Why MMT Patients Exchange Prescription Drugs

Patients in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) exchange a variety of prescription drugs—but little is known about why this happens, and how common it is.

pills and moneyGiven the risks of this practice—drug interactions, side effects, addiction, antibiotic resistance, birth defects, and possible interruption of MMT—a group affiliated with Butler Hospital and Brown University, Providence, RI, decided to find out. They published their findings in the January 1, 2013 issue of Drug and Alcohol Dependence. From December 2008 through January 2012, the team screened 767 individuals who enrolled in a smoking cessation trial in nine MMT sites in Southern New England. Characteristics of the 315 participants recruited were:

  • Average age 40 years
  • 49% male
  • 79% non-Hispanic white, 12% Hispanic, 2.5% black
  • Health insurance: public, 56%; private, 14%
  • 42% received disability payments
  • Average length of methadone treatment, 154 weeks
  • Past-30-day use of heroin, 7%; cocaine, 8%

Study Results

About 79 percent of participants had been prescribed at least one medication during the previous year. The drugs include allergy medications, antibiotics, blood pressure medications, erectile dysfunction drugs, antidepressants, tranquilizers, and drugs of abuse: sedatives, medications for ADHD, sleep medications, pain medications, and Suboxone (buprenorphine and naloxone).

About 20 percent of participants reported sharing their medication, and almost 40 percent said they had used medication not prescribed to them. While these rates may not be significantly higher than those in the general population, they represent a substantial risk to MMT patients. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), people with substance abuse histories are particularly vulnerable to overdose and adverse events related to illicit prescription drug use. Moreover, the authors note that MMT confers significant health benefits, and continued use of non-prescribed prescription medications may interrupt treatment.

Medications most often shared (given or sold) and received (borrowed or bought) were those with abuse potential—pain medications, sleep medications, and sedatives.

Sources of Drugs of Abuse

Sources, by Patients’ Responses

Drug

No. of Patients

No. of Responses

Given by Friend or Family Member,

No. (%)

Bought From Someone Patient Knew, No. (%)

Bought on The Street, No. (%)

ADHDa medications

8

9

6
(66.7)
0
(0.0)
3
(33.3)
Pain medications

61

71

39
(54.9)
2
(2.8)
30
(42.3)
Sedatives

61

78

45
(57.7)
10
(12.8)
23
(29.5)
Sleep medications

43

41

40
(97.6)
1
(2.4)
0
(0.0)
Suboxoneb

34

40

16
(40.0)
0
(0.0)
24
(60.0)

aAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

bBuprenorphine and naloxone.

As the table shows, patients generally received medications of abuse from friends or family, rather than buying them. Of interest, the only exception was Suboxone; 40 percent of patients (n=16) received the buprenorphine and naloxone medication from friends or family, and 60 percent (n=24) bought it on the street. In contrast, 66.7 percent of patients received their ADHD drug from friends or family, and 33.3 percent bought on the street; the corresponding percentages for pain medications were 54.9 from friends or family, 42.3 from street purchases, and 2.8 from acquaintance purchases.

The authors commented that the frequent receipt of buprenorphine from nonmedical sources “is consistent with an earlier study of opioid users, where 76% reported that they had used illicit buprenorphine.”

The authors did not list the specific prescription sedatives and pain medications bought on the street, but the former group includes benzodiazepines and barbiturates, and the latter group, opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) combinations.

Reasons for Exchanging Medications of Abuse

The only factor significantly associated with sharing drugs of abuse was younger age.

Four factors were significantly associated with receiving medications of abuse: younger age, being male, recent use of heroin or cocaine, and financial hardship.

The authors noted the important impact of financial hardship and low socioeconomic status on sharing and receiving. In the previous 6 months, 21 percent of the study population had at times gone without food, clothing, or housing to pay for medicine, and 8 percent had gone without needed medical care to pay for those necessities.

Moreover, the MMT population “has high rates of being uninsured or underinsured”—thus is more likely to share and receive various medications, not just illicit opioids. Many participants had public rather than private insurance, so “medication access, continuity, and affordability may still be a concern,” the authors said.

Value of the Study

This early study sheds light on the high rate of medication exchanges among MMT patients, and on some characteristics that lead to sharing and receiving—in particular, vulnerability, financial hardship, “and the need to self-medicate a physical health problem.”

These reasons underscore the need for better approaches to help this at-risk population. The authors note that while many resources for studying, defining, and understanding prescription drug exchange focus on trafficking, “doctor shopping,” and internet purchase of illegal prescriptions, prescription medication sharing also contributes to illegal use.

Reasons for sharing and receiving need further examination both to prevent the exchange of prescription drugs and to “maximize care to a vulnerable and underserved population,” the authors said.

