Advertisement

Psychopharmacology

, Volume 211, Issue 3, pp 303–312 | Cite as

Acute effects of intramuscular and sublingual buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone in non-dependent opioid abusers

  • Angela N. Duke
  • Christopher J. Correia
  • Sharon L. Walsh
  • George E. Bigelow
  • Eric C. Strain
Original Investigation

Abstract

Rationale

Buprenorphine is a partial mu opioid receptor agonist with clinical efficacy as a pharmacotherapy for opioid dependence. A sublingual combination formulation was developed containing buprenorphine and naloxone with the intent of decreasing abuse liability in opioid-dependent individuals. However, the addition of naloxone may not limit abuse potential of this medication when taken by individuals without opioid physical dependence.

Objectives

The present study investigated the effects of buprenorphine alone and in combination with naloxone administered intramuscularly and sublingually to non-dependent opioid abusers.

Methods

In a within-subject crossover design, non-dependent opioid-experienced volunteers (N = 8) were administered acute doses of buprenorphine (4, 8, and 16 mg) and buprenorphine/naloxone (4/1, 8/2, and 16/4 mg) via both intramuscular and sublingual routes, intramuscular hydromorphone (2 and 4 mg as an opioid agonist control), and placebo, for a total of 15 drug conditions. Laboratory sessions were conducted twice per week using a double-blind, double-dummy design.

Results

Buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone engendered effects similar to hydromorphone. Intramuscular administration produced a greater magnitude of effects compared to the sublingual route at the intermediate dose of buprenorphine and at both the low and high doses of the buprenorphine/naloxone combination. The addition of naloxone did not significantly alter the effects of buprenorphine.

Conclusions

These results suggest that buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone have similar abuse potential in non-dependent opioid abusers, and that the addition of naloxone at these doses and in this dose ratio confers no evident advantage for decreasing the abuse potential of intramuscular or sublingual buprenorphine in this population.

Keywords

Buprenorphine Buprenorphine/naloxone Non-dependent Opioid Human 

Introduction

Buprenorphine is an efficacious pharmacotherapy for opioid dependence treatment (Johnson et al. 1992; Strain et al. 1994; Ling et al. 1998; Schottenfeld et al. 1997; Johnson et al. 2000). It is a partial agonist at mu opioid receptors, an antagonist at kappa opioid receptors, and an ORL-1 agonist (Cowan et al. 1977; Dum and Herz 1981; Lutfy et al. 2003). Despite a profile of safety and effectiveness, buprenorphine has abuse liability when administered parenterally and, under certain conditions, sublingually (Lewis 1985; Weinhold et al. 1992; Comer and Collins 2002; Alho et al. 2007).

In an effort to decrease the abuse liability of buprenorphine, naloxone was added to the sublingual formulation and marketed as Suboxone®. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist and can precipitate withdrawal in opioid-dependent individuals when administered parenterally. However, the bioavailability of naloxone when given sublingually is poor (Weinberg et al. 1988; Preston et al. 1990; Harris et al. 2000). When taken sublingually, buprenorphine/naloxone tablets produce an opioid agonist effect with a slow onset of action. However, if the tablets are dissolved and injected, naloxone will precipitate withdrawal in an opioid-dependent user. These effects have been demonstrated in laboratory studies using opioid-dependent volunteers (Preston et al. 1988; Mendelson et al. 1996, 1997a, 1999; Fudala et al. 1998; Stoller et al. 2001). The effects of this combination in non-dependent opioid users are not completely understood. Previously, it has been shown that sublingual buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone produced similar opioid agonist-like effects in opioid users who were not physically dependent (Strain et al. 2000). However, investigation of the effects of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone administered parenterally in opioid non-dependent volunteers has not been conducted and is warranted.

The current study investigated the subjective and physiological effects of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone when administered intramuscularly versus sublingually in opioid users who were not physically dependent. The aims of this experiment were twofold. First, the study compared the acute effects of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone when administered intramuscularly versus sublingually. Second, the effects of administering buprenorphine in combination with naloxone by both routes of administration were also investigated. It was hypothesized that (1) a greater magnitude of effects would occur when buprenorphine was given intramuscularly versus sublingually and (2) naloxone would reduce the effects of buprenorphine when administered intramuscularly but not sublingually.

Materials and methods

Subjects

Participants were volunteers with current sporadic opioid use but not physically dependent on opioids. Six males and two females with an average age of 37 years (range, 22–51 years) participated. Volunteers weighed on average 158 lb (range, 123–215 lb). Their average duration of illicit opioid use was approximately 15 years (range, 2–33 years). Volunteers used heroin an average of approximately eight out of the 30 days preceding participation in this study (range, 4–11 days). Participants also used cocaine (N = 8), alcohol (N = 5), cannabis (N = 2), and sedative/hypnotics (e.g., benzodiazepines, N = 2) during the 30 days preceding admission to the study. Participants underwent routine medical screening that included a medical history, physical examination, EKG, chemistry, hematology, urine drug testing, and routine medical urinalysis testing (e.g., specific gravity, pH, etc.). Medical staff not involved in the study as investigators reviewed all results, and all subjects were found to be without significant medical problems. The Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV was completed to ensure volunteers were not physically dependent on substances (except caffeine and nicotine). In addition, participants were monitored drug free for 48 h following admission to ensure there was no evidence of physical dependence on opioids or other drugs (except caffeine and nicotine).

Pregnancy and significant medical or psychiatric illness (e.g., insulin-dependent diabetes, schizophrenia) were exclusionary. Individuals seeking treatment were not enrolled in the study and were assisted in referral to community-based treatment programs. The Institutional Review Board approved the study, and all volunteers gave written informed consent and were paid for their participation.

Study setting

Participants lived in a closed, 14-bed residential unit for the duration of the study. Breathalyzer testing for alcohol was completed on the day of admission and randomly at least twice weekly. In addition, urine samples were collected at admission and daily throughout the study, and were tested intermittently for the presence of illicit drugs using an EMIT system (Syva Corporation, CA). No evidence of unauthorized alcohol or drug abuse was detected during the study. Participants did not have access to caffeinated beverages and were allowed to smoke cigarettes ad libitum, except during experimental sessions.

Study procedure

Participants were screened on an outpatient basis to determine eligibility. Those who met inclusion and exclusion criteria completed informed consent and were admitted and oriented to the residential unit. Each volunteer participated in a minimum of 15 experimental sessions and typically resided in the unit for 9 weeks. After completion of the residential portion of the study, volunteers were discharged to an outpatient treatment/research clinic and were encouraged to participate in drug-free counseling services offered without charge.

There were a total of 17 sessions possible. The first session was always a double-blind placebo training session, and results from this session were not included in the analyses. The 17th session was scheduled, but not always run, in the event that a test condition needed to be repeated due to an unexpected occurrence (e.g., a computer malfunction during a session). The order of drug conditions was derived from a Latin square for 15 conditions and 30 subjects. Volunteers were assigned one of the schedules using a random number table.

Laboratory sessions

Double-blind experimental sessions were conducted by a trained research technician and followed procedures described in Strain et al. (2000). Participants were informed they could receive placebo, opioid agonists, opioid antagonists, or combinations of these drugs during experimental sessions. Sessions began at 8:30 AM and lasted approximately 4 h, and occurred twice weekly with at least 72 h between sessions. Baseline physiological data, pupil photos, and subject and observer questionnaires were completed during the first 30 min of each session. At 9:15 AM, volunteers received an intramuscular (IM) injection followed by sublingual (SL) tablets. Following drug administration, these measures were repeated at 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105, 120, 135, 150, 165, and 180 min following drug administration.

Subjective and observer measures

Volunteers completed visual analog scales (VASs) and an adjective rating questionnaire following procedures similar to those in previous studies (e.g., Strain et al. 2000), and were instructed to respond by describing how they felt at the time each question was being answered. There were six VASs: Drug effect, Liking, High, Good effects, Bad effects, and Sick. The adjective rating questionnaire consisted of 37 items that the participant rated on a five-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely); items constituted an Agonist scale (adjectives associated with morphine-like effects) and a Withdrawal scale (adjectives associated with opioid withdrawal-like effects; Fraser et al. 1961; Jasinski 1977; Strain et al. 1993). Observer ratings included the same adjectives presented to the volunteer as described above and entered at the time of subject ratings. Items were summed to produce total scores for the Agonist scale and Withdrawal scale.

Physiological measures

Heart rate, blood pressure, skin temperature, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were monitored throughout the session following procedures used in similar studies (Strain et al. 2000; Rosado et al. 2007). With the exception of respiratory rate, these measures were recorded once per minute using a Criticare Non-Invasive Patient Monitor (model 507S; Criticare Systems, Inc., Waukesha, MI) and were averaged across 15-min time intervals. Respiration rate was recorded manually once every 15 min.

Pupil diameter was determined from photographs taken in standardized ambient room lighting using a Polaroid camera with a 2× magnification.

Drugs and doses

All medications were administered using double-blind, double-dummy procedures. Fifteen drug conditions were tested: placebo, two doses of hydromorphone (2 and 4 mg) administered intramuscularly, three doses of buprenorphine administered intramuscularly and sublingually (4, 8, and 16 mg), and buprenorphine/naloxone combinations, prepared as a 4:1 ratio, administered intramuscularly and sublingually (4/1, 8/2, and 16/4 mg). Each volunteer was exposed to all drug conditions. A commercial preparation of hydromorphone hydrochloride (10 mg/ml; Knoll Pharmaceuticals, Whippany, NJ) was diluted to the appropriate volume with bacteriostatic saline. Buprenorphine doses given intramuscularly were prepared using buprenorphine hydrochloride (Research Triangle Institute, NC) and sterile water. Naloxone injections were prepared using naloxone hydrochloride (Mallinckrodt Chemical, Inc., St. Louis, MO) and sterile water.

Buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone tablets were supplied by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Research Technology Branch (Rockville, MD, USA) from a supply provided by Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals (Hull, UK). Each tablet had a total weight (active plus inactive ingredients) of 100 mg. Volunteers were administered a total of 16 tablets during each session: eight tablets containing either placebo or 2 mg of buprenorphine, and eight tablets containing either placebo or 2 mg of buprenorphine combined with 0.5 mg of naloxone. Combinations of active and placebo tablets were used to achieve the target dose for a given challenge session.

Data analysis

Peak effects for each session were determined for each measure. For most measures, the reported value was a peak increase (e.g., subjective and observer ratings); however, for some measures, the value was a peak decrease (e.g., pupil diameter).

A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine significant differences in peak effects; the main effect was drug condition. Pairwise comparisons were examined using a conservative one-step procedure, Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD). Peak placebo effects and peak effects for hydromorphone (2 mg and 4 mg) were compared to the peak effect of each active drug condition. In addition, route of administration was compared within a given dose (e.g., 4 mg of IM buprenorphine vs. 4 mg of SL buprenorphine), and the addition of naloxone was compared within a given route of administration and dose (e.g., 4 mg of IM buprenorphine vs. 4/1 mg of IM buprenorphine/naloxone). Differences between means that were greater than the Tukey’s HSD are reported as significant (p ≤ 0.05).

The time course for each VAS was separately examined using a repeated measures regression analysis with effects of drug condition, time, and their interaction. Planned comparisons were performed for specific time points (15, 30, and 45 min) within drug conditions to capture differences in the onset of effects. Active drug conditions were compared to placebo and hydromorphone (2 and 4 mg). Route of administration within a given dose of buprenorphine, and buprenorphine alone and in combination with naloxone within a route of administration were also examined. Significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) are reported.

Results

There are two comparisons of interest in these analyses: (1) for a given formulation, how effects differed by route of administration (IM vs. SL) and (2) for a given route of administration, how presence versus absence of naloxone affected the abuse liability profile of buprenorphine. Results are presented to illustrate the IM and SL comparisons (Tables 1 and 2) and the presence vs. the absence of naloxone comparisons (Fig. 1). Comparisons are addressed in more detail below.
Table 1

Peak change from baseline analysis

 

F

Placebo

HM (mg)

Buprenorphine (mg)

Buprenorphine/naloxone (mg)

0

2

4

4

8

16

4/1

8/2

16/4

   

IM

SL

IM

SL

IM

SL

IM

SL

IM

SL

IM

SL

VAS

Drug effect

2.8

7.3 (6.4)

12.4 (6.9)

10.0 (5.2)

19.5 (7.3)

5.0 (2.5)

21.1 (11.0)

13.1 (7.2)

26.3 (10.0)

20.0 (7.8)

27.8 (10.0)

5.1 (2.5)

11.1 (6.2)

8.3 (3.4)

29.5 (12.0)

8.9 (3.5)

Liking

2.5

5.9 (5.5)

12.3 (7.0)

9.3 (5.1)

19.1 (7.2)

4.5 (2.4)

18.5 (10.0)

13.3 (7.4)

20.8 (8.3)

22.8 (7.2)

27.1 (10.0)

5.3 (2.1)

11.4 (6.0)

9.5 (3.9)

29.5 (13.0)

9.4 (3.4)

High

2.7

7.3 (6.4)

12.4 (6.9)

10.3 (5.1)

19.0 (7.0)

4.5 (2.3)

20.4 (11.0)

13.0 (7.2)

26.1 (10.0)

19.5 (7.6)

26.8 (10.0)

5.4 (2.6)

11.5 (6.4)

8.4 (3.3)

24.3 (10.0)

8.8 (3.4)

Good effects

2.6

6.3 (5.8)

12.3 (7.0)

9.3 (5.0)

19.6 (7.3)

4.5 (2.3)

18.4 (10.0)

13.0 (7.1)

22.0 (8.6)

20.1 (6.5)

27.8 (10.0)

5.5 (2.5)

12.1 (6.4)

8.0 (3.1)

27.6 (11.0)

9.4 (3.6)

Subject Adj

Agonist

1.6

2.0 (0.5)

1.3 (0.6)

3.0 (1.1)

2.6 (1.3)

1.8 (0.8)

4.9 (2.6)

2.6 (1.6)

4.0 (1.6)

2.3 (0.7)

3.3 (1.4)

1.5 (0.7)

1.5 (1.2)

4.4 (2.4)

3.4 (1.2)

4.1 (2.3)

Observer Adj

Agonist

2.8

1.2 (0.4)

2.4 (0.6)

2.6 (0.4)

5.9 (1.4)

1.4 (0.4)

4.9 (1.1)

3.4 (1.0)

6.3 (1.7)

3.9 (0.7)

