Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
1 October 1997 | Volume 127 Issue 7 | Pages 526-530
Background: Opioid detoxification in a primary care setting followed by ongoing substance abuse treatment may be appropriate for selected opioid-dependent patients.
Objective: To compare three pharmacologic protocols for opioid detoxification in a primary care setting.
Design: Randomized, double-blind clinical trial with random assignment to treatment protocols.
Setting: A free-standing primary care clinic affiliated with drug treatment programs.
Patients: 162 heroin-dependent patients.
Interventions: Three detoxification protocols: clonidine, combined clonidine and naltrexone, and buprenorphine.
Measurements: Successful detoxification (that is, when study participants received a full opioid-blocking dose [50 mg] of naltrexone), treatment retention (8 days), and withdrawal symptoms.
Results: Overall, 65% of participants (36 of 55) who received clonidine, 81% (44 of 54) who received combined clonidine and naltrexone, and 81% (43 of 53) who received buprenorphine were successfully detoxified. Retention did not differ significantly across the groups: 65% of participants (36 of 55) who received clonidine, 54% (29 of 54) who received combined clonidine and naltrexone, and 60% (32 of 53) who received buprenorphine. Participants who received buprenorphine had a significantly lower mean withdrawal symptom score than those who received clonidine or combined clonidine and naltrexone.
Conclusions: Participants in the combined clonidine and naltrexone group and those in the buprenorphine group were more likely to complete detoxification, although retention at 8 days did not differ among the groups. Participants who were assigned to the buprenorphine group experienced less severe withdrawal symptoms than those assigned to the other two groups.
Methadone detoxification is safe and efficacious; however, as occurs with methadone maintenance, federal regulations restrict its use to specially licensed programs [4, 7]. Detoxification with clonidine or rapid detoxification with combined clonidine and naltrexone [8-10] may be suitable for primary care settings [6]. In a previous study of detoxification in a primary care setting [6], combined clonidine and naltrexone was more successful than clonidine alone; however, methodologic limitations (nonrandom assignment and nonblinded assessment) make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of the protocols [6]. Rapid detoxification has the advantage of bringing patients through withdrawal more quickly, although patients require close observation on day 1 because of severe withdrawal symptoms [6, 9]. Buprenorphine (a partial micro-opioid receptor agonist with mixed agonist-antagonist properties) may be more effective in alleviating withdrawal symptoms than is clonidine [11] and, when combined with rapid detoxification [12], may reduce the severity of withdrawal symptoms observed in patients who receive clonidine and naltrexone.
Our objective was to compare three protocols for opioid detoxification in a primary care setting: clonidine, combined clonidine and naltrexone, and buprenorphine. We hypothesized that combined clonidine and naltrexone would result in more successful detoxification than clonidine alone and that buprenorphine would be as effective as and have fewer withdrawal symptoms than the combined agents alone.
Trial participants were recruited by word of mouth and referral from intake coordinators of SATU-affiliated programs (for example, methadone waiting lists). Participants had to be opioid dependent and 18 to 50 years of age; participants could not be enrolled in a drug treatment program and must have had sufficient social support (such as safe transportation and a residence) for outpatient detoxification. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, reactions to study medications, medical conditions potentially exacerbated by detoxification (for example, uncontrolled hypertension), contraindications to naltrexone (for example, severe chronic hepatitis or pain that required narcotic treatment), and psychiatric conditions that indicated the need for intensive services (for example, depression with suicidal ideation). All participants had medical and substance use evaluation at baseline, including standardized rating of withdrawal symptoms (24 symptoms were rated on a scale of 0 to 3) [14].
Detoxification started on a Monday (day 1). Participants had daily visits with primary care providers except on the weekend (days 6 and 7), and medications were dispensed at each visit to manage withdrawal symptoms until the next visit [6].
In the clonidine protocol, participants received 0.1 to 0.2 mg of clonidine every 4 hours as needed to control withdrawal symptoms from days 1 through 7 [6]. Detoxified participants were given a full opioid-blocking dose of naltrexone (50 mg) on day 8. In the combined clonidine and naltrexone protocol, participants received clonidine on a similar schedule and 12.5 mg of naltrexone on day 1, 25 mg on day 2, and 50 mg on day 3 [6]. In the buprenorphine protocol, participants received 3 mg of buprenorphine sublingually on days 1 through 3 and then clonidine as described plus 25 mg of naltrexone on day 4 and 50 mg on day 5. The following adjuvant medications were available for participants in all three treatment groups on an as-needed basis: oxazepam for insomnia and cramps, ibuprofen or ketorolac for muscle cramps, and prochlorperazine for nausea [6]. No other drug-treatment services were provided during detoxification.
Participants were randomly assigned to a treatment group, and staff and patients were blinded to the protocols. Study medications were prepared so that participants received either active or placebo preparations of all medications.
The primary outcome of our trial was successful detoxification, which was achieved when a participant received an opioid-blocking dose (50 mg) of naltrexone. Secondary outcomes were treatment retention for 8 days and daily scores of withdrawal symptoms.
All participants who completed detoxification were referred for naltrexone maintenance. Participants who did not complete detoxification and those who had opioid relapse were referred to community treatment programs for opioid dependence (for example, methadone maintenance programs).
Differences in the means of continuous variables were calculated by using the Student t-test. Chi-square statistics were used to evaluate differences in proportions.
Fifty-five patients were randomly assigned to receive clonidine, 54 to receive combined clonidine and naltrexone, and 53 to receive buprenorphine. The groups had no substantial differences in sociodemographic and clinical features (Table 1). BRIEF COMMUNICATION
Three Methods of Opioid Detoxification in a Primary Care Setting
A Randomized Trial
Opioid-dependent persons (for example, those who take heroin) may seek treatment for substance abuse from their primary care physicians [1]. Treatment options include counseling and such pharmacologic therapies as 1) maintenance with opioid agonists [for example, methadone or LAAM] or 2) detoxification followed by maintenance with an opioid antagonist (naltrexone) or by psycho-therapy alone [2]. Opioid maintenance has been demonstrated to effectively decrease drug use [3]. However, maintenance with opioids is highly restricted by federal regulations and may be difficult to access for many patients [4, 5]. Although approaches other than opioid maintenance may be less effective, detoxification followed by ongoing treatment may be a reasonable alternative for patients ineligible for or unable to access maintenance treatment. The extent to which primary care physicians can initiate treatment may improve access to treatment for opioid dependence [5, 6].
Methods
![]()
Top
Methods
Results
Discussion
Author & Article Info
References
The site of the study was the Central Medical Unit, a free-standing primary care clinic staffed by internists and nurse practitioners who provide medical care for substance abusers enrolled in programs affiliated with the Yale Substance Abuse Treatment Unit (SATU) [13]. The Central Medical Unit offers a full range of adult primary care services, including preventive care, chronic disease management, and urgent care.
Results
![]()
Top
Methods
Results
Discussion
Author & Article Info
References
We screened 202 patients, 25 of whom were ineligible because of insufficient social support, comorbid medical or psychiatric conditions, or other reasons. Of the remaining 177 participants, 15 (5 per group) did not show on day 1 (all 15 were lost to follow-up); thus, 162 patients participated in the trial.
|
Sixty-five percent of participants in the group receiving clonidine (36 of 55) successfully completed detoxification compared with 81% (44 of 54) in the group receiving clonidine and naltrexone (P = 0.06) and 81% (43 of 53) in the group receiving buprenorphine (P = 0.07). Because the day of protocol completion varied among the groups, we compared retention at day 8, which represented a uniform time point (that is, the first day on which participants in all three protocols had completed detoxification). Retention did not differ significantly among the groups: 65% of participants (36 of 55) who received clonidine, 54% (29 of 54) who received clonidine and naltrexone, and 60% (32 of 53) who received buprenorphine.
The daily mean symptom severity scores for participants in each group are shown in the (Figure 1). Participants assigned to the combined clonidine and naltrexone group had more severe withdrawal symptoms early in detoxification. Participants assigned to the buprenorphine group had a significantly lower mean overall withdrawal symptom score (13.2 ± 8.4) than did those in the clonidine and naltrexone group (17.6 ± 9.3; t = 2.42; P = 0.016) and those in the clonidine group (17.8 ± 10.3; t = 2.56; P = 0.01). The mean peak withdrawal symptom score (the highest score achieved by each patient during detoxification) was also lower for those receiving buprenorphine (22.3 ± 12.3) than for those receiving clonidine and naltrexone (28.0 ± 13.1; t = 2.66; P = 0.03) or clonidine (29.9 ± 14.9; t = 2.96; P = 0.004).
|
Discussion
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
In our study, eligible participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups, with double-blind measures implemented to minimize staff and participant expectations. In a previous study [6], participants were allowed to select their protocol group, thereby raising the possibility of selection bias. In the present study, the differential for success between the group receiving clonidine and the group receiving clonidine and naltrexone (81% compared with 65%) was not as dramatic as previously observed [6]. Although combined clonidine and naltrexone may be modestly superior to clonidine alone for successful detoxification, the effectiveness of the protocols after 8 days of retention was similar. In fact, participants who received clonidine alone were observed to be somewhat more likely than those receiving clonidine and naltrexone to have retention after 8 days. These differences in findings for protocol completion and 8-day retention may be attributable to clinical characteristics of the withdrawal protocols (for example, more severe withdrawal symptoms of participants in the rapid protocol) or other methodologic reasons. This analysis highlights the importance of evaluating both protocol completion and 8-day retention.
This study evaluated buprenorphine as transitional therapy from illicit opioid use to rapid detoxification that is administered to improve patient comfort. In addition to opioid-agonist properties that may lessen withdrawal symptoms, buprenorphine therapy might be particularly appropriate for primary care settings because the partial antagonist properties of buprenorphine make it less toxic, less prone to diversion, and easier to withdraw. This study supported our hypotheses that buprenorphine was as efficacious as combined clonidine and naltrexone for successful completion of detoxification and resulted in fewer withdrawal symptoms than did clonidine and naltrexone.
Study limitations included maintaining the double-blind component, which was not always possible because of the different patterns of symptoms (after patients received naltrexone) associated with each protocol. In addition, buprenorphine is available for detoxification only on an experimental basis in the United States. When the drug is approved, it is likely to be a category II drug because of its potential to be abused [17]. This study also did not provide outcomes on long-term follow-up after detoxification treatment. Such outcomes are needed for drug treatment programs. In our opinion, primary care settings that offer detoxification treatment should be affiliated with drug treatment programs to facilitate follow-up care. Future research should evaluate the long-term outcome of detoxification approaches to more clearly define the optimum approach in the context of other therapies (for example, maintenance therapy) [18].
Because buprenorphine is an experimental drug and the remaining protocols yielded similar rates of retention, clinicians must consider the advantages and disadvantages of all three protocols. Clonidine is initially less labor intensive (especially on day 1) than combined clonidine and naltrexone. The combined drugs may be useful for highly motivated patients who want to complete detoxification rapidly and begin maintenance with naltrexone or return to work quickly; however, patients who receive this therapy require close observation. Until more experience is gained with combined clonidine and naltrexone or with buprenorphine, clonidine therapy may be the protocol of choice for primary care physicians, especially when methadone is unavailable or inappropriate. In addition, although ultrarapid opioid detoxification in which clonidine and naltrexone (or naloxone) are given to patients under general anesthesia has been reported in the literature [19, 20], this approach has not been rigorously evaluated and subjects patients to risk for medical complications associated with general anesthesia [18].
