 344 opioid-dependent men and women, 234 (68%) were randomized to buprenorphine–naloxone and 110 (32%) were randomized to clonidine. The median age was 39.5 years (range 19–65), and subjects were mostly male (68%), white (48.5%) or African-American (31.4%) and unemployed (50.8%). On the average, patients attended two prior drug treatments with 19.3% having no prior treatment and 36.8% having three or more. Patients used heroin a mean of 25.2 (9.7) of 30 days prior to enrollment and 66.5%
Socio-demographic predictors
Logistic regression adjusting for medication type suggested that none of the socio-demographic factors predicted better treatment success: age, gender, race, years of education, employment status (employed versus not employed), and legal status (being on probation or having a history of imprisonment).
Heroin use, severity, and route of administration
As compared to daily heroin users, non-daily heroin users were three times more likely to have treatment success (OR = 3.091, 95% CI: 1.709–5.590, p < .001) after adjusting for medication type,
Discussion
This paper reports predictors, mediators and moderators of treatment success for buprenorphine–naloxone versus clonidine for medically supervised opioid withdrawal in either the inpatient or outpatient setting. Identification of factors that predict relapse and treatment success during acute withdrawal illuminates the early recovery process and may help inform clinical recommendations for a difficult to treat population.
As expected, medication type (buprenorphine–naloxone versus clonidine) was
Conflict of interest
The following is a list of potential conflicts of interest within three years of beginning the work submitted.
D.M.Z. has consulted for Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, and Alkermes/Cephalon. D.M.Z. has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Eli Lilly. L.A. is currently employed by Schering-Plough, a distributor of buprenorphine. G.W. has consulted for Denver Health. S.M.S. has received grant support from Purdue Pharma, US WorldMeds LLC, and Titan
Acknowledgements
The contents of the manuscript are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIDA.
Role of funding source: This publication was supported by a series of grants from NIDA as part of the Cooperative Agreement on CTN: University of California, Los Angeles: U10 DA13045; Oregon Health & Science University: U10 DA13036; New York University School of Medicine: U10 DA13046; University of Pennsylvania: U10 DA13043, K05-DA17009 and the Department of
References (37)
- et al.
The effect of anxiety and depression on completion and withdrawal status in patients admitted to substance abuse detoxification program
J. Subst. Abuse Treat.
(1996) - et al.
Efficacy of daily and alternate-day dosing regimens with the combination buprenorphine–naloxone tablet
Drug Alcohol Depend.
(2000) - et al.
Predictors of discharge against medical advice from a short-term hospital detoxification unit
Drug Alcohol Depend.
(1999) Buprenorphine and addiction: challenges for the pharmacist
J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. (Wash)
(2002)- et al.
Inpatient opiate detoxification in Geneva: follow-up at 1 and 6 months
Drug Alcohol Depend.
(2000) - et al.
Treating an opiate-dependent population: a one-year follow-up study of treatment completers and noncompleters
Addict. Behav.
(2002) - et al.
Buprenorphine: how to use it right
Drug Alcohol Depend.
(2003) - et al.
Smoking status and substance abuse severity in an inpatient treatment sample
Drug Alcohol Depend.
(2003) - et al.
The fifth edition of the addiction severity index
J. Subst. Abuse Treat.
(1992) - et al.
Bringing buprenorphine–naloxone detoxification to community treatment providers: the NIDA clinical trials network field experience
Am. J. Addict.
(2004)
Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Patients With Substance Use Disorders
Predictors for completing an inpatient detoxification program among intravenous heroin users, methadone substituted and codeine substituted patients
Drug Alcohol Depend.
The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Buprenorphine treatment of opiate dependence: a review
Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol.
Buprenorphine: dose-related blockade of opioid challenge effects in opioid dependent humans
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.
A clinical trial of buprenorphine: comparison with methadone in the detoxification of heroin addicts
Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.
Interventions to improve the AMA discharge rate for opiate-addicted patients
J. Psychosoc. Nurs. Ment. Health Serv.
Predicting outcome of inpatient detoxification of substance abusers
Psychiatr. Serv.
Cited by (60)
C-L Case Conference: Applying Good Psychiatric Management for Borderline Personality Disorder in Hospitalized Patients With Co-occurring Substance Use Disorders
2023, Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison PsychiatryThe association of chronic pain and opioid withdrawal in men and women with opioid use disorder
2022, Drug and Alcohol DependenceReregulation of cortisol levels and sleep in patients with prescription opioid use disorder during long-term residential treatment
2021, Drug and Alcohol DependenceClinical and psychological factors associated with interdose opioid withdrawal in chronic pain population
2021, Journal of Substance Abuse TreatmentAssociation between methadone or buprenorphine use during medically supervised opioid withdrawal and extended-release injectable naltrexone induction failure
2021, Journal of Substance Abuse TreatmentCitation Excerpt :Non-opioid management of withdrawal uses a variety of medications to address the symptoms of withdrawal, such as alpha-2-agonists, anti-emetics, and sedative-hypnotics (Gold et al., 1980a, 1980b; Kleber et al., 1980). Detoxification utilizing a gradual taper of methadone or buprenorphine has shown more symptomatic control in studies of detoxification protocols when compared to detoxification with clonidine alone (Amass et al., 2004; Gowing et al., 2009; Ling, Amass et al., 2005; Ziedonis et al., 2009). In a head-to-head trial, buprenorphine was more effective than clonidine for detoxication, both in the inpatient (77% vs 22%) and outpatient (29% vs. 5%) setting (Ling, Amass et al., 2005).
Differences in patient-reported and observer-rated opioid withdrawal symptom etiology, time course, and relationship to clinical outcome
2020, Drug and Alcohol DependenceCitation Excerpt :It is reasonable to assume that withdrawal severity will be meaningfully related to treatment success, yet empirical evaluations have reported mixed results. Though one study found evidence that a self-report of withdrawal was a better predictor of retention than observer-ratings (Kosten et al., 1985), another found percent change in observer-rated withdrawal during the beginning of a taper to be more closely associated with completing treatment than self-report (Ziedonis et al., 2009), though the latter effect was closely linked to medication type (which was not observed here). Other efforts have found no relationship between withdrawal and retention (Scherbaum et al., 2004; Warden et al., 2012).
- 1
Present address: University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK 99508-4614, USA.