5.2 (1.5)

2.0 (1.2)

3.8 (1.0)

3.0 (1.1)

5.9 (1.2)

3.3 (0.8)

Physiological measures

Pupil diameter (min)

3.2

−0.5 (0.2)

−1.7 (0.2)

−1.4 (0.2)

−1.7 (0.3)

−0.9 (0.1)

−1.5 (0.3)

−2.2* (0.3)

−1.9* (0.3)

−1.9* (0.2)

−1.7 (0.3)

−1.2 (0.4)

−1.4 (0.2)

−2.2* (0.3)

−2.2* (0.3)

−2.1* (0.4)

02 Sat (min)

2.8

−0.7 (0.3)

−1.3 (0.2)

−1.5 (0.2)

−1.2 (0.3)

−0.9 (0.2)

−1.8 (0.3)

−1.6 (0.3)

−1.9 (0.5)

−1.7 (0.2)

−1.9 (0.3)

−0.7 (0.3)

−1.7 (0.4)

−1.3 (0.2)

−2.0 (0.3)

−1.9 (0.3)

Temp (max)

1.8

2.8 (1.2)

9.7 (2.4)

8.6 (2.4)

8.8 (2.3)

5.8 (2.0)

8.2 (1.8)

7.9 (1.8)

10.5 (1.8)

10.7 (2.7)

9.4 (2.5)

5.8 (1.9)

10.9 (2.6)

9.6 (2.2)

12.6 (2.0)

8.9 (2.4)

Pulse (max)

2.4

−0.2 (1.6)

4.4 (1.9)

3.3 (1.6)

2.6 (2.0)

−0.5 (1.1)

3.2 (2.0)

0.3 (1.7)

4.5 (1.4)

4.2 (2.3)

2.4 (1.0)

1.8 (1.5)

2.4 (1.7)

0.4 (1.3)

3.2 (1.6)

0.5 (1.7)

Diastolic BP (min)

0.8

−5.5 (3.2)

−3.8 (2.3)

−1.3 (2.2)

−6.3 (3.1)

−4.6 (2.1)

−4.9 (2.2)

−2.3 (1.7)

−5.9 (2.1)

−3.3 (2.3)

−5.3 (1.2)

−3.2 (1.7)

−5.6 (3.8)

−5.6 (2.3)

−8.0 (3.4)

−9.5 (2.9)

Systolic BP (min)

0.7

−6.4 (3.2)

−6.2 (2.4)

−3.5 (2.3)

−9.7 (4.6)

−7.1 (3.2)

−4.9 (3.4)

−5.7 (2.3)

−5.9 (1.5)

−2.8 (2.1)

−6.5 (3.1)

−6.3 (1.7)

−5.5 (4.3)

−6.2 (2.2)

−6.5 (4.6)

4.3 − (3.1)

F ratio in bold indicates a significant overall ANOVA (p < 0.05; df = 14, 98) The numbers are peak change from baseline means (±SEM).

HM hydromorphone, Adj adjectives, 0 2 Sat oxygen saturation, Temp temperature, BP blood pressure, min minimum, max maximum

*p ≤ 0.05 vs. placebo, Tukey’s HSD

Table 2

VAS items at three different time points for each drug condition

VAS item

Timepoint

F cond (14, 98)

F time (12, 84)

Placebo

HM (mg)

Buprenorphine (mg)

Buprenorphine/naloxone (mg)

0

2

4

4

8

16

4/1

8/2

16/4

   

IM

SL

IM

SL

IM

SL

IM

SL

IM

SL

IM

SL

Drug effect

 

2.2

18.1

               
 

15

  

2.5

10.6

5.1

6.9

1.5

14.0

1.6

8.1

3.5

9.1

1.9

6.4

1.5

9.0

1.1

 

30

  

6.4

10.9

5.4

9.0

3.3

17.1c

1.4

13.5

6.6

14.0

2.4

7.6

2.4

24.3a,b,c

1.6

 

45

  

6.0

9.6

6.0

13.4

3.6

11.5

9.8

13.5

10.9

18.9c

2.8

8.4

3.5

16.6c

2.6

Liking

 

1.8

16.9

               
 

15

  

2.9

10.6

4.3

5.8

1.4

14.1

1.6

8.5

3.6

9.6

2.1

6.0

1.4

14.5

1.4

 

30

  

5.4

10.9

5.9

8.5

3.5

16.9c

1.6

14.8

7.1

14.6

2.4

7.3

1.8

18.9a,c

1.9

 

45

  

4.9

9.9

6.4

12.1

3.6

12.3

9.9

13.6

14.9

19.0a,c

2.9

9.0

3.3

23.6a,b,c

2.5

High

 

2.1

19.2

               
 

15

  

2.5

10.5

5.3

6.0

1.4

13.9

1.6

8.3

3.5

8.6

2.0

6.5

1.8

9.0

1.1

 

30

  

6.4

11.3

5.3

8.3

3.6

17.9c

1.6

13.4

6.6

13.5

2.3

8.1

2.0

19.3b,c

2.0

 

45

  

5.9

9.9

6.4

12.8

3.8

12.5

9.6

13.0

11.0

18.1c

2.9

9.0

3.0

14.9

2.8

Good effects

 

1.9

18.0

               
 

15

  

2.6

10.6

4.9

7.0

1.6

13.8

1.8

8.8

4.0

9.4

2.0

7.3

1.5

9.3

1.3

 

30

  

5.8

10.6

5.8

9.6

3.3

17.3c

1.5

13.9

6.8

14.3

2.3

7.5

2.5

23.5a,b,c

2.0

 

45

  

4.4

9.9

5.9

13.6

3.6

11.5

10.0

13.8

11.0

19.3a,b,c

2.8

8.1

3.5

17.4c

2.8

F ratio in bold indicates a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05). Numbers are means. HM hydromorphone

ap ≤ 0.05 vs. placebo at the same time point

bp ≤ 0.05 vs. HM (4 mg) at the same time point

cp ≤ 0.05 vs. route of administration (IM vs. SL at each dose at the same timepoint)

Fig. 1

Peak change from baseline means (±SEM) for visual analog items Drug effect, observer-rated Agonist, and pupil diameter for doses of hydromorphone (2 and 4 mg), buprenorphine (4, 8, and 16 mg), and buprenorphine/naloxone (4/2, 8/4, and 16/8 mg). Asterisk p ≤ 0.05 vs. placebo

Route of administration comparisons

A significant main effect was shown for VAS ratings of Drug effect, Liking, High, and Good effects (p < 0.05; Table 1). There were no significant differences between placebo and the two doses of hydromorphone for these four VAS measures. Pairwise comparisons did not reveal statistically significant differences between routes of administration for any dose of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone. No overall significant effects were found for VAS ratings of Bad effects or Sick (data not shown).

There were four adjective rating scale scores: Agonist scores and Withdrawal scores, from subject ratings and from observer ratings (Table 1, Withdrawal scores not shown). There was a significant main effect for observer-rated adjective Agonist scale scores, but there were no other significant main effects for the other adjective scale scores (subject or observer; Table 1). Pairwise comparisons failed to reveal statistical significance between placebo and either dose of hydromorphone for any of the four scales (Table 1). Subject-rated and observer-rated Agonist and Withdrawal scores were generally of low magnitude and did not significantly differ between routes of administration (Table 1).

Outcomes on physiological measures are shown in Table 1. For pupil diameter, both hydromorphone doses decreased pupil diameter (by about 1 mm), although these decreases were not significantly different from placebo. In contrast, the 8 mg SL dose of buprenorphine administered alone, the 8/2 mg and 16/4 mg SL doses of buprenorphine/naloxone, and the 16/4 mg IM buprenorphine/naloxone dose significantly decreased pupil diameter compared to placebo (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in pupil diameter by route of administration for a given dose of buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone (Fig. 1). No significant differences were found between drug conditions for all other physiological measures.

Presence vs. absence of naloxone comparisons

Pairwise comparisons within a given route of administration and a given dose of buprenorphine found no statistically significant differences as a function of the presence vs. the absence of naloxone. Figure 1 provides an illustrative example of a subject-rated VAS item (Drug effect), an observer-rated adjective scale (Agonist), and a physiological measure (pupil diameter). For the IM route of administration (squares), there was no evidence that the inclusion of naloxone (filled squares) significantly affected these measures compared to buprenorphine alone (open squares).

Time-course analysis

In addition to peak change from baseline analyses, the time-dependent changes for each VAS measure were examined in order to determine onset differences by route of administration (IM vs. SL) or differences resulting from the addition of naloxone (i.e., buprenorphine alone vs. buprenorphine in combination with naloxone). Statistical differences were found for both main effects (condition and time) for Drug effect [F(14, 98) = 2.16, p < .05; F(12, 84) = 18.05, p < 0.0001], Liking [F(14, 98) = 1.84, p < 0.05; F(12, 84) = 16.94, p < 0.0001], High [F(14, 98) = 2.1, p < .05; F(12, 84) = 19.24, p < 0.0001], and Good effects [F(14, 98) = 1.91, p < 0.05; F(12, 84) = 18.01, p < 0.0001]. No differences were found for Bad effects or Sick (data not shown). Figure 2 provides an illustrative example of these time-course results for VAS ratings of Liking, highlighting differences as a function of route of administration. Overall, there was a pattern of generally higher ratings of Liking associated with IM compared to SL administration for a given dose of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone, with the magnitude of this difference greatest for the 4/1 and 16/4 mg buprenorphine/naloxone conditions (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

VAS rating for Liking following administration of each dose condition. Filled symbols indicate significant difference between routes of administration within dose condition. Asterisk p ≤ 0.05 vs. placebo, double asterisk p ≤ 0.05 vs. 4 mg hydromorphone

Pairwise comparisons were performed for early time points (15, 30, and 45 min) to capture differences in the onset of effects and are summarized in Table 2. Overall, the SL route of administration for both buprenorphine alone and in combination with naloxone did not significantly increase subjective ratings on VAS items when compared to placebo or hydromorphone during the first 45 min after administration. Generally, IM buprenorphine alone did not significantly alter subjective ratings compared to placebo or hydromorphone (4 mg). The combination of buprenorphine/naloxone (4/1 and 16/4 mg) administered intramuscularly significantly increased ratings on some VAS items (Table 2, Fig. 2). These increases occurred earlier for the 16/4 vs. 4/1 mg dose of buprenorphine/naloxone, suggesting the higher dose combination (16/4 mg) produced a quicker onset of action for these subjective measures.

The SL and IM routes of administration for buprenorphine and also buprenorphine/naloxone were compared within each dose. Generally, IM administration was associated with increased positive subject ratings (e.g., Drug effect, Liking, High and Good effects) compared to SL dosing (Table 2) with a statistically significant difference found for the intermediate dose of buprenorphine alone (8 mg).

In contrast to these buprenorphine alone findings, buprenorphine/naloxone (4/1 and 16/4 mg) administered intramuscularly increased ratings of Drug effect, Liking, High, and Good effects compared to the SL preparation (p < 0.05). The addition of naloxone to buprenorphine (4/1 and 16/4 mg) increased positive ratings following IM administration compared to placebo and hydromorphone (4 mg); however, there were no statistically significant differences between buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone within a given dose or route of administration.

Discussion

In a previous study, it was shown that SL administration of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone exhibited abuse liability and effects similar to a full mu opioid receptor agonist in non-dependent opioid users (Strain et al. 2000). However, that study did not address if the addition of naloxone alters the effects when given parenterally in non-dependent humans. The current study addressed this question by examining the relative abuse liability of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone administered both sublingually and intramuscularly in opioid users who were not physically dependent on opioids. Generally, buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone engendered greater effects when a given dose was administered intramuscularly compared to when a given dose was administered sublingually. Both preparations produced mild to moderate increases in positive subject ratings, indicating some abuse potential. However, the findings in this study of a relatively flat dose–response function and a slow time to peak effect in response to SL administration are features consistent with findings in other studies, and suggest a lower abuse potential of both buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone when given sublingually compared to parenteral administration (Jasinski et al. 1978; Lewis 1985; Weinhold et al. 1992; Comer and Collins 2002).

The magnitude of effects produced in the present study by SL and IM buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone was similar to that seen in previous studies (Jasinski et al. 1989; Jones et al. 1999; Preston and Bigelow 2000; Strain et al. 2000; Comer and Collins 2002). The peak effects analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences between doses within a given route of administration or between buprenorphine alone and in combination with naloxone within a given dose (Table 1). However, time-course effects for each condition revealed a mild to moderate opioid agonist effect in response to buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone. VAS ratings of Drug effect, Liking, High, and Good effects increased as SL and IM buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone dose increased (Table 2, Fig. 2). As expected, the addition of naloxone did not clearly or consistently attenuate the effects of SL buprenorphine (Strain et al. 2000). IM administration of buprenorphine/naloxone was associated with a non-orderly and non-statistically significant pattern of dose effects for subject ratings, suggesting variable modulation of buprenorphine by naloxone (Table 2, Fig. 2). While these effects did not reach statistical significance, the use of higher doses or higher ratios of naloxone might have attenuated the effects of IM buprenorphine alone. The effects on subject ratings of the highest dose of IM buprenorphine/naloxone were significantly different from placebo and hydromorphone; however, comparisons of route of administration and the presence vs. the absence of naloxone within a dose were not significant (Fig. 2).

Although the effects of the lower dose of IM hydromorphone (2 mg) were similar to those reported in previous studies (Strain et al. 2000; Walsh et al. 2001), the present effects were not dose-dependent. The 4 mg dose of hydromorphone failed to show robustly greater mu opioid agonist effects compared to the 2 mg dose. Previous studies that administered doses of hydromorphone to non-dependent opioid users reported dose-dependent increases in subject ratings on a variety of mu opioid agonist measures (Jones et al. 1999; Strain et al. 2000; Preston and Bigelow 2000; Walsh et al. 2001). The lack of dose-dependent effects for hydromorphone and the low magnitude of subject ratings for the 4-mg dose of hydromorphone is a limitation to the present study and may reflect a lack of power to detect differences that might otherwise be revealed if higher doses or more subjects were studied. Given the extensive history of opioid use by the subjects studied (an average of 15 years of use), it seems unlikely that this was a population that lacked familiarity with opioid effects. It is possible that the 72-hour time period between test sessions was not sufficiently long enough to allow adequate clearance of buprenorphine, which may contribute to these hydromorphone results.

The effects of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone combinations have been previously investigated in non-dependent volunteers with opioid experience (Weinhold et al. 1992; Strain et al. 2000; Comer and Collins 2002). Similar to the present findings, those studies concluded that buprenorphine/naloxone retained abuse potential in opioid users who are not physically dependent on opioids. Higher doses of naloxone relative to buprenorphine might attenuate the effects of IM buprenorphine if tested in the present study procedures.

The present study did not collect blood samples, which would have been useful for analyzing pharmacokinetic profiles. There is variability in absorption and plasma levels of SL buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone (Mendelson et al. 1997b; Chiang and Hawks 2003, Strain et al. 2004). While doses used were not weight-based, the doses and buprenorphine/naloxone ratios were clinically relevant (e.g., Mendelson and Jones 2003, Johnson et al. 2003). In an attempt to balance validity (i.e., IM vs. intravenous route) and feasibility (e.g., often limited venous access in this population), the present study used the IM route of administration. Intramuscularly and intravenously administered buprenorphine result in a similar plasma uptake and time course (Bullingham et al. 1981).

The present data suggest that the addition of naloxone at the doses and ratios tested may not confer any benefit in a non-dependent opioid-abusing population, even by the IM route of administration. However, it is important to note that a lower dose ratio of buprenorphine to naloxone could be more effective in attenuating the abuse liability of parenteral buprenorphine in non-dependent opioid abusers (Weinhold et al. 1992). Such a higher relative dose of naloxone might, however, produce excessive opioid withdrawal in opioid-dependent persons who inject buprenorphine/naloxone. The present findings suggest that at the doses tested, both buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone have some abuse potential when administered either parenterally or sublingually by opioid users who are not physically dependent on opioids, that parenteral administration may have greater abuse potential than SL administration, and that the addition of naloxone has little impact for attenuating abuse of buprenorphine in the non-physically dependent population.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by R01 DA08045, K24 DA023186 and T32 DA07209. The authors thank the medical, nursing, and pharmacy staff for work on the protocol, as well as the research assistants for the aid in preparation of this manuscript.

Disclosure

Drugs used in the study described in this article are manufactured by Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Strain is a consultant to and a paid member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals. The terms of this arrangement are being managed by Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.