    *     *     *

Caviness CM, Anderson BJ, de Dios MA, et al. Prescription medication exchange patterns among methadone maintenance patients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013; 127(1-3):232-238. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.07.007.

 

From the Editor – Maine Continuing to Push for Caps on Medication-Assisted Treatment

hour glass1First, Maine imposed two-year caps on methadone and buprenorphine treatment, if paid for by MaineCare, the state’s Medicaid program. The caps were due to take effect January 1, but treatment advocates were able to work out a medical-necessity exemption, which said that as long as patients were doing well, they could stay past the two-year limit.

Never mind that this made no sense—patients who are not doing well should be kicked off treatment—to go where, the streets? In any event, it was better than nothing. But in March, a new bill was introduced that would have eliminated even the medical necessity exemption. Two years on treatment, and that’s it.

Mark Publicker, MD, president of the Northern New England Society of Addiction Medicine, who helped lead the advocates’ battle for the medical necessity exemption, is “back in the saddle”—pressing the state legislature and the regulators for a reasonable approach.

Under the proposed bill, as of January 1, 2015 no patient would be allowed to be on methadone or buprenorphine for more than two years, if paid for by Medicaid.

“It’s outrageous,” he told AT Forum.

Forced Methadone Withdrawal in Jails Creates Barrier to Treatment in Community

jail croppedMethadone treatment for opioid dependence remains widely unavailable behind bars in the United States, and many inmates are forced to discontinue this evidence-based therapy, which lessens painful withdrawal symptoms. Now a new study by researchers from the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights, a collaboration of The Miriam Hospital and Brown University, offers some insight on the consequences of these mandatory withdrawal policies.

According to their research, published online by the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment and appearing in the May/June issue, nearly half of the opioid-dependent individuals who participated in the study say concerns with forced methadone withdrawal discouraged them from seeking methadone therapy in the community after their release.

“Inmates are aware of these correctional methadone withdrawal policies and know they’ll be forced to undergo this painful process again if they are re-arrested. It’s not surprising that many reported that if they were incarcerated and forced into withdrawal, they would rather withdraw from heroin than from methadone, because it is over in days rather than weeks or longer,” said senior author Josiah D. Rich, M.D., M.P.H., director of the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights, which is based at The Miriam Hospital.

He points out that methadone is one of the only medications that is routinely stopped upon incarceration. “This research highlights that what happens behind bars with methadone termination impacts our ability to give methadone, a proven treatment, to people in the community,” he added. “Given that opioid dependence causes major health and social issues, these correctional policies have serious implications.”

For the past four decades, methadone has been the treatment of choice for opioid dependence, including heroin, and is on the World Health Organization’s list of “Essential Medicines” that should be made available at all times by health systems to patients. This “anti-addictive” medication prevents withdrawal symptoms and drug cravings and blocks the euphoric effects of illicit opioids. Additionally, methadone therapy has been shown to reduce the risk of criminal activity, relapse, infectious disease transmission (including HIV and hepatitis) and overdose death.

However, in the United States, a significant proportion of people who are opioid dependent are not engaged in methadone replacement therapy. Rich says the majority of patients terminate treatment prematurely, often within the first year.

In their study, Rich and colleagues surveyed 205 people in drug treatment in two states – Rhode Island and Massachusetts – that routinely enforce methadone withdrawal in correctional facilities. They found nearly half of all participants reported concern regarding forced methadone withdrawal during incarceration. Individuals in Massachusetts, which has more severe methadone withdrawal procedures, were more likely to cite concern.

“If other evidence-based medicines like insulin therapy were routinely terminated or withdrawn from those who were incarcerated, we would hear about these serious lapses in care. They would likely garner some attention. But routine termination of methadone maintenance therapy has been occurring in the criminal justice system for decades and remains a little discussed and highly neglected issue,” says lead author Jeannia J. Fu, Sc.B., a former researcher with The Miriam Hospital who is now affiliated with the Yale University School of Medicine.

Rich adds, “We should examine the impact of incarceration itself, and what happens behind bars, on public health and public safety outcomes, and tailor our policies appropriately. We have methadone, which has been shown to improve public health and public safety, yet we have policies that reduce access to this treatment. The correctional policies on methadone should be re-evaluated in terms of the impact they have on the individual and the community.”

