Quality of Life Research

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 1177–1183 | Cite as

Health-related quality of life changes associated with buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence

  • Dennis W. Raisch
  • Heather M. Campbell
  • David A. Garnand
  • Mark A. Jones
  • Mike R. Sather
  • Rupali Naik
  • Walter Ling
Article

Abstract

Background

Few studies have described improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) associated with opioid dependence treatment with buprenorphine (ODT-B).

Objective

To evaluate HRQOL changes in domain scores, physical and mental component summaries, and health utilities (HUs) associated with ODT-B using the Short Form 36 (SF-36).

Methods

We assessed HRQOL changes in a substudy of a pharmacokinetic study that compared buprenorphine oral tablet and liquid dosage formulations over 16 weeks. Individuals, aged 18–65 years, were screened for opioid dependence. They were excluded if they would not agree to birth control or had a serious medical condition. Subjects received psychosocial counseling and weekly group therapy. The SF-36 was administered upon enrollment and at 4-week intervals. We used the SF-6D to estimate HUs. We performed intention to treat (ITT) analyses based on the last observation available for each subject. Paired t tests of each domain and HU, limited to remaining patients at each 4-week interval, were also conducted.

Results

Of 96 subjects enrolled, cumulative dropouts over time resulted in 80, 69, 59, and 44 subjects remaining at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks. There were no significant differences in opioid-positive urines, dropout rates, or dosage changes between formulations. In the ITT analyses, HRQOL improvements over time were bodily pain (62.1 vs. 69.1, P = 0.017), vitality (49.8 vs. 56.5, P = 0.001), mental health (59.9 vs. 66.0, P = 0.001), social function (66.4 vs. 74.7, P = 0.001), role emotional (59.4 vs. 71.9, P = 0.003), role physical (60.9 vs. 70.6, P = 0.005), and mental component summary (41.9 vs. 45.4, P<0.001). HU scores also improved (0.674 vs. 0.715, P = 0.001). Results from paired t tests, with only concurrently enrolled patients, showed similar improvements from baseline to 4, 8, 12, or 16 weeks.

Conclusion

Buprenorphine, accompanied with psychosocial counseling, was associated with improved HRQOL and HUs.

Keywords

Buprenorphine Opioid dependence Quality of life Health utility 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was performed under an interagency agreement at the NIDA/VA Medication Development Research Unit (MDRU) at the West LA VA Medical Center, # DA 50038, to Walter Ling as principal investigator. There are no conflicts of interest to report.

References

  1. 1.
    Ling, W., & Wesson, D. R. (2003). Clinical efficacy of buprenorphine comparisons to methadone and placebo. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 70(2), S49–S57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fudala, P. J., Bridge, T. P., Herbert, S., et al. (2003). Office-based treatment of opiate addiction with a sublingual-tablet formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone. New England Journal of Medicine, 349(10), 949–958.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark, H. W. (2001). A new era in opioid dependency treatment. Recent law allows qualified physicians to provide care in office setting. Postgrad Med, 109(6), 15–16, 25.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raisch, D. W., Fye, C. L., Boardman, K. D., & Sather, M. R. (2002). Opioid dependence treatment, including buprenorphine/naloxone. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 36, 312–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Connock, M., Juarez-Garcia, A., Jowett, S., et al. (2007). Methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 11(9), 1–190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donaher, P. A., & Welsh, C. (2006). Managing opioid addiction with buprenorphine. American Family Physician, 73(9), 1573–1578.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ling, W., & Smith, D. (2002). Buprenorphine: blending practice and research. J Subst Abuse Treat, 23(2), 87–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torrington, M., Domier, C. P., Hillhouse, M., & Ling, W. (2007). Buprenorphine 101: treating opioid dependence with buprenorphine in an office-based setting. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 26(3), 93–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bell, J., Shanahan, M., Mutch, C., et al. (2007). A randomized trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of observed versus unobserved administration of buprenorphine-naloxone for heroin dependence. Addiction, 102(12), 1899–1907.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barnett, P. G., Rodgers, J. H., & Bloch, D. A. (2001). A meta-analysis comparing buprenorphine to methadone for treatment of opiate dependence. Addiction, 96(5), 683–690.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harris, A. H., Gospodarevskaya, E., & Ritter, A. J. (2005). A randomised trial of the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence in a primary care setting. Pharmacoeconomics, 23(1), 77–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doran, C. M., Shanahan, M., Mattick, R. P., Ali, R., White, J., & Bell, J. (2003). Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance a cost-effectiveness analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 71(3), 295–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giacomuzzi, S. M., Riemer, Y., Ertl, M., et al. (2003). Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance treatment in an ambulant setting a health-related quality of life assessment. Addiction, 98(5), 693–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maremmani, I., Pani, P. P., Pacini, M., & Perugi, G. (2007). Substance use and quality of life over 12 months among buprenorphine maintenance-treated and methadone maintenance-treated heroin-addicted patients. J Subst Abuse Treat, 33(1), 91–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith, K. W., & Larson, M. J. (2003). Quality of life assessments by adult substance abusers receiving publicly funded treatment in Massachusetts. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 29(2), 323–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vanagas, G., Padaiga, Z., & Subata, E. (2004). Drug addiction maintenance treatment and quality of life measurements. Medicina (Kaunas), 40(9), 833–841.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Torrens, M., San, L., Martinez, A., Castillo, C., Domingo-Salvany, A., & Alonso, J. (1997). Use of the Nottingham health profile for measuring health status of patients in methadone maintenance treatment. Addiction, 92(6), 707–716.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eklund, C., Melin, L., Hiltunen, A., & Borg, S. (1994). Detoxification from methadone maintenance treatment in Sweden: long-term outcome and effects on quality of life and life situation. Int J Addict, 29(5), 627–645.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reno, R. R., & Aiken, L. S. (1993). Life activities and life quality of heroin addicts in and out of methadone treatment. Int J Addict, 28(3), 211–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Millson, P. E., Challacombe, L., Villeneuve, P. J., et al. (2004). Self-perceived health among Canadian opiate users: a comparison to the general population and to other chronic disease populations. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 95(2), 99–103.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Calsyn, D. A., Saxon, A. J., Bush, K. R., et al. (2004). The addiction severity index medical and psychiatric composite scores measure similar domains as the SF-36 in substance-dependent veterans: concurrent and discriminant validity. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 76, 165–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1115–1128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ, 21(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1(1), 4–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaplan, R. M., Ganiats, T. G., Sieber, W. J., & Anderson, J. P. (1998). The quality of well-being scale: Critical similarities and differences with SF-36. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 10(6), 509–520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Compton, P., Ling, W., Moody, D., & Chiang, N. (2006). Pharmacokinetics, bioavailability and opioid effects of liquid versus tablet buprenorphine. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 82(1), 25–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ware, J. E., Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Jr., Lu, J. F., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care, 32(1), 40–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Jr., & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31(3), 247–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinksi M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. The Health Institute New England Medical Journal, Boston, 1993).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hollingworth, W., Sullivan, S. D., Emerson, S. S., Gray, D. T., & Jarvik, J. G. (2002). The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain. Health Economics, 11, 71–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sherbourne, C. D., Unützer, J., Schoenbaum, M., Duan, N., Lenert, L. A., Sturm, R., et al. (2001). Can utility-weighted health-related quality-of-life estimates capture health effects of quality improvement for depression? Medical Care, 39(11), 1246–1259.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pyne, J. M., Rost, K. M., Zhang, M., Williams, D. K., Smith, J., & Fortney, J. (2003). Cost-effectiveness of a primary care depression intervention. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 432–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lobo, F. S., Gross, C. R., & Matthees, B. J. (2004). Estimation and comparison of derived preference scores from the SF-36 in lung transplant patients. Quality of Life Research, 13, 377–388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Green, C., Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (2000). Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics, 17(2), 151–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Raisch, D. W. (2000). Understanding quality-adjusted life years and their application to pharmacoeconomic research. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 34(7–8), 906–914.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mattick, R. P., Ali, R., White, J. M., O’Brien, S., Wolk, S., & Danz, C. (2003). Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance therapy: a randomized double-blind trial with 405 opioid-dependent patients. Addiction, 98(4), 441–452.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lintzeris, N., Bell, J., Bammer, G., Jolley, D. J., & Rushworth, L. (2002). A randomized controlled trial of buprenorphine in the management of short-term ambulatory heroin withdrawal. Addiction, 97(11), 1395–1404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ling, W., Charuvastra, C., Collins, J. F., et al. (1998). Buprenorphine maintenance treatment of opiate dependence: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Addiction, 93(4), 475–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ponizovsky, A. M., & Grinshpoon, A. (2007). Quality of life among heroin users on buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 33(5), 631–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ballantyne, J. C., & LaForge, K. S. (2007). Opioid dependence and addiction during opioid treatment of chronic pain. Pain, 129(3), 235–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Miotto, K., Compton, P., Ling, W., & Conolly, M. (1996). Diagnosing addictive disease in chronic pain patients. Psychosomatics, 37(3), 223–235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wu, S. M., Compton, P., Bolus, R., et al. (2006). The addiction behaviors checklist: validation of a new clinician-based measure of inappropriate opioid use in chronic pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 32(4), 342–351.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hatoum, H. T., Brazier, J. E., & Akhras, K. S. (2004). Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health, 7(5), 602–609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Harrison, M. J., Davies, L. M., Bansback, N. J., et al. (2009). The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Quality of Life Research, 18(9), 1195–1205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Khanna, D., Furst, D. E., Wong, W. K., et al. (2007). Reliability, validity, and minimally important differences of the SF-6D in systemic sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 16(6), 1083–1092.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lee, B. B., King, M. T., Simpson, J. M., et al. (2008). Validity, responsiveness, and minimal important difference for the SF-6D health utility scale in a spinal cord injured population. Value Health, 11(4), 680–688.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Broz, D., & Ouellet, L. J. (2008). Racial and ethnic changes in heroin injection in the United States: implications for the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 94(1–3), 221–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Badia, X., Roset, M., Herdman, M., & Kind, P. (2001). A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making, 21(1), 7–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gabriel, S. E., Kneeland, T. S., Melton, L. J., 3rd, Moncur, M. M., Ettinger, B., & Tosteson, A. N. (1999). Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: Whose values should we use? Med Decis Making, 19(2), 141–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Huang, I. C., Willke, R. J., Atkinson, M. J., Lenderking, W. R., Frangakis, C., & Wu, A. W. (2007). US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: does choice of preference weights make a difference? Quality of Life Research, 16(6), 1065–1072.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis W. Raisch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Heather M. Campbell
    • 2
  • David A. Garnand
    • 2
  • Mark A. Jones
    • 2
  • Mike R. Sather
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rupali Naik
    • 3
  • Walter Ling
    • 4
  1. 1.University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Clinical Research PharmacyAlbuquerqueUSA
  3. 3.Allergan, Inc.IrvineUSA
  4. 4.David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations