Superiority and cost-effectiveness of monthly extended-release buprenorphine versus daily standard of care medication: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Marsden J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10692661 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Superiority and cost-effectiveness of monthly extended-release buprenorphine versus daily standard of care medication: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.
Marsden John J Kelleher Mike M Gilvarry Eilish E Mitcheson Luke L Bisla Jatinder J Cape Angela A Cowden Fiona F Day Edward E Dewhurst Jonathan J Evans Rachel R Hardy Will W Hearn Andrea A Kelly Joanna J Lowry Natalie N McCusker Martin M Murphy Caroline C Murray Robert R Myton Tracey T Quarshie Sophie S Vanderwaal Rob R Wareham April A Hughes Dyfrig D Hoare Zoë Z
EClinicalMedicine 20231117
<h4>Background</h4>Daily methadone maintenance or buprenorphine treatment is the standard-of-care (SoC) medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Subcutaneously injected, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) may be more effective-but there has been no superiority evaluation.<h4>Methods</h4>This pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness superiority randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at five National Health Service community-based treatment clinics in E ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Opioid use disorder (OUD) in pregnant women has increased significantly in recent years. Maintaining these women on sublingual (SL) buprenorphine (BUP) is an evidence-based practice but BUP-SL is associated with several disadvantages that an extended-release (XR) BUP formulation could eliminate. The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) is conducting an intent-to-treat, two-arm, open-label, pragmatic randomized controlled trial, Medication treatment for Opioid-dependent expectant Mothers (MOMs), to compare mother and infant outcomes of pregnant women with OUD treated with BUP-XR, relative to BUP-SL. A second aim is to determine the relative economic value of utilizing BUP-XR. Approximately 300 pregnant women with an estimated gestational age (EGA) of 6-30 weeks, recruited from 12 sites, will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to BUP-XR or BUP-SL, balancing on site, EGA, and BUP-SL status (taking/not taking) at the time of randomization. Participants will be provided with study medication and attend weekly medication visits through 12 months postpartum. Participants will be invited to participate in two sub-studies to evaluate the: 1) mechanisms by which BUP-XR may improve mother and infant outcomes; and 2) effects of prenatal exposure to BUP-XR versus BUP-SL on infant neurodevelopment. This paper describes the key design decisions for the main trial made during protocol development. This Investigational New Drug (IND) trial uniquely uses pragmatic features where feasible in order to maximize external validity, hence increasing the potential to inform clinical practice guidelines and address multiple knowledge gaps for treatment of this patient population.
| S-EPMC7184985 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10828604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Buprenorphine extended-release (BUP-XR) formulation is a once-monthly subcutaneous injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Buprenorphine undergoes extensive cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 metabolism, leading to potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) as reported for sublingual buprenorphine. Sublingual buprenorphine is subject to first-pass extraction, as a significant proportion of the dose is swallowed. Because subcutaneous administration avoids first-pass extraction, the DDI with CYP3A4 inhibitors is expected to be less than the 2-fold increase reported for the sublingual route. The objective of this analysis was to predict the magnitude of DDI following coadministration of BUP-XR with a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor or inducer using physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling. Models were developed and verified by comparing predicted and observed data for buprenorphine following intravenous and sublingual dosing. Comparison of predicted and observed pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and PK parameters demonstrated acceptable predictive performance of the models (within 1.5-fold). Buprenorphine plasma concentrations following administration of a single dose of BUP-XR (300 mg) were simulated using a series of intravenous infusions. Daily coadministration of strong CYP3A4 inhibitors with BUP-XR predicted mild increases in buprenorphine exposures (AUC, 33%-44%; Cmax , 17-28%). Daily coadministration of a strong CYP3A4 inducer was also associated with mild decreases in buprenorphine AUC (28%) and Cmax (22%). In addition, the model predicted minimal increases in buprenorphine AUC (8%-11%) under clinical conditions of 2 weeks' treatment with CYP3A4 inhibitors administered after initiation of BUP-XR. In conclusion, the PBPK predictions indicate that coadministration of BUP-XR with strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers would not result in clinically meaningful interactions.
| S-EPMC8451859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBuprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) is a current first-line treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). The standard induction method of buprenorphine/naloxone requires patients to be abstinent from opioids and therefore experience withdrawal symptoms prior to induction, which can be a barrier in starting treatment. Rapid micro-induction (micro-dosing) involves the administration of small, frequent does of buprenorphine/naloxone and removes the need for a period of withdrawal prior to the start of treatment. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of rapid micro-induction versus standard induction of buprenorphine/naloxone in patients with OUD.MethodsThis is a randomized, open-label, two-arm, superiority, controlled trial comparing the safety and effectiveness of rapid micro-induction versus standard induction of buprenorphine/naloxone for the treatment of OUD. A total of 50 participants with OUD will be randomized at one Canadian hospital. The primary outcome is the completion of buprenorphine/naloxone induction with low levels of withdrawal. Secondary outcomes are treatment retention, illicit drug use, self-reported drug use behaviour, craving, pain, physical health, safety, and client satisfaction.DiscussionThis is the first randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of rapid micro-induction versus standard induction of buprenorphine/naloxone. This study will thereby generate evidence for a novel induction method which eliminates substantial barriers to the use of buprenorphine/naloxone in the midst of the ongoing opioid crisis. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04234191; date of registration: January 21, 2020; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04234191.
| S-EPMC7881636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData on therapeutic interventions following deliberate self harm (DSH) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are very scant and there is no unanimous consensus on the best pharmacological option for these patients. There is some evidence that lithium treatment might be effective in reducing the risk of completed suicide in adult patients with unipolar affective disorders, however no clear cut results have been found so far. The primary aim of the present study is to assess whether adding lithium to standard therapy is an effective treatment strategy to reduce the risk of suicidal behaviour in long term treatment of people with TRD and previous history of DSH.Methods/designWe will carry out a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. Adults with a diagnosis of major depression, an episode of DSH in the previous 12 months and inadequate response to at least two antidepressants given sequentially at an adequate dose for an adequate time for the current depressive episode will be allocated to add lithium to current therapy (intervention arm) or not (control arm). Following randomisation, treatment is to be taken daily for 1 year unless some clear reason to stop develops. Suicide completion and acts of DSH during the 12 months of follow-up will constitute the composite primary outcome. To preserve outcome assessor blindness, an independent adjudicating committee, blind to treatment allocation, will anonymously review all outcome events.DiscussionThe results of this study should indicate whether lithium treatment is associated with lower risk of completed suicide and DSH in adult patients with treatment resistant unipolar depression, who recently attempted suicide.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550.
| S-EPMC3751729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLinezolid is a broadly used antibiotic to treat complicated infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. Therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid concentrations is recommended to maximise its efficacy and safety, mainly haematological toxicity. Different pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets have been proposed to improve linezolid exposure: the ratio of the area under the concentration-time curve during a 24-hour period to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) between 80 and 120; percentage of time that the drug concentration remains above the MIC during a dosing interval greater than 85% and the trough concentration between 2 and 7 mg/L. This clinical trial aims to evaluate the safety, efficacy and the clinical and economic utility of personalised dosing of linezolid using Bayesian forecasting methods to attain pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets, known as model-informed precision dosing.Methods and analysisThis is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, parallel, controlled, phase IV and low intervention trial. Participants will be randomly assigned 1:1 to each group (n=346 per group). Control group will receive the standard dose of linezolid. Intervention group will receive personalised dosage of linezolid based on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic adjustments. The primary outcome will be the incidence of thrombocytopenia in both groups.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Investigation with Medicines of Galicia (code 2022/140) and authorised by the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices. The trial is implemented in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the international ethical and scientific quality standard, the Good Clinical Practice. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberEudraCT registration code: 2022-000144-30.
| S-EPMC11529615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBuprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder may be improved by sustained-release formulations.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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.InterventionsRandomization 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 measuresPrimary 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.ResultsA 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 relevanceCompared 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02651584.
| S-EPMC6145749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionEarly childhood pneumonia is a common problem globally with long-term complications that include bronchiectasis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is biologically plausible that these long-term effects may be minimised in young children at increased risk of such sequelae if any residual lower airway infection and inflammation in their developing lungs can be treated successfully by longer antibiotic courses. In contrast, shortened antibiotic treatments are being promoted because of concerns over inducing antimicrobial resistance. Nevertheless, the optimal treatment duration remains unknown. Outcomes from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on paediatric pneumonia have focused on short-term (usually <2 weeks) results. Indeed, no long-term RCT-generated outcome data are available currently. We hypothesise that a longer antibiotic course, compared with the standard treatment course, reduces the risk of chronic respiratory symptoms/signs or bronchiectasis 24 months after the original pneumonia episode.Methods and analysisThis multicentre, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial involving seven hospitals in six cities from three different countries commenced in May 2016. Three-hundred-and-fourteen eligible Australian Indigenous, New Zealand Māori/Pacific and Malaysian children (aged 0.25 to 5 years) hospitalised for community-acquired, chest X-ray (CXR)-proven pneumonia are being recruited. Following intravenous antibiotics and 3 days of amoxicillin-clavulanate, they are randomised (stratified by site and age group, allocation-concealed) to receive either: (i) amoxicillin-clavulanate (80 mg/kg/day (maximum 980 mg of amoxicillin) in two-divided doses or (ii) placebo (equal volume and dosing frequency) for 8 days. Clinical data, nasopharyngeal swab, bloods and CXR are collected. The primary outcome is the proportion of children without chronic respiratory symptom/signs of bronchiectasis at 24 months. The main secondary outcomes are 'clinical cure' at 4 weeks, time-to-next respiratory-related hospitalisation and antibiotic resistance of nasopharyngeal respiratory bacteria.Ethics and disseminationThe Human Research Ethics Committees of all the recruiting institutions (Darwin: Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research; Auckland: Starship Children's and KidsFirst Hospitals; East Malaysia: Likas Hospital and Sarawak General Hospital; Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Research Ethics Committee; and Klang: Malaysian Department of Health) have approved the research protocol version 7 (13 August 2018). The RCT and other results will be submitted for publication.Trial registrationACTRN12616000046404.
| S-EPMC6502017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDepression is a highly prevalent condition in the elderly, with a vast impact on quality of life, life expectancy, and medical outcomes. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most commonly prescribed agents in this condition and, although generally safe, tolerability issues cannot be overlooked. Vortioxetine is an antidepressant with a novel mechanism of action. Based on studies to date, it may have a promising tolerability profile in the elderly, as it does not adversely affect psychomotor or cognitive performance and does not alter cardiovascular and endocrine parameters. The present study aims to assess the tolerability profile of vortioxetine in comparison with the SSRIs considered as a single group in elderly participants with depression. The rate of participants withdrawing from treatment due to adverse events after 6 months of follow up will be the primary outcome.Methods and analysisThis is a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority, randomized trial funded by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA - Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco). Thirteen Italian Community Psychiatric Services will consecutively enrol elderly participants suffering from an episode of major depression over a period of 12 months. Participants will be assessed at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months of follow up. At each time point, the following validated rating scales will be administered: Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Antidepressant Side-Effect Checklist (ASEC), EuroQual 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Blessed Test (SBT), and Charlson Age-Comorbidity Index (CACI). Outcome assessors and the statistician will be masked to treatment allocation. A total of 358 participants (179 in each group) will be enrolled.Ethics and disseminationThis study will fully adhere to the ICH E6 Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Participants' data will be managed and safeguarded according to the European Data Protection Regulation 2016/679. An external Ethical Advisory Board will help guarantee high ethical standards.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT03779789 , Registered on 19 December 2018. Submitted on 19 December. EudraCT number: 2018-001444-66.Trial statusProtocol version 1.5; 09/06/2018. Recruitment started In February 2019 and it is ongoing. It is expected to end approximately on 30 September 2021.
| S-EPMC7397635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundParticipants were patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing primary surgery. The aim was to test whether a single dose of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid would reduce wound infection at 30 days postoperatively, and to identify risk factors for infection.MethodsParticipants were randomised to either a single bolus of 1.2 g intravenous amoxicillin-clavulanic acid after the induction of anaesthesia (intervention) or no antibiotic (control). The primary outcome was the incidence of wound infection at 30 days postoperatively.ResultsThere were 871 evaluable patients. Of these, 438 received prophylactic antibiotic and 433 served as controls. Seventy-one (16.2 per cent) patients in the intervention group developed a wound infection by 30 days, while there were 83 (19.2 per cent) infections in the control group. This was not statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 0.82, 95 per cent c.i. 0.58 to 1.15; P = 0.250). The risk of infection increased for every 5 kg/m2 of BMI (OR 1.29, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.52; P = 0.003). Patients who were preoperative carriers of Staphylococcus aureus had an increased risk of postoperative wound infection; however, there was no benefit of preoperative antibiotics for patients with either a high BMI or who were carriers of S. aureus.ConclusionThere was no statistically significant or clinically meaningful reduction in wound infection at 30 days following breast cancer surgery in patients who received a single dose of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid preoperatively.Registration numberN0399145605 (National Research Register).
| S-EPMC10364710 | biostudies-literature