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/l-fmw032713.php

Information on the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence (AATOD) initiatives to increase access to methadone treatment in the Criminal Justice System is available at: http://www.aatod.org/projectseducational-training/methadone-treatment-in-the-criminal-justice/

Source: Eurekalert.org – March 27, 2013

Blog: Obstetricians Behaving Badly

baby“Dealing with uninformed obstetricians is getting old. Overall, about four percent of opioid addicts are pregnant, according to past data. At one of the opioid treatment programs where I’m medical director, the percentage is a bit higher at five or six percent, but it seems like many more. Maybe it seems like more because of the unpleasantness I encounter when I contact these patients’ obstetricians, to coordinate care with them. Aside from a few pleasant exceptions, I dread calling these OB’s.”

http://janaburson.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/obstetricians-behaving-badly/

Source:   Jana Burson - March 22, 2013

AATOD Guidelines for Guest Medication

“Absent regulations or published practices for Guest Medication, AATOD is providing these recommended “Guest Medication” guidelines. Guest Medication provides a mechanism for patients who are not eligible for take-home medication to travel from their home clinic for business, pleasure or family emergencies. It also provides an option for patients who need to travel for a period of time that exceeds the amount of  eligible take-home doses to do so within regulatory requirements. While AATOD acknowledges there may be state and program variations, AATOD believes that Guest Medication should be patient centered, respectful, and compassionate.”

http://www.aatod.org/policies/policy-statements/aatod-guidelines-for-guest-medication/

Source: American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence, Inc. – March 6, 2013

U.N. Report Suggests Some Autism & Addiction Treatments Are Akin to Torture

“The report [PDF] singled out tactics such as forced labor, punitive use of electric shock, prolonged restraint and isolation, rape and other sexual violence in detention, as well as and denial of maintenance medications like methadone or buprenorphine (Suboxone) in treating addiction.  It also reported on failures to provide adequate pain treatment as potentially constituting torture.”

“A particular form of ill-treatment and possibly torture of drug users is the denial of opiate substitution treatment,” the report says, noting that this is considered a human rights violation when done in jails and prisons. “Similar reasoning should apply to the non-custodial context,” it says, meaning that provision of such treatment should be required when desired by patients and where evidence suggests it would help.  Some countries — like Russia — completely ban the use of maintenance treatments, despite the fact that they have been shown to cut overdose deaths dramatically.  American prisons also routinely deny access to maintenance medications, citing concerns about inmates selling them, which puts them in violation of these human rights.”

http://healthland.time.com/2013/03/06/u-n-report-suggests-some-autism-addiction-treatments-are-akin-to-torture/#

Source: Healthland.Time.com – March 6, 2013

Affordable Care Act to Provide Substance Abuse Treatment to Millions of New Patients

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will revolutionize the field of substance abuse treatment, according to A. Thomas McLellan, PhD, CEO and co-founder of the Treatment Research Institute.

“As addiction becomes treated as a chronic illness, pharmaceutical companies will be much more interested in developing new medications. “Immense markets are being created,” he said. “Until now, there have been about 13,000 treatment providers for substance use disorders, and less than half of those are doctors. Now, 550,000 primary care doctors, in addition to nurses who can prescribe medications, will be caring for these patients.”

http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/addiction/affordable-care-act-to-provide-substance-abuse-treatment-to-millions-of-new-patients?utm_source=Join+Together+Daily&utm_campaign=dff816eb3f-JT_Daily_News_13_House_Members&utm_medium=email

Source: JoinTogether.org – February 27, 2013

Patient Dilemma: Treat Hepatitis C Now or Hold Out?

“Being diagnosed with a potentially fatal disease usually triggers immediate treatment. But a growing number of people infected with hepatitis C are putting off therapy, choosing instead to roll the dice and wait for a new generation of drugs to become available.

The new drugs, which could begin hitting pharmacies in a year or two, promise to cure hepatitis C more effectively and with far fewer harsh side effects than the current regimen of medications. The disease, which attacks the liver, often progresses slowly, giving certain patients leeway in when to seek treatment. And doctors regularly monitor these patients to check if the disease has significantly worsened. Up to four million Americans are estimated to be infected with the hepatitis C virus.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323293704578330712442353712.html

Source: – WallStreetJournal.com – March 4, 2013

Pennsylvania – Under the Influence of … Methadone, Others Want More Oversight of Opioid Connected to Fatal Crashes

“Under a new law that took effect in January, a Methadone Death and Incident Review Team will convene for the first time Monday in Harrisburg to examine the circumstances surrounding methadone-related deaths, including car crashes and overdoses, and will review other problems with the synthetic opioid, the most widely used drug to treat heroin addiction.

Calling methadone “dangerous,” state Sen. Mike Stack, D-Philadelphia supports new regulations that would make methadone clinics partly responsible for crashes involving drivers who leave their facilities. He said he began pushing for methadone reform about two years ago after learning about constituents overdosing.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-methadone-clinic-crashes-20130302,0,3321816,full.story

Source: The Morning Call – March 2, 2013

Blog – News Outlets Behaving Badly: Appalling Article by Bloomberg

“I don’t know if any of my readers caught that awful article on bloomberg.com, criticizing methadone clinics and their patients. I’m not going to post a link to it because it doesn’t deserve a link. But I did write to the editor, the writer of the story, and a comment to their post:

I read this disjointed and error-ridden article with sadness. I wish you could spend a day with me, talking to the patients I treat with methadone for their opioid addiction. You’d hear how, for many patients, methadone has been a life-saver. Most of my patients are ordinary people who became addicted before they knew what was happening. A very small number are criminals, and those few get media attention, propagating the myth that all methadone patients are irresponsible criminals. This just isn’t true. My patients are housewives, blue collar workers, secretaries, and schoolteachers. Anyone can become addicted.”

The blog can be accessed at: http://janaburson.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/news-outlets-behaving-badly-appalling-article-by-bloomberg/

Source: Janaburson’s Blog – February 9, 2013

Addiction Expert: Treatment Providers Can Perpetuate Media Stereotypes of Patients

“Stereotypes about addiction, perpetuated by the media, can be unintentionally reinforced by addiction professionals, according to a New York addiction expert.

“When you go to a diabetes clinic, you don’t expect your doctor to have diabetes. But many people treating those who are addicted have themselves been treated for addiction, and tend to use the same lingo as their patients to make them feel more comfortable,” Dr. Edwin A. Salsitz, MD, Medical Director, Office-Based Opioid Therapy at Beth Israel Medical Center, said at a recent meeting, “Solutions to the Addiction Crisis.” “They use terms like ‘dirty’ or ‘clean’ to refer to a urine drug test, instead of the more medical ‘positive’ or ‘negative.’ Using slang in addiction medicine can be confusing and demeaning, and reinforce the stigma attached to addiction.”

http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/addiction/addiction-expert-treatment-providers-can-perpetuate-media-stereotypes-of-patients

Source: JoinTogether.org – February 5, 2013

Ira J. Marion, MAT Legend and Patient Advocate, Passes Away at 68

Ira J. Marion, MA, a leader in medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for more than 40 years, died of pancreatic cancer on January 7 at age 68. During his career at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, he turned a pioneering methadone program—one of the first in New York City—into an integrated treatment program offering complete medical and wellness care. Under his guidance, MAT at Einstein expanded from a patient population of 350 in 1970 to what it is today—nine programs treating more than 3,000 patients.

Joyce Lowinson, MD promoted Ira to administrator shortly after he joined the program as a counselor. It turned out that he was an excellent partner to help achieve the goals for the patients, she told AT Forum. He played an important role in introducing the supervised admnistratrion of medication to patients suffering from tuberculosis; the next step was introducing primary care into the clinics.

Empathy for His Patients

When Suzanne Hall-Westcott, Mr. Marion’s companion, first met him, she was working at Phoenix House, a treatment center for substance and alcohol abuse. She recalled that Ira sent her an email after her husband was diagnosed with cancer – the same disease which his wife had died of recently. “He said, ‘This is a terrible time for both of you, in different ways.’” This was the kind of empathy that he had for patients, she said.

Mr. Marion became involved in MAT as a patient. He would often say he was a “product of the system,” as if he was just a patient who got lucky, said Walter Ginter, CMA, project director of the Medication Assisted Recovery Support (MARS) Project of the National Alliance for Medication Assisted (NAMA) Recovery. “Luck had nothing to do with it,” said Mr. Ginter, also a methadone patient. “He started out at the bottom and worked his way up.”

Mr. Marion was known among his colleagues for his wry sense of humor and his colorful way of sharing the stories he loved to tell. But he was better known for his empathy—not only for patients, but for everyone he came into contact with.

As a patient himself, Mr. Marion was able to identify with other patients, but that wasn’t the whole explanation for his skill, said Dr. Lowinson. “He generally showed great empathy for all the people in his life who had difficulties. He always came to the rescue.”

“Ira possessed unique talents among administrators in our treatment community,” said Mark Parrino, MPA, president of the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence (AATOD). “He always cared about how patients were being treated, and from the earliest stage was an incredible advocate for giving patients a greater voice in their treatment decisions.”

“Boy, does this guy like to talk!”

Mr. Ginter first met Mr. Marion in 1999, when he was on the methadone advisory group at the New York Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS). “My initial thought was, ‘Boy does this guy like to talk!’” Mr. Ginter recalled. “But as our relationship grew, Ira was the one person I knew in the field who walked the walk,” he said. “We all talk about patient-centered care, but it wasn’t just words with Ira.”

In fact, Mr. Marion never refused to talk to anyone—he always had his iPhone and his iPad with him, and whether it was a patient, a provider, or a reporter on the other end of the line, he would pick up, said Mr. Ginter. “Even at the end, when he was sick, he was happiest when he was sitting in bed with his iPhone in one hand and his iPad in the other.”

Few people knew that Mr. Marion was on the NAMA-Recovery board, said Mr. Ginter. “It was a big thing for us to have him on the board—it gave us credibility, and it helped steer and guide us.” For someone whose time was so valuable, Mr. Ginter said, his NAMA-Recovery participation was very generous. “He was a gift to the field. For me that was a blessing.”

Joycelyn Woods, MA, CMA, executive director of NAMA, commended Mr. Marion as an “untiring champion of both patients’ rights and patient-centered care.” He was “courageous in expressing that he was a ‘product of the system,’” said Ms. Woods.

Influence at AATOD

Mr. Parrino first met Mr. Marion briefly in 1975 at a meeting of administrators in the New York State methadone treatment system. “I didn’t know then how our lives would be intertwined,” Mr. Parrino told AT Forum. After they both joined the Board of Directors at COMPA (Committee of Methadone Program Administrators) in 1980, the two worked on a number of projects throughout the 1980s, culminating in a trip to Hong Kong and China on behalf or New York State. “It was a wonderful trip, and I got to know Ira much better, which led to a greater and deeper friendship,” recalled Mr. Parrino.

The China and Hong Kong trip also led to more international travel for Europad and other conferences in Italy, France, Bulgaria, Bratislava, and Russia, to name a few. “Throughout these trips, I was always impressed by Ira’s clear and politically intuitive judgment, and his sense of vision,” said Mr. Parrino.

Mr. Marion had “an enormous influence in the policymaking discussions” of the AATOD Board of Directors, said Mr. Parrino.

Saying Goodbye

One of the hardest things for everyone in the field is Mr. Marion’s absence. “I have come to learn that the mark of an extraordinary human being is not just the legacy of work left behind, but the enormous empty space left in the wake of such a life,” said Mr. Parrino. “Ira can be counted among those individuals—the ones whose whose efforts helped countless patients who will never quite know how much he contributed to their well being.”

Mr. Ginter recalled the day he said goodbye—one week before Mr. Marion’s death in Beth Israel’s hospice. “It was New Year’s morning, and Ira was still on the ball, joking with me,” he said.

The funeral was very private, as Ira had wanted. Instead, Mr. Marion “got what he wanted” for a send-off, said Mr. Ginter. “People honored his request. Everybody went by his house and told ‘Ira stories.’ He wanted people to remember him the way they last saw him, before his battle with cancer,” said Mr. Ginter.

With his late wife, Barbara Housner Marion, to whom he was happily married for 35 years, Mr. Marion had two children. For an online tribute created by his son, go to www.irajmarion.com.

Ms. Hall-Westcott, in an obituary she placed in the New York Times on January 29, called her time with Mr. Marion “our after ever after” life. “We both had lived ‘happily ever after,’ raised our families, and lost our spouses much too soon, to cancer. What happened ‘after ever after’ was to find joy again and dream of growing old together. He will live on in my heart forever.”

OTPs Can Now Dispense Buprenorphine Take-Homes with No Waiting Periods

As of January 7, 2013, opioid treatment programs (OTPs) can now dispense buprenorphine take-homes, with no predetermined waiting period for stable patients. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) at last issued its final rule giving OTPs the welcome flexibility this past November, and the rule was published in the Federal Register December 6, 2012. Fears of diversion were probably the driving force behind the delay in the final rule; the proposed rule was issued in June 2009.

Because Schedule III substances—like buprenorphine—have a lower potential for abuse compared to Schedule II substances—like methadone—there is justification for the less-restrictive rules on dispensing buprenorphine, according to SAMHSA.

Of course, states can have stricter rules. Some require OTPs to be open 7 days a week, and the idea of buprenorphine take-homes isn’t even on their radar screens. Still, the final rule is a very important first step for OTPs and their patients.

Most OTP physicians (80 percent) have already completed the DATA training and obtained the required waivers, according to SAMHSA. OTPs will not have a cap on how many patients they can treat with either buprenorphine or methadone. However, for take-homes, OTPs will still be “required to assess and document each patient’s responsibility and stability to handle opioid drug products, including buprenorphine products,” SAMHSA said in the final rule.

At this important juncture in the history of OTPs, accompanying articles in this issue take a look back at the development of buprenorphine and methadone for treating patients with opioid use disorders, and the differences between the two medications. We also report thoughts from leaders in the field as to what the new rule is likely to mean to OTPs and their patients.

Buprenorphine vs. Methadone

Buprenorphine and methadone, both being opioids, activate the opioid (mu) receptors on nerve cells. And both drugs have long half-lifes, meaning that they’re long-acting medications. The half-life can vary from 24 to 60 hours for buprenorphine, and from 8 to 59 hours for methadone. (The half-life is the amount of time a drug stays in the body before its concentration in the plasma drops by half. A drug’s half-life can vary from patient to patient.)