References

  1. Alho H, Sinclair D, Vuori E, Holopainen A (2007) Abuse liability of buprenorphine–naloxone tablets in untreated IV drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend 88:75–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bullingham RE, McQuay HJ, Dwyer D, Allen MC, Moore RA (1981) Sublingual buprenorphine used postoperatively: clinical observations and preliminary pharmacokinetic analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 12:117–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiang CN, Hawks RL (2003) Pharmacokinetics of the combination tablet of buprenorphine and naloxone. Drug Alcohol Depend 70:S39–S47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Comer SD, Collins ED (2002) Self-administration of intravenous buprenorphine and the buprenorphine/naloxone combination by recently detoxified heroin abusers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 303:695–703CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cowan A, Lewis JW, MacFarlane IR (1977) Agonist and antagonist properties of buprenorphine: a new antinociceptive agent. Br J Pharmacol 60:537–545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dum JE, Herz A (1981) In vivo receptor binding of the opiate partial agonist, buprenorphine, correlated with its agonist and antagonistic actions. Br J Pharmacol 74:627–633PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fraser HG, van Horn GD, Marin WR, Wolbach AB, Isbell H (1961) Methods for evaluating addiction liability. (A) “Attitude” of opiate addicts toward opiate-like drugs, (B) A short-term “direct” addiction test. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 133:371–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fudala PJ, Yu E, Macfadden W, Boardman C, Chiang CN (1998) Effects of buprenorphine and naloxone in morphine-stabilized opioid addicts. Drug Alcohol Depend 50:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Harris DS, Jones RT, Welm S, Upton RA, Lin E, Mendelson J (2000) Buprenorphine and naloxone co-administration in opiate-dependent patients stabilized on sublingual buprenorphine. Drug Alcohol Depend 61:85–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Jasinski DR (1977) Assessment of the abuse potentiality of morphinelike drugs (methods used in man). In: Martin WR (ed) Drug addiction I. Springer, Berlin, pp 197–258Google Scholar
  11. Jasinski DR, Pevnick JS, Griffith JD (1978) Human pharmacology and abuse potential of the analgesic buprenorphine. Arch Gen Psychiatry 35:501–516PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Jasinski DR, Fudala PJ, Johnson RE (1989) Sublingual versus subcutaneous buprenorphine in opiate abusers. Clin Pharmacol Ther 45:513–519PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson RE, Jaffe JH, Fudala PJ (1992) A controlled trial of buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry 35:501–516Google Scholar
  14. Johnson RE, Chutuape MA, Strain EC, Walsh SL, Stitzer ML, Bigelow GE (2000) A comparison of levomethadyl acetate, buprenorphine, and methadone for opioid dependence. N Engl J Med 343:1290–1297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson RE, Strain EC, Amass L (2003) Buprenorphine: how to use it right. Drug Alcohol Depend 70:S59–S77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones HE, Bigelow GE, Preston KL (1999) Assessment of opioid partial agonist activity with the three-choice hydromorphone dose-discrimination procedure. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 289:1350–1361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis JW (1985) Buprenorphine. Drug Alcohol Depend 14:363–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ling W, Charuvastra C, Collins JF, Batki S, Brown LS Jr, Kintaudi P, Wesson DR, McNicholas L, Tusel DJ, Malkerneker U, Renner JA Jr, Santos E, Casandonte P, Fye C, Stine S, Wang RI, Segal D (1998) Buprenorphine maintenance treatment of opiate dependence: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Addiction 93:475–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lutfy K, Eitan S, Bryant CD, Yang YC, Saliminejad N, Walwyn W, Kieffer BL, Takeshima H, Carroll FI, Maidment NT, Evans CJ (2003) Buprenorphine-induced antinociception is mediated by mu-opioid receptors and compromised by concomitant activation of opioid receptor-like receptors. J Neurosci 23:10331–10337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mendelson J, Jones RT (2003) Clinical and pharmacological evaluation of buprenorphine and naloxone combinations: why the 4:1 ratio for treatment? Drug Alcohol Depend 70:S29–S37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mendelson J, Jones RT, Fernandez I, Welm S, Melby AK, Baggott MJ (1996) Buprenorphine and naloxone interactions in opiate-dependent volunteers. Clin Pharmacol Ther 60:105–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mendelson J, Jones RT, Welm S, Brown J, Batki SL (1997a) Buprenorphine and naloxone interactions in methadone maintenance patients. Biol Pshcyiatry 41:1095–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mendelson J, Upton RA, Everhart ET, Jacob P, Jones RT (1997b) Bioavailability of sublingual buprenorphine. J Clin Pharmacol 37:31–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mendelson J, Jones RT, Welm S, Baggott M, Fernandez I, Melby AK, Nath RP (1999) Buprenorphine and naloxone combinations: the effects of three dose ratios in morphine-stabilized, opiate-dependent volunteers. Psychopharmacology 141:37–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Preston KL, Bigelow GE (2000) Effects of agonist-antagonist opioids in humans trained in a hydromorphone/not hydromorphone discrimination. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 295:114–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Preston KL, Bigelow GE, Liebson IA (1988) Buprenorphine and naloxone alone and in combination in opioid-dependent human volunteers. Psychopharmacology 94:484–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Preston KL, Bigelow GE, Liebson IA (1990) Effects of sublingually given naloxone in opioid-dependent human volunteers. Drug Alcohol Depend 25:27–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosado J, Walsh SL, Bigelow GE, Strain EC (2007) Sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone precipitated withdrawal in subjects maintained on 100 mg of daily methadone. Drug Alcohol Depend 90:261–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schottenfeld RS, Pakes JR, Oliveto A, Ziedonis D, Kosten TR (1997) Buprenorphine vs methadone maintenance treatment for concurrent opioid dependence and cocaine abuse. Arch Gen Psychiatry 54:713–720PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Stoller KB, Bigelow GE, Walsh SL, Strain EC (2001) Effects of buprenorphine/naloxone in opioid dependent humans. Psychopharmacology 154:230–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Strain EC, Preston KL, Liebson IA, Bigelow GE (1993) Precipitated withdrawal by pentazocine in methadone-maintained volunteers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 267:624–634PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Strain EC, Stitzer ML, Liebson IA, Bigelow GE (1994) Comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence. Am J Psychiatry 151(7):1025–1030PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Strain EC, Stoller K, Walsh SL, Bigelow GE (2000) Effects of buprenorphine versus buprenorphine/naloxone tablets in non-dependent opioid abusers. Psychopharmacology 148:347–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strain EC, Moody DE, Stoller KB, Walsh SL, Bigelow GE (2004) Relative bioavailability of different buprenorphine formulations under chronic dosing conditions. Drug Alcohol Depend 74:37–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Walsh SL, Strain EC, Abreu ME, Bigelow GE (2001) Enadoline, a selective kappa opioid agonist: comparison with butorphanol and hydromorphone in humans. Psychopharmacology 157:151–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Weinberg DS, Inturrisi CE, Reidenberg B, Moulin DE, Nip TJ, Wallenstein S, Houde RW, Foley KM (1988) Sublingual absorption of select opioid analgesics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 44:335–342PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Weinhold LL, Preston KL, Farre M, Liebson IA, Bigelow GE (1992) Buprenorphine alone and in combination with naloxone in non-dependent humans. Drug Alcohol Depend 30:263–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela N. Duke
    • 1
  • Christopher J. Correia
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sharon L. Walsh
    • 1
    • 3
  • George E. Bigelow
    • 1
  • Eric C. Strain
    • 1
  1. 1.Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesThe Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  3. 3.Department of Behavioral SciencesUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations