Dataset Information

Population Pharmacokinetics of a Monthly Buprenorphine Depot Injection for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder: A Combined Analysis of Phase II and Phase III Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

BUP-XR (a.k.a. RBP-6000 or SUBLOCADE™) is an extended-release subcutaneous buprenorphine formulation for the treatment of opioid use disorder. BUP-XR was designed to provide sustained buprenorphine exposure throughout the monthly dosing interval, at concentrations sufficient to control all aspects of the disease (withdrawal, craving, and blockade of opioid subjective effects).

Objectives

To characterize the population pharmacokinetics of BUP-XR based on phase II and phase III data and to evaluate whether target therapeutic concentrations were reached with the dosing regimens evaluated in the phase III program.

Methods

The population pharmacokinetic analysis included 570 subjects with opioid use disorder who received up to 12 monthly BUP-XR injections following induction with sublingual buprenorphine.

Results

In phase III studies, target therapeutic concentrations of buprenorphine were achieved from the first injection and maintained over the entire treatment duration. Buprenorphine plasma concentration-time profiles were well described by a two-compartment model, with first-order absorption for sublingual buprenorphine and a dual absorption submodel for BUP-XR. A covariate analysis evaluated the effects of subjects' demographic characteristics, laboratory data, and genetic status regarding buprenorphine-metabolizing enzymes. Only two covariates, body mass index and body weight, were retained in the final model. Overall, their effects were not of sufficient magnitude to justify a dose adjustment. Finally, pharmacokinetic simulations showed that buprenorphine plasma concentrations decreased slowly after discontinuation of treatment and that a 2-week occasional delay in dosing would not impact efficacy, which translated into labeling claims.

Discussion

In conclusion, the present analysis led to the development of a robust population pharmacokinetic model and confirms the ability of BUP-XR to deliver and maintain therapeutic plasma concentrations over the entire treatment duration.

SUBMITTER: Jones AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8016750 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder may be improved by sustained-release formulations. Objective:To determine whether treatment involving novel weekly and monthly subcutaneous (SC) buprenorphine depot formulations is noninferior to a daily sublingual (SL) combination of buprenorphine hydrochloride and naloxone hydrochloride in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Design, Setting, and Participants:This outpatient, double-blind, double-dummy randomized clinical trial was conducted at 35 sites in the United States from December 29, 2015, through October 19, 2016. Participants were treatment-seeking adults with moderate-to-severe opioid use disorder. Interventions:Randomization to daily SL placebo and weekly (first 12 weeks; phase 1) and monthly (last 12 weeks; phase 2) SC buprenorphine (SC-BPN group) or to daily SL buprenorphine with naloxone (24 weeks) with matched weekly and monthly SC placebo injections (SL-BPN/NX group). Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary end points tested for noninferiority were response rate (10% margin) and the mean proportion of opioid-negative urine samples for 24 weeks (11% margin). Responder status was defined as having no evidence of illicit opioid use for at least 8 of 10 prespecified points during weeks 9 to 24, with 2 of these at week 12 and during month 6 (weeks 21-24). The mean proportion of samples with no evidence of illicit opioid use (weeks 4-24) evaluated by a cumulative distribution function (CDF) was an a priori secondary outcome with planned superiority testing if the response rate demonstrated noninferiority. Results:A total of 428 participants (263 men [61.4%] and 165 women [38.6%]; mean [SD] age, 38.4 [11.0] years) were randomized to the SL-BPN/NX group (n = 215) or the SC-BPN group (n = 213). The response rates were 31 of 215 (14.4%) for the SL-BPN/NX group and 37 of 213 (17.4%) for the SC-BPN group, a 3.0% difference (95% CI, -4.0% to 9.9%; P < .001). The proportion of opioid-negative urine samples was 1099 of 3870 (28.4%) for the SL-BPN/NX group and 1347 of 3834 (35.1%) for the SC-BPN group, a 6.7% difference (95% CI, -0.1% to 13.6%; P < .001). The CDF for the SC-BPN group (26.7%) was statistically superior to the CDF for the SL-BPN/NX group (0; P = .004). Injection site adverse events (none severe) occurred in 48 participants (22.3%) in the SL-BPN/NX group and 40 (18.8%) in the SC-BPN group. Conclusions and Relevance:Compared with SL buprenorphine, depot buprenorphine did not result in an inferior likelihood of being a responder or having urine test results negative for opioids and produced superior results on the CDF of no illicit opioid use. These data suggest that depot buprenorphine is efficacious and may have advantages. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02651584.

Project description:ImportancePatient-reported outcomes in the treatment of opioid dependence may differ between subcutaneously administered depot buprenorphine and daily sublingual buprenorphine.ObjectiveTo compare patient satisfaction between depot buprenorphine and sublingual buprenorphine in adult outpatients with opioid dependence.Design, setting, and participantsThis open-label, randomized clinical trial was conducted among adult patients with opioid dependence at 6 outpatient clinical sites in Australia from October 2018 to September 2019. Data analysis was conducted from October 2019 to May 2020.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive treatment with weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine or daily sublingual buprenorphine over 24 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the difference in global treatment satisfaction, assessed by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 (range, 0-100; higher score indicates greater satisfaction) at week 24. Secondary end points included other patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life, treatment burden, and health-related outcomes, as well as measures of opioid use, retention in treatment, and safety.ResultsA total of 119 participants (70 [58.8%] men; mean [SD] age, 44.4 [10.5] years) were enrolled, randomized to, and received either depot buprenorphine (60 participants [50.4%]) or sublingual buprenorphine (59 participants [49.6%]). From the initial sample of 120, a participant (0.8%) in the sublingual buprenorphine group withdrew consent and did not receive study treatment. All participants were receiving sublingual buprenorphine when enrolled. The mean TSQM global satisfaction score was significantly higher for the depot group compared with the sublingual group at week 24 (mean [SE] score, 82.5 [2.3] vs 74.3 [2.3]; difference, 8.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 14.6; P = .01). Improved outcomes were also observed for several secondary end points after treatment with depot buprenorphine (eg, mean [SE] treatment burden assessed by the Treatment Burden Questionnaire global score, on which lower scores indicate lower burden: 13.2 [2.6] vs 28.6 [2.5]; difference, -15.4; 95% CI, -22.6 to -8.2; P < .001). Thirty-nine participants (65.0%) in the depot buprenorphine group experienced 117 adverse drug reactions, mainly injection site reactions of mild intensity following subcutaneous administration, and 12 participants (20.3%) in the sublingual buprenorphine group experienced 21 adverse drug reactions. No participants withdrew from the trial medication or the trial due to adverse events.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, participants receiving depot buprenorphine reported improved treatment satisfaction compared with those receiving sublingual buprenorphine. The results highlight the application of patient-reported outcomes as alternative end points to traditional markers of substance use in addiction treatment outcome studies.Trial registrationanzctr.org.au Identifier: ANZCTR12618001759280.

Project description:ObjectiveOpioid use disorder (OUD) is associated with physical, social, psychological, and economic burden. This analysis assessed the effects of RBP-6000, referred to as BUP-XR (extended-release buprenorphine), a subcutaneously injected, monthly buprenorphine treatment for OUD compared with placebo on patient-centered outcomes measuring meaningful life changes.MethodsPatient-centered outcomes were collected in a 24-week, phase 3, placebo-controlled study assessing the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BUP-XR 300/300 mg (6 × 300 mg) and 300/100 mg (2 × 300 mg followed by 4 × 100 mg) injections in treatment-seeking participants with moderate-to-severe OUD. Measures included the EQ-5D-5L, SF-36v2, Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire, employment/insurance status, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). Changes from baseline to end of study were compared across treatment arms, using mixed models for repeated measures.ResultsParticipants receiving BUP-XR (n = 389) versus placebo (n = 98) had significantly greater changes from baseline on the EQ-5D-5L index (300/300 mg: difference = 0.0636, P = 0.003), EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (300/300 mg: difference = 5.9, P = 0.017; 300/100 mg: difference = 7.7, P = 0.002), and SF-36v2 physical component summary score (300/300 mg: difference = 3.8, P < 0.001; 300/100 mg: difference = 3.2, P = 0.002). Satisfaction was significantly higher for participants receiving BUP-XR 300/300 mg (88%, P < 0.001) and 300/100 mg (88%, P < 0.001) than placebo (46%). Employment and percentage of insured participants increased by 10.8% and 4.1% with BUP-XR 300/300 mg and 10.0% and 4.7% with 300/100 mg but decreased by 12.6% and 8.4% with placebo. Participants receiving BUP-XR compared with placebo had significantly fewer hospital days per person-year observed.ConclusionsThese results show the feasibility of measuring patient-centered life changes in substance use disorder clinical studies. Participants receiving up to 6 monthly injections of BUP-XR, compared with placebo, reported better health, increased medication satisfaction, increased employment, and decreased healthcare utilization.

Project description:AIMS:To assess the long-term safety of subcutaneous buprenorphine (CAM2038) weekly and monthly depots. DESIGN:Phase 3, open-label, observational, multi-centre 48-week trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02672111). SETTING:Twenty-six out-patient sites (United States, United Kingdom, Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Australia) between 14 December 2015 and 12 April 2017. PARTICIPANTS:Two hundred and twenty-eight adults with opioid use disorder; 227 received CAM2038 (37 initiated onto CAM2038 and 190 converted from sublingual buprenorphine). INTERVENTIONS:CAM2038 weekly (8, 16, 24 or 32 mg) or monthly (64, 96, 128 or 160 mg) with flexible dosing and individualized titration utilizing multiple CAM2038 weekly and monthly doses. MEASUREMENTS:Safety variables, urine toxicology samples and self-reported illicit opioid use were collected at each visit. Participants were administered a patient satisfaction survey at months 6 and 12, completed by 162 of 227 (71.4%) participants. FINDINGS:The study treatment period was completed by 167 of 227 (73.6%) participants. At least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was reported by 143 of 227 (63.0%) participants, of whom 60 of 227 (26.4%) reported as being drug-related. Most of the TEAEs, reported by 128 of 227 (56.4%) of participants, were mild or moderate in intensity. Injection-site reactions were reported by 46 of 227 (20.3%) participants, with most [45 of 46 (97.8%)] reported as mild to moderate. Five participants (2.2%) discontinued the study drug due to a TEAE, two cases (0.9%) of which were injection-site-related. No serious adverse events were attributed to the study drug. Among those remaining in the study, the percentage of opioid-negative urine tests combined with self-reports was 63.0% (17 of 27) in new-to-treatment participants and 82.8% (111 of 134) for those converted from sublingual buprenorphine. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with CAM2038. CONCLUSIONS:Subcutaneous buprenorphine delivered weekly or monthly (CAM2038) was well tolerated, with a systemic safety profile consistent with the known profile of sublingual buprenorphine. CAM2038 weekly and monthly was associated with high retention rates and low levels of illicit opioid use throughout this study.

Project description:BackgroundRecently developed buprenorphine depot injections have the potential to reduce risk for diversion and misuse, and to increase adherence with fewer visits for supervised intake. However, it is unclear how patients perceive this new form of medication. The purpose of this study was to explore patients' experiences of depot injections and their reasons for continuing, discontinuing, or declining depot injection treatment.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 32 people, 14 of whom had ongoing depot injection treatment, 11 who had discontinued depot-injections and switched to other medication and seven who had declined treatment with depot formulations. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analysed using NVivo, based on this overall stratification into three participant groups.ResultsThe main categories relate to the effects and side effects of the depot formulation, social and practical factors, psychological benefits and disadvantages, and interactions with treatment staff. Social and practical factors were of importance for choosing depot formulations, such as increased freedom and their making it easier to combine treatment with work and family life, as well as psychological advantages including "feeling normal". Initial withdrawal symptoms that resolved themselves after a number of injections were reported by most participants. Reliable information and patient-staff relationships characterized by trust helped patients to cope with these initial problems. Those who discontinued treatment often did so near the beginning of the treatment, reporting withdrawal symptoms and insufficient effects as the main reasons. Coercion and insufficient information contributed to a negative pharmaceutical atmosphere at one of the clinics, which may have adversely influenced perceptions of depot formulations and decreased willingness to accept and continue treatment.ConclusionsBuprenorphine depot injections may have social, practical, and psychological benefits compared to other formulations. However, depot injections are not perceived as an attractive option by all patients. Trust, consistent and adequate information, and awareness of the implications of the pharmaceutical atmosphere should be considered when introducing new medications.