The long half-lifes of buprenorphine and methadone account for their usefulness in treating opioid dependence. Simply put, these drugs lack the peaks and troughs that are associated with short-term opioids, like heroin—swings in drug plasma levels that can cause overdose and withdrawal symptoms.

But there are key differences between buprenorphine and methadone.

Full Agonist vs. Partial Agonist

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist; methadone, like heroin, is a full agonist. It is by their actions on opioid receptors that opioids achieve their analgesic (pain-killing) as well as their addictive effects.

Methadone, as a full mu opioid agonist, continues to produce effects on the receptors until either all receptors are fully activated, or the maximum effect is reached.

Buprenorphine, as a partial agonist, does not activate mu receptors to the same extent as methadone. Its effects increase until they reach a plateau. At that level, opioid-addicted patients can discontinue opioid use without experiencing withdrawal. Buprenorphine reaches its ceiling effect at a moderate dose, which means that its effects do not increase after that point, even with increases in dosage.

Like all opioids, buprenorphine can cause respiratory depression and euphoria, but its maximal effects are less than those of full agonists. The benefits of this from an overdose perspective constitute the safety profile of buprenorphine—a lower risk of abuse, addiction, and side effects than with full agonists.

For people who are not addicted to or dependent on opioids, the effects of partial (buprenorphine) and full (methadone) agonists are indistinguishable. However, at a certain point, the increasing effects of partial agonists reach maximum levels. For this reason, people who are dependent on high doses of opioids are better suited to treatment with a full agonist, such as methadone.

Buprenorphine, like methadone, has a serious potential for drug-drug interactions. It must be used cautiously with other medications, in particular benzodiazepines, other sedatives, opioid antagonists like naltrexone, and opioid agonists.

Buprenorphine

Methadone

Heroin

Partial agonist Full agonist Full agonist
Long half-life (24 to 60 hours) Long half-life (8 to 59 hours) Short half-life
Ceiling effect; good safety profile No ceiling effect (useful in patients dependent on high doses of opioids) No ceiling effect

Formulations of Buprenorphine

In October 2002, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the buprenorphine monotherapy product, Subutex, and a buprenorphine/naloxone combination product, Suboxone, for treating opioid addiction.

Subutex is no longer sold in this country. It has been replaced by generic buprenorphine. Suboxone, a sublingual tablet (designed to dissolve under the tongue), comes in two dosage forms. Suboxone film was approved by the FDA in 2010. The sublingual film dissolves faster than the tablet, and is individually wrapped in unit-dose, child-resistant pouches. According to the manufacturer, Reckitt Benckiser, Suboxone film is clinically interchangeable with the tablet.

Last fall, Reckitt Benckiser voluntarily removed its Suboxone tablets from the market, citing a few pediatric overdoses. But it protected its hold on the Suboxone market by retaining the film formulation. The patent on the tablets had long expired; the patent on the film runs until 2023. Patients, of course, had to be switched to the film, unless their physicians wanted to switch them to generic buprenorphine. At the same time that Reckitt pulled the tablets, it filed a Citizen’s Petition with the FDA, calling on all buprenorphine products to be sold in childproof packaging.

The effect of these moves by Reckitt on the buprenorphine marketplace are not clear, said Nicholas Reuter, MPH, who was senior public health analyst with SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) when this story was written (he retired on January 31, 2013). “Submitting a Citizen’s Petition doesn’t mean the FDA has to accept it,” he said. In addition, in November 2012 the FDA accepted Orexo’s New Drug Application for Zubsolv, a buprenorphine-naloxone combination. Zubsolv could well be the first generic competition to Suboxone. And on December 17, 2012, Titan licensed Probuphine, its buprenorphine implant, to Braeburn Pharmaceutical for exclusive commercialization in the U.S. and Canada. “The buprenorphine marketplace is looking at different formulations,” noted Mr. Reuter. “There could be a generic competitor [for Suboxone] tomorrow.”

Making the Decision: Methadone vs. Buprenorphine

Aside from the dosage issue, there is no “cookie-cutter” approach for deciding what patient gets buprenorphine and what patient gets methadone. Philip L. Herschman, PhD, chief clinical officer of CRC Health Group, pointed out that different patients react differently to different medications. “Some feel better on buprenorphine, some feel better on methadone,” he said. CRC has been using generic buprenorphine in its OTPs on the same basis as methadone. The extent to which CRC will be able to give buprenorphine take-homes will depend in large part on state regulations—just because the federal government has approved the plan doesn’t mean states will.

“Buprenorphine is great, but it’s not for everybody,” said Walter Ginter, CMA, project director of the Medication Assisted Recovery Support (MARS) project. He doesn’t think the final rule is going to make a big difference for most patients. He noted that few patients go to methadone maintenance as their first course of treatment.

In fact, Mr. Ginter can speak as an expert on subjective effects in a personal way: he has been maintained on both medications—buprenorphine during its development in the 1990s, when he was a study subject, and then methadone. He has been on a high dose of methadone for years, and says “I don’t think I’m clouded out.” Indeed, he is one of the most energetic and articulate advocates in the field. It comes down to a matter of personal preference, he said. “With methadone, you’re never sick and you’re never high, but you do get the serum peaking four hours after the dose,” he said. “I think Suboxone is too much the same, with no ups or downs.”

Still, there are OTPs that do switch patients from methadone to buprenorphine, titrating very carefully downward for patients on doses of 80 milligrams or more of methadone before switching to buprenorphine, said Mark Parrino. MPA, president of the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence (AATOD). In general, if a patient has been using opioids for a longer period, or has a higher tolerance, methadone would be more appropriate. The reason is that buprenorphine’s ceiling limits those higher-dose equivalents.

Publishers Note: Nicholas Reuter, MPH joined Reckitt Benckiser in February 2013 as a Treatment Manager.

History of Buprenorphine

 Buprenorphine has been in active use for 10 years as a treatment medication for opioid addiction.

As explained by Nicholas Reuter, MPH, senior public health analyst with SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), the development of buprenorphine was preceded by the development and approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol (LAAM). The government supported the development of LAAM, but the medication “couldn’t generate enough income from patient use to be sustainable,” he said.

“At the time, there was a lot of discussion about the treatment gap,” he told AT Forum. There were at least 2 to 3 million people who needed treatment for opioid addiction, and only 150,000 or fewer could get into Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs). “The thinking was that we needed to develop an office-based model,” said Mr. Reuter.

Buprenorphine had been approved for addiction treatment in other countries, Mr. Reuter said, and the molecule is interesting because it is a partial agonist, which gives it a ceiling effect. This means that the risk of overdose is attenuated. “Taken in increasing amounts, it causes dysphoria [anxiety, depression, unease],” noted Mr. Reuter.

People on Capitol Hill were working to see how buprenorphine could be developed as an office-based treatment for opioid addiction, and this led to the development of DATA 2000, said Mr. Reuter. “It was set up as an experiment.” Safeguards were built into the law, so that if treating patients in the physician’s office with narcotic drugs did not turn out to be a good idea, the law could be rescinded. “We were required to do a formal analysis.”

The “experiment” worked, and in 2002 the FDA approved buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid addiction.

Why Not More OTPs?

Why didn’t SAMHSA just increase methadone slots in OTPs, if there was a need for more treatment? First of all, it’s not that easy to increase the number of OTPs, said Mr. Reuter, noting that almost everyplace a program tries to open up, there is a NIMBY battle from the local community. But perhaps more important, there were concerns about methadone overdoses. It turned out that the overdoses were mainly related to pain prescribing, but that was not known at the time. That’s because the increase in pain prescribing coincided with the rule allowing more flexible methadone take-home doses.

But SAMHSA was in a difficult position, nevertheless. “Here you have people saying methadone is a dangerous drug, too many people are dying from it, and we have to look at how it’s used,” said Mr. Reuter. “Methadone mortality was such a significant concern. We would hear it every day.”

While there has been an increase in the number of OTPs in the past decade, there is still a treatment gap, said Mr. Reuter. There were 900 OTPs ten years ago, and now there are 1,260. The number of patients treated in OTPs has gone from 170,000 In 1998 to about 300,000.

Instead of expanding some office-based models for methadone, the government decided to look at buprenorphine—in large part because of problems with methadone mortality, which peaked in 2001, said Mr. Reuter.

Buprenorphine in Practice

Something similar has happened with buprenorphine’s early years—in spite of all of the agency collaboration. “What’s interesting is that as physicians got more experience in treating opioid addiction, they realized that there is a high relapse rate, and maintaining the patient is better than withdrawing the patient,” said Mr. Parrino. This doesn’t mean that every patient will need to be on medication for life.

But by increasing access to buprenorphine, DATA 2000 did not necessarily provide access to counseling and other comprehensive treatment services, said Mr. Parrino. “As far as we know, many patients did not receive counseling in addition to the medication prescribed, did not receive routine toxicology tests to guide clinical decision making, and appeared to divert buprenorphine take-home medication,” he told AT Forum. “Without question, treatment access was increased significantly because patients who never would have sought treatment in the OTP, or simply felt more comfortable receiving such care in a physician office setting, did get access to treatment. But what kind of treatment did they receive?”

Buprenorphine Prescribing Trends

It’s easy to find the number of physicians who are certified through the DATA waiver process to prescribe buprenorphine, but much more difficult to find out how many of them are actually prescribing, or how many patients they have, or whether they are providing counseling or drug testing.

According to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s ARCOS data, over 190 million dosage units of buprenorphine were distributed to pharmacies in 2010, said Mr. Reuter. That’s almost five times the 40 million distributed in 2006. Only 1.1 million dosage units were distributed to OTPs during 2010. Almost 800,000 individuals got prescriptions for buprenorphine from office-based physicians in 2010—five times the 140,000 estimated in 2006.

SAMHSA measures the number of prescribing physicians by how many submit applications to get certified to prescribe buprenorphine. Currently, that’s about 23,000, according to Mr. Reuter. But that doesn’t mean that they are all prescribing—far from it. In fact, the number of physicians prescribing buprenorphine has gone down; fewer physicians are prescribing to more patients, and there is a clear need for more access to buprenorphine.

In 2005, there were 22,000 physicians certified to prescribe buprenorphine under DATA 2000. Of these, almost 5,200 requested to treat up to 100 patients, according to the final rule. In 2009, when the DEA stepped up its investigations of buprenorphine-prescribing physicians, to make sure they were adhering to 100-patient caps, some physicians objected, and surrendered their certificates. Mr. Reuter noted that some of these doctors (about 2,000) had obtained the certification but not gotten any patients, and didn’t want to be bothered with the inspections.

As of September 2012, about 3.9 million patients had been treated with Suboxone, said Tim Baxter, MD, global clinical director of Reckitt Benckiser, which makes the Suboxone brand of buprenorphine.  Of the 23,000 physicians who are waivered to prescribe buprenorphine, 12,000 have actually prescribed it—“many have written only one prescription,” said Dr. Baxter. In fact, there aren’t enough physicians prescribing it. “Initially the number of prescribers went up, and then it flattened out,” he said. Many active prescribers are now fully booked. “With the 100-patient limit, it’s harder for patients to find a prescriber.”

Buprenorphine Diversion

Abuse and diversion of buprenorphine are a concern to us and the FDA, said Mr. Reuter. The 2010 DAWN national data showed an increase in buprenorphine reports in the emergency department.

There are concerns about increases in buprenorphine abuse and diversion, which has paralleled the prescribing increase in the buprenorphine mono formulation, the one without naloxone. The naloxone is what prevents people from being able to get high from melting down and injecting the medication.

One problem is that the mono formulation has been available in generic versions for three years. Generic versions are less expensive than Suboxone, and prescribing of mono buprenorphine has increased steadily.

According to the final rule, HHS “is not aware of compelling evidence to support the assertion that more OTPs than office-based physicians will dispense mono buprenorphine.” But controls already in place regarding OTPs—much more intense controls than those regarding office-based physicians—“will mitigate diversion issues in OTPs with either buprenorphine formulation,” the final rule states. In addition, “the risk for buprenorphine diversion from buprenorphine dispensed by OTPs in accordance with this final rule will be less than the risk of diversion associated with office-based settings.”

If an OTP patient gets a 30-day supply of methadone, or, under the new rule, buprenorphine, that patient is “still subject to drug-testing requirements, still subject to counseling, and still has a treatment plan,” said Mr. Reuter. “On the other end of the spectrum are the buprenorphine prescribers who could prescribe a 30-day supply of Suboxone or buprenorphine, with no requirements for drug testing or counseling,” he said. “That may explain why there is an escalating abuse and diversion of buprenorphine.”

Buprenorphine Not a Miracle Cure

Treatment with buprenorphine is effective, said Mr. Reuter. Medication-assisted treatment has expanded, even in parts of the country where it wasn’t available, such  as Wyoming and North Dakota. Those states don’t permit OTPs. “But the success has to be looked at in terms of the real world, in which people relapse,” he said. “It’s not a miracle cure, and I never thought it would be. To my mind, it’s expanded treatment capacity, but it’s not a cure. And now we see increasing abuse and diversion.”

Mr. Parrino thinks the reason buprenorphine has been successful is that it is not “stigmatized,” the way methadone is. Interestingly, the earliest prescribers of buprenorphine were using it primarily as a withdrawal agent, rather than a maintenance agent, he said. Many of these patients undoubtedly relapsed; as a huge NIDA clinical trial showed, more than 9 out of 10 patients who were tapered off buprenorphine, relapsed.

See comment from Robert Newman, MD in comment section. 

Reference

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 40. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 04-3939. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2004.

Site last updated June 11, 2013 @ 6:04 pm