In conclusion, opioid detoxification in a primary care setting with one of the three protocols discussed may be a reasonable approach for some opioid-dependent patients. Although a higher percentage of participants who received combined clonidine and naltrexone or received buprenorphine completed detoxification, this difference did not achieve statistical significance. The statistics for 8-day retention did not differ significantly among the three groups. However, the use of buprenorphine may provide a more comfortable detoxification for patients.
Drs. Carroll, Schottenfeld, and Rounsaville: Connecticut Mental Health Center, Yale University School of Medicine, 34 Park Street, New Haven, CT 06519.
Dr. Shi: Central Medical Unit, 914 1/2 Howard Avenue, New Haven, CT 06519.
Dr. Kosten: Veterans Affairs Connecticut Health Care System, Yale University School of Medicine, Psychiatry 116A, 950 Campbell Avenue, West Haven, CT 06516.
Author and Article Information
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
References
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
1. O'Connor PG, Selwyn PA, Schottenfeld RS. Medical care for injection drug users with human immunodeficiency virus infection. N Engl J Med. 1994; 331:450-9.
2. Kosten TR, McCance E. A review of pharmacotherapies for substance abuse. Am J Addict. 1996; 5:58-65.
3. Ball JC, Ross A. The Effectiveness of Methadone Maintenance Treatment. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1991.
4. Rettig RA, Yarmolinsky A, eds. Federal Regulation of Methadone Treatment. Washington, DC: Natl Acad Pr; 1995.
5. Cooper JR. Including narcotic addiction treatment in an office-based practice. JAMA. 1995; 273:1619-20.
6. O'Connor PG, Waugh ME, Carroll KM, Rounsaville BJ, Diagkogiannis IA, Schottenfeld RS. Primary care-based ambulatory opioid detoxification: the results of a clinical trial. J Gen Intern Med. 1995; 10:255-60.
7. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Methadone in maintenance and detoxification: joint revision of conditions on use. Fed Register. 1989; 54:8954-71.
8. Riordan CE, Kleber HD. Rapid opiate detoxification with clonidine and naltrexone. Lancet. 1980; 1:1079-80.
9. Vining E, Kosten TR, Kleber HD. Clinical utility of rapid clonidine-naltrexone detoxification for opioid abusers. Br J Addict. 1988; 83:567-75.
10. Gerra G, Marcato A, Caccavari R, Fontanesi B, Delsignore R, Fertonani G, et al. Clonidine and opiate receptor antagonists in the treatment of heroin addiction. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1995; 12:35-41.
11. Nigam AK, Ray R, Tripathi BM. Buprenorphine in opiate withdrawal: a comparison with clonidine. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1993; 10:391-4.
12. Kosten TR, Krystal JH, Charney DS, Price LH, Morgan CH, Kleber HD. Rapid detoxification from opioid dependence [Letter]. Am J Psychiatry. 1989; 147:1349.
13. O'Connor PG, Molde S, Henry S, Shockcor WT, Schottenfeld RS. Human immunodeficiency virus infection in intravenous drug users: a model for primary care. Am J Med. 1992; 93:382-6.
14. Kosten TR, Rounsaville BJ, Kleber HD. Comparison of clinician ratings to self reports of withdrawal during clonidine detoxification of opiate addicts Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1985; 11:1-10.
15. Novick DM, Pascarelli EF, Joseph H, Salsitz EA, Richman BL, Des Jarlais DC, et al. Methadone maintenance patients in general medical practice. A preliminary report. JAMA. 1988; 259:3299-302.
16. Dole VP. On federal regulation of methadone treatment. JAMA. 1995; 274:1307.
17. Gray RF, Ferry A, Jauhar P. Emergence of buprenorphine dependence. Br J Addict. 1989; 84:1373-4.
18. Mattick RP, Hall W. Are detoxification programmes effective? Lancet. 1996; 347:97-100.
19. Legarda JJ, Gossop M. A 24-h inpatient detoxification treatment for heroin addicts: a preliminary investigation. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1994; 35:91-3.
20. Loimer N, Schmid R, Lenz K, Presslich O, Grunberger J. Acute blocking of naloxone-precipitated opiate withdrawal symptoms by methohexitone. Br J Psychiatry. 1990; 157:748-52.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
L. E. Sullivan and D. A. Fiellin Narrative Review: Buprenorphine for Opioid-Dependent Patients in Office Practice Ann Intern Med, May 6, 2008; 148(9): 662 - 670. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. A. Ciraulo, R. J. Hitzemann, E. Somoza, C. M. Knapp, J. Rotrosen, O. Sarid-Segal, A. M. Ciraulo, D. J. Greenblatt, and C. N. Chiang Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Multiple Sublingual Buprenorphine Tablets in Dose-Escalation Trials J. Clin. Pharmacol., February 1, 2006; 46(2): 179 - 192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. A. Marsch, W. K. Bickel, G. J. Badger, M. E. Stothart, K. J. Quesnel, C. Stanger, and J. Brooklyn Comparison of Pharmacological Treatments for Opioid-Dependent Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial Arch Gen Psychiatry, October 1, 2005; 62(10): 1157 - 1164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. D. Collins, H. D. Kleber, R. A. Whittington, and N. E. Heitler Anesthesia-Assisted vs Buprenorphine- or Clonidine-Assisted Heroin Detoxification and Naltrexone Induction: A Randomized Trial JAMA, August 24, 2005; 294(8): 903 - 913. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Fiscella, N. Pless, S. Meldrum, and P. Fiscella Benign Neglect or Neglected Abuse Drug and Alcohol withdrawal in U.S. Jails J. Law Med. Ethics, March 1, 2004; 32(1): 129 - 136. [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. R. Kosten and P. G. O'Connor Management of Drug and Alcohol Withdrawal N. Engl. J. Med., May 1, 2003; 348(18): 1786 - 1795. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. H. Mack and R. J. Frances Substance-Related Disorders Focus, April 1, 2003; 1(2): 125 - 146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. A. Fiellin and P. G. O'Connor Office-Based Treatment of Opioid-Dependent Patients N. Engl. J. Med., September 12, 2002; 347(11): 817 - 823. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Caputo, G. Addolorato, M. Domenicali, A. Mosti, M. Viaggi, F. Trevisani, G. Gasbarrini, M. Bernardi, and G. F. Stefanini SHORT-TERM METHADONE ADMINISTRATION REDUCES ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN NON-ALCOHOLIC HEROIN ADDICTS Alcohol Alcohol., March 1, 2002; 37(2): 164 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. A. Fiellin, R. A. Rosenheck, and T. R. Kosten Office-Based Treatment for Opioid Dependence: Reaching New Patient Populations Am J Psychiatry, August 1, 2001; 158(8): 1200 - 1204. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. M. Carroll, S. A. Ball, C. Nich, P. G. O'Connor, D. A. Eagan, T. L. Frankforter, E. G. Triffleman, J. Shi, and B. J. Rounsaville Targeting Behavioral Therapies to Enhance Naltrexone Treatment of Opioid Dependence: Efficacy of Contingency Management and Significant Other Involvement Arch Gen Psychiatry, August 1, 2001; 58(8): 755 - 761. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Gordon, D. S. Raistrick, and J. Banbery Detoxification from heroin with buprenorphine Psychiatr. Bull., November 1, 2000; 24(11): 433a - 433. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
P. G. O'Connor and D. A. Fiellin Pharmacologic Treatment of Heroin-Dependent Patients Ann Intern Med, July 4, 2000; 133(1): 40 - 54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Other articles noted Evid. Based Ment. Health, May 1, 1998; 1(2): 36 - 36. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
P. G. O'Connor and T. R. Kosten Rapid and Ultrarapid Opioid Detoxification Techniques JAMA, January 21, 1998; 279(3): 229 - 234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
OUTPATIENT OPIOID DETOXIFICATION Journal Watch (General), October 24, 1997; 1997(1024): 7 - 7. [Full Text] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||