Evaluation of Drug-Drug Interaction Liability for Buprenorphine Extended-Release Monthly Injection Administered by Subcutaneous Route.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kharidia J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8451859 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBUP-XR (RBP-6000 or SUBLOCADE) is the first Food and Drug Administration-approved subcutaneously administered monthly extended-release buprenorphine medication for the treatment of moderate or severe opioid use disorder. The primary objective of this phase III study was to assess the long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of BUP-XR.MethodsThis open-label multicenter study in adults with moderate or severe opioid use disorder enrolled 257 participants from a previously conducted placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III study (rollover group) and 412 de novo participants not previously treated with BUP-XR. Participants received an initial injection of BUP-XR 300 mg and subsequent monthly 300 mg or 100 mg flexible doses. By study end, participants received up to 12 injections.ResultsOverall, 66.8% of participants reported more than 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Injection-site TEAEs (13.2% of participants) were mostly mild or moderate in severity. There were no clinically meaningful changes in safety assessments. An integrated analysis of the double-blind and open-label study participants showed that the incidence of TEAEs, including injection-site TEAEs, was lower in the second 6 months of treatment versus the first 6 months. After 12 months of treatment, 61.5% of the rollover participants and 75.8% of the de novo participants were abstinent. Retention rates after 12 months were 50.6% for the participants who initiated BUP-XR in the double-blind study and 50.5% for de novo participants.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that the clinical benefits and acceptable safety profile of BUP-XR demonstrated in the 6-month double-blind study are sustained over a 12-month open-label study, with lower incidence of TEAEs in the second 6 months of treatment.
| S-EPMC7188268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Extensive 12-lead electrocardiogram monitoring and drug concentrations were obtained during development of BUP-XR, a monthly subcutaneous injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Matched QT and plasma drug concentrations (11,925) from 1,114 subjects were pooled from 5 studies in OUD. A concentration-QT model was developed, which accounted for confounding factors (e.g., comedications) affecting heart rate and heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTc). Bias-corrected nonparametric two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived for the mean predicted effect of BUP-XR on QTc (?QTc) at therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses. Changes in QTc were associated with age, central vs. noncentral reading, sex, methadone, and barbiturates. The upper 90% CI of ?QTc was 0.29, 0.67, and 1.34 ms at the steady-state peak concentration (Cmax ) for 100, 300, and 2 × 300 mg doses, respectively. An effect of BUP-XR on QT can be ruled out at therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of BUP-XR, after accounting for covariates that may influence heart rate and QT interval in OUD.
| S-EPMC6766787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGranisetron extended-release subcutaneous (SC) injection is a novel formulation of granisetron for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Palonosetron is administered intravenously and is indicated for CINV prevention in acute and delayed phases after the use of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and in the acute phase after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). No data are available regarding the impact of SC granisetron on the cost of unscheduled hydration compared with other antiemetic drugs, specifically the older-generation palonosetron.ObjectiveTo compare the costs of unscheduled hydration associated with breakthrough CINV after SC granisetron versus palonosetron administration in patients receiving MEC or HEC.MethodsThis retrospective analysis was based on electronic medical records data from a single multicenter, community-based practice involving patients receiving MEC or HEC with a 3-drug antiemetic regimen, including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and either SC granisetron or palonosetron. A cost-of-care analysis for SC granisetron and palonosetron was based on the maximum per-unit Medicare reimbursement amounts for the use of unscheduled hydration, administration of rescue antiemetic drugs, laboratory tests, and patient office evaluations.ResultsA total of 182 patient records were evaluated, 91 for patients receiving SC granisetron and 91 receiving palonosetron. The mean per-patient cost of care related to unscheduled hydration in patients receiving HEC or MEC was significantly lower with SC granisetron ($296) than palonosetron ($837; P <.0001), including subset analysis of patients requiring additional care (SC granisetron [$691], N = 39; palonosetron [$1058], N = 72; P = .0260). The mean hydration costs per patient receiving HEC or MEC were lower with SC granisetron ($62) than with palonosetron ($253; P <.0001). The hydration costs per patient receiving only HEC were lower with SC granisetron ($66) than palonosetron ($280; P <.0001). The per-patient costs were lower when SC granisetron was administered than when palonosetron was administered as part of the antiemetic regimen, except for the cost of rescue antiemetic drug in patients receiving MEC. Fewer median unscheduled hydration therapies per patient were used with SC granisetron versus palonosetron (HEC, 3 vs 5; MEC, 2 vs 3).ConclusionThe use of SC granisetron reduced the total per-patient costs of care associated with unscheduled hydration compared with palonosetron in patients receiving HEC or MEC for breakthrough CINV events.
