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

BACKGROUND: 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.METHODS: 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 England and Scotland. Participants (adults aged ≥ 18 years; all meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe OUD at admission to their current maintenance treatment episode) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continued daily SoC (liquid methadone (usual dose range: 60-120 mg) or sublingual/transmucosal buprenorphine (usual dose range: 8-24 mg) for 24 weeks; or monthly BUP-XR (Sublocade;® two injections of 300 mg, then four maintenance injections of 100 mg or 300 mg, with maintenance dose selected by response and preference) for 24 weeks. In the intent-to-treat population (senior statistician blinded to blinded to treatment group allocation), and with a seven-day grace period after randomisation, the primary endpoint was the count of days abstinent from non-medical opioids between days 8-168 (i.e., weeks 2-24; range: 0-161 days). Safety was reported for the intention-to- treat population. Adopting a broad societal perspective inclusive of criminal justice, NHS and personal social service costs, a trial-based cost-utility analysis estimated the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of BUP-XR versus SoC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The study was registered EudraCT (2018-004460-63) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05164549), and is completed.FINDINGS: Between Aug 9, 2019 and Nov 2, 2021, 314 participants were randomly allocated to receive SoC (n = 156) or BUP-XR (n = 158). Participants were abstinent from opioids for an adjusted mean of 104.37 days (standard error [SE] 9.89; range: 0-161 days) in the SoC group and an adjusted mean of 123.43 days (SE 4.76; range: 24-161 days) in the BUP-XR group (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.33; p-value 0.004). The incidence of any adverse event was higher in the BUP-XR group than the SoC group (128 [81.0%] of 158 participants versus 67 [42.9%] of 156 participants, respectively-most commonly rapidly-resolving (mild-moderate range) pain from drug administration in the BUP-XR group (121 [26.9%] of 450 adverse events). There were 11 serious adverse events (7.0%) in the 158 participants in the BUP-XR group, and 18 serious adverse events (11.5%) in the 156 participants in the SoC group-none judged to be related to study treatment. The BUP-XR treatment group had a mean incremental cost of £1033 (95% central range [CR] -1189 to 3225) and was associated with a mean incremental QALY of 0.02 (95% CR 0.00-0.05), and an ICER of £47,540 (0.37 probability of being cost-effective at the £30,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold). However, BUP-XR dominated the SoC among participants who were rated more severe at study baseline, and among participants in maintenance treatment for more that 28 days at study enrolment.INTERPRETATION: Evaluated against the daily oral SoC, monthly BUP-XR is clinically superior, delivering greater abstinence from opioids, and with a comparable safety profile. BUP-XR was not cost-effective in a base case cost-utility analysis using the societal perspective, but it was more effective and less costly (dominant) among participants with more severe OUD, or those whose current treatment episode was longer than 28 days. Further trials are needed to evaluate if BUP-XR is associated with better clinical and health economic outcomes over the longer term.FUNDING: Indivior.</p

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO):protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone

BACKGROUND: Sublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness — monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2–24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06595-0

Low-Dose Intravenous Immunoglobulin Treatment for Long-Standing Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Randomized Trial

Background: Two small trials suggest that low-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) may improve the symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a rare posttraumatic pain condition. Objective: To confirm the efficacy of low-dose IVIg compared with placebo in reducing pain during a 6-week period in adult patients who had CRPS from 1 to 5 years. Design: 1:1 parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial for 6 weeks, with an optional 6-week open extension. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 study groups between 27 August 2013 and 28 October 2015; the last patient completed follow-up on 21 March 2016. Patients, providers, researchers, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment. (ISRCTN42179756) Setting: 7 secondary and tertiary care pain management centers in the United Kingdom. Participants: 111 patients with moderate or severe CRPS of 1 to 5 years' duration. Intervention: IVIg, 0.5 g/kg of body weight, or visually indistinguishable placebo of 0.1% albumin in saline on days 1 and 22 after randomization. Measurements: The primary outcome was 24-hour average pain intensity, measured daily between days 6 and 42, on an 11-point (0- to 10-point) rating scale. Secondary outcomes were pain interference and quality of life. Results: The primary analysis sample consisted of 108 eligible patients, 103 of whom had outcome data. Mean (average) pain scores were 6.9 points (SD, 1.5) for placebo and 7.2 points (SD, 1.3) for IVIg. The adjusted difference in means was 0.27 (95% CI, −0.25 to 0.80; P = 0.30), which excluded the prespecified, clinically important difference of −1.2. No statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes were found between the groups. In the open extension, 12 of the 67 patients (18%) who received 2 IVIg infusions had pain reduction of at least 2 points compared with their baseline score. Two patients in the blinded phase (1 in the placebo and 1 in the IVIg group) and 4 in the open IVIg phase had serious events. Limitations: Results do not apply to patients who have had CRPS for less than 1 year or more than 5 years and do not extend to full-dose treatment (for example, 2 g/kg). The study was inadequately powered to detect subgroup effects. Conclusion: Low-dose immunoglobulin treatment for 6 weeks was not effective in relieving pain in patients with moderate to severe CRPS of 1 to 5 years' duration

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO): protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone.

BackgroundSublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness - monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated.MethodsThis is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2-24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.DiscussionThis pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere.Trial registrationEU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63

The acute and sub-acute effects of 'ecstasy' (MDMA) on processing of facial expressions: preliminary findings

RATIONALE: There is evidence that serotonergic processes may modulate the processing of fearful facial expressions. It is therefore possible that the recreational drug ‘ecstasy’ (MDMA), which has marked serotonergic effects, may affect people's ability to recognise human facial expressions portraying fear. OBJECTIVE: The present study therefore aimed to determine whether ecstasy users differed from controls in fear recognition at two time points: shortly after taking the drug and a few days later. METHODS: Sixteen ecstasy users and 21 controls were compared on a facial expression recognition task involving the 6 basic emotions (happiness, surprise, sadness, anger, fear and disgust) and on self-ratings of mood on the night of drug use (day 0) and 4 days later (day 4). RESULTS: In recognising fearful facial expressions, ecstasy users were more accurate than controls on day 0 but less accurate than them on day 4 when compared with their overall ability to recognise other basic emotions. Accuracy of fear recognition on day 4 was negatively correlated with both years of ecstasy use and number of ecstasy tablets taken on a typical session. On self-rated aggression scales, ecstasy users scored lower than controls on day 0 and higher on day 4. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the notion that 5-HT plays a role in modulating the recognition of fearful facial expressions. Increased accuracy of fear recognition may relate to 5-HT release following ecstasy use on day 0, and decreased accuracy may reflect subsequent depletion of 5-HT mid-week

Successful and unsuccessful recruitment and retainment strategies in a UK multicentre drug trial for a rare chronic pain condition which performed above target

Introduction: Recruitment into trials in rare chronic pain conditions can be challenging, so such trials consequently are underpowered or fail. Methods: Drawing from our experience in conducting, to date, the largest academic trial in a rare chronic pain condition, complex regional pain syndrome, we have identified recruitment and retention strategies for successful trial conduct. Results: We present 13 strategies grouped across the categories of ‘setting the recruitment rate’, ‘networking’, ‘patient information’, ‘trial management’ and ‘patient retention’. Moreover, six recruitment risks are also discussed. A conservative recruitment estimate, based on audits of newly referred patients to the trial centres without taking into account availability of ‘old’ patients or recruitment from outside centres, and assuming a 55% patient refusal rate yielded accurate numbers. Conclusion: Appreciation of these identified recruitment challenges and opportunities may contribute to supporting prospective investigators when they design clinical trials for chronic pain patient population groups where it has been historically difficult to conduct high-quality and robust clinical trials