| S-EPMC8845525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGranisetron extended-release subcutaneous (SC) injection is a novel formulation of granisetron for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Palonosetron is administered intravenously and is indicated for CINV prevention in acute and delayed phases after the use of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and in the acute phase after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). No data are available regarding the impact of SC granisetron on the cost of unscheduled hydration compared with other antiemetic drugs, specifically the older-generation palonosetron.ObjectiveTo compare the costs of unscheduled hydration associated with breakthrough CINV after SC granisetron versus palonosetron administration in patients receiving MEC or HEC.MethodsThis retrospective analysis was based on electronic medical records data from a single multicenter, community-based practice involving patients receiving MEC or HEC with a 3-drug antiemetic regimen, including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and either SC granisetron or palonosetron. A cost-of-care analysis for SC granisetron and palonosetron was based on the maximum per-unit Medicare reimbursement amounts for the use of unscheduled hydration, administration of rescue antiemetic drugs, laboratory tests, and patient office evaluations.ResultsA total of 182 patient records were evaluated, 91 for patients receiving SC granisetron and 91 receiving palonosetron. The mean per-patient cost of care related to unscheduled hydration in patients receiving HEC or MEC was significantly lower with SC granisetron ($296) than palonosetron ($837; P <.0001), including subset analysis of patients requiring additional care (SC granisetron [$691], N = 39; palonosetron [$1058], N = 72; P = .0260). The mean hydration costs per patient receiving HEC or MEC were lower with SC granisetron ($62) than with palonosetron ($253; P <.0001). The hydration costs per patient receiving only HEC were lower with SC granisetron ($66) than palonosetron ($280; P <.0001). The per-patient costs were lower when SC granisetron was administered than when palonosetron was administered as part of the antiemetic regimen, except for the cost of rescue antiemetic drug in patients receiving MEC. Fewer median unscheduled hydration therapies per patient were used with SC granisetron versus palonosetron (HEC, 3 vs 5; MEC, 2 vs 3).ConclusionThe use of SC granisetron reduced the total per-patient costs of care associated with unscheduled hydration compared with palonosetron in patients receiving HEC or MEC for breakthrough CINV events.
| S-EPMC8844637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the availability of multiple disease-modifying therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS), there remains a need for highly efficacious targeted therapy with a favorable benefit-risk profile and attributes that encourage a high level of treatment adherence. Daclizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against CD25, the ? subunit of the high-affinity interleukin 2 (IL-2) receptor, that reversibly modulates IL-2 signaling. Daclizumab treatment leads to antagonism of proinflammatory, activated T lymphocyte function and expansion of immunoregulatory CD56(bright) natural killer cells, and has the potential to, at least in part, rectify the imbalance between immune tolerance and autoimmunity in relapsing MS. The clinical pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous daclizumab have been evaluated extensively in a large clinical study program. In pivotal studies, daclizumab demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing clinical and radiologic measures of MS disease activity compared with placebo or intramuscular interferon beta-1a, a standard-of-care therapy for relapsing MS. The risk of hepatic disorders, cutaneous events, and infections was modestly increased. The monthly subcutaneous self-injection dosing regimen of daclizumab may be advantageous in maintaining patient adherence to treatment, which is important for optimal outcomes with MS disease-modifying therapy. Daclizumab has been approved in the US and in the European Union and represents an effective new treatment option for patients with relapsing forms of MS, and is currently under review by other regulatory agencies.
| S-EPMC5026217 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Few studies have documented patient attitudes and experiences with extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) opioid relapse prevention in criminal justice settings. This study assessed barriers and facilitators of jail-to-community reentry among adults with opioid use disorder (OUD) treated with XR-NTX, buprenorphine, methadone, and no medications. METHODS:This qualitative study conducted individual interviews with a purposeful and convenience sample of adults with OUD who were recently released from NYC jails. XR-NTX, no medication, and methadone participants were concurrently enrolled in a large randomized controlled trial evaluating XR-NTX vs. a no medication Enhanced Treatment As Usual (ETAU) condition, or enrolled in a non-randomized quasi-experimental methadone maintenance cohort. Buprenorphine participants were referred from NYC jails to a public hospital office-based buprenorphine program and not enrolled in the parent trial. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, independently coded by two researchers, and analyzed per a grounded theory approach adapted to the Social Cognitive Theory framework. The research team reviewed transcripts and coding to reach consensus on emergent themes. RESULTS:N = 33 adults with OUD (28 male, 5 female) completed a single individual interview. Purposeful sampling recruited persons leaving jail on XR-NTX (n = 11), no active medication treatment (n = 9), methadone (n = 9), and buprenorphine (n = 4). Emergent themes were: (1) general satisfaction with XR-NTX's long-acting antagonist effects and control of cravings; (2) "testing" XR-NTX's blockade with heroin upon reentry was common; (3) early discontinuation of XR-NTX treatment was most common among persons with high self-efficacy and/or heavy exposure to drug use environments and peers; (4) similar satisfaction regarding effects of methadone and buprenorphine maintenance among retained-in-treatment individuals, alongside general dissatisfaction with daily observed dosing requirements and misinformation and stigmas regarding methadone adverse effects; (5) unstable housing, economic insecurity, and exposure to actively using peers were attributed to early termination of treatment and relapse; (6) individual motivation and willpower as central to long-term opioid abstinence and reentry success. CONCLUSIONS:In the context of more familiar agonist maintenance treatments, XR-NTX relapse prevention during jail-to-community reentry was viewed as a helpful and unique intervention though with important limitations. Commonly described barriers to treatment retention and heroin abstinence included homelessness, economic insecurity, and drug-using peers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01999946 (XOR), Registered 03 December 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01999946 .
| S-EPMC6771097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis analysis describes participants' opioid use disorder (OUD) outcomes for 18 months after discontinuing extended-release buprenorphine injection (BUP-XR, SUBLOCADE).MethodsThe RECOVER (Remission From Chronic Opioid Use: Studying Environmental and Socioeconomic Factors on Recovery) study recruited participants from BUP-XR clinical trials (NCT02357901, NCT025100142, and NCT02896296) to assess whether there were sustained benefits after leaving the trial. Abstinence from opioids and from all illicit substances (excluding medical cannabis), health-related quality of life, depression, and employment were measured after BUP-XR discontinuation and change in outcomes assessed at 6, 12, and 18 months. Results were analyzed within the full cohort and by duration of BUP-XR treatment (0-2 months, 3-5 months, 6-11 months, 12 months, or 13-18 months) with and without inverse probability weights adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics.ResultsOf 533 participants, 529 were assessed over the 18-month study period. Further posttrial pharmacotherapy was reported by 33% of participants. At RECOVER baseline, longer BUP-XR was associated with higher abstinence (0-2 months BUP-XR [n = 116]: 38.8%; 3-5 months BUP-XR [n = 61]: 41.0%; 6-11 months BUP-XR [n = 86]: 68.6%; 12 months BUP-XR [n = 135]: 71.9%; 18 months BUP-XR [n = 131]: 88.2%) and greater 12-Item Short Form Health Survey mental component scores. Over 60% of participants had stable or improved outcomes at 6, 12, and 18 months assessments. Overall 47% of participants self-reported sustained opioid abstinence for the full 18-month follow-up, with greater sustained abstinence associated with longer BUP-XR treatment duration. A sensitivity analysis, removing patients receiving medications for OUD, yielded similar results.ConclusionsParticipants from BUP-XR clinical trials who continued into RECOVER maintained or improved on numerous outcomes over 18 months, demonstrating the long-term positive impact of OUD pharmacotherapy.
| S-EPMC10022675 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6145749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is insulin aspart set in a new formulation with faster initial absorption after subcutaneous administration. This study investigated the pharmacokinetic properties, including the absolute bioavailability, of faster aspart when administered subcutaneously in the abdomen, upper arm or thigh.In a randomised, open-label, crossover trial, 21 healthy male subjects received a single injection of faster aspart at five dosing visits: 0.2 U/kg subcutaneously in the abdomen, upper arm and thigh, intramuscularly in the thigh and 0.02 U/kg intravenously. Blood sampling for pharmacokinetics was performed pre-dose and frequently thereafter until 12 h post-dose (8 h after intravenous administration).Onset of appearance (~3 min), time to 50% of maximum concentration (t Early 50% Cmax; ~20 min) and time to maximum concentration (t max; ~55 min) were all similar between injection regions. Early exposure within the first 2 h after injection (AUCIAsp,0-1h and AUCIAsp,0-2h) as well as maximum concentration (C max) were comparable for the abdomen and upper arm, but were ~25% lower for the thigh as seen previously for other mealtime insulin products. Total exposure (AUCIAsp,0-t) was similar for the abdomen, upper arm and thigh, and absolute bioavailability was ~80% after subcutaneous administration of faster aspart in all three injection regions.The current study supports the ultra-fast pharmacokinetic characteristics of faster aspart across different injection regions, with administration in the abdomen and upper arm resulting in greater early exposure than in the thigh. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02089451.
| S-EPMC5394133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSublingual buprenorphine is an effective maintenance treatment for opioid dependence, yet intravenous buprenorphine misuse occurs. A buprenorphine/naloxone formulation was developed to mitigate this misuse risk. This randomized, double-blind, cross-over study was conducted to assess the intravenous abuse potential of buprenorphine/naloxone compared with buprenorphine in buprenorphine-maintained injection drug users (IDUs).MethodsIntravenous heroin users (n = 12) lived in the hospital for 8-9 weeks and were maintained on each of three different sublingual buprenorphine doses (2 mg, 8 mg, 24 mg). Under each maintenance dose, participants completed laboratory sessions during which the reinforcing and subjective effects of intravenous placebo, naloxone, heroin and low and high doses of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone were examined. Every participant received each test dose under the three buprenorphine maintenance dose conditions.ResultsIntravenous buprenorphine/naloxone was self-administered less frequently than buprenorphine or heroin (P < 0.0005). Participants were most likely to self-administer drug intravenously when maintained on the lowest sublingual buprenorphine dose. Subjective ratings of 'drug liking' and 'desire to take the drug again' were lower for buprenorphine/naloxone than for buprenorphine or heroin (P = 0.0001). Participants reported that they would pay significantly less money for buprenorphine/naloxone than for buprenorphine or heroin (P < 0.05). Seven adverse events were reported; most were mild and transient.ConclusionsThese data suggest that although the buprenorphine/naloxone combination has intravenous abuse potential, that potential is lower than it is for buprenorphine alone, particularly when participants received higher maintenance doses and lower buprenorphine/naloxone challenge doses. Buprenorphine/naloxone may be a reasonable option for managing the risk for buprenorphine misuse during opioid dependence treatment.
| S-EPMC3489277 | biostudies-literature