Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 81–110 | Cite as

Buprenorphine: A Review of its Pharmacological Properties and Therapeutic Efficacy

  • R. C. Heel
  • R. N. Brogden
  • T. M. Speight
  • G. S. Avery
Evaluations on New Drugs

Summary

Synopsis: Buprenorphine1, a derivative of the morphine alkaloid thebaine, is a strong analgesic with marked narcotic antagonist activity. In studies in relatively small groups of postoperative patients with moderate to severe pain, one or a few doses of buprenorphine parenterally (by intramuscular or slow intravenous injection) or sublingually2 were at least as effective as standard doses of other strong analgesics such as morphine, pethidine or pentazocine, and buprenorphine was longer acting than these agents. Only a small number of patients with chronic pain have received repeated doses, but in such patients there was no need for increased doses during several weeks to months of treatment.

Buprenorphine appears to produce side effects which are similar to those seen with other morphine- like compounds, including respiratory depression. There is apparently no completely reliable specific antagonist for buprenorphine’s respiratory depressant effect, since even very high doses of the antagonist drug naloxone may produce only a partial reversal. The respiratory stimulant drug doxapram has overcome respiratory depression in volunteers and in a few patients in a clinical setting, but such studies have not been done in an overdose situation.

Animal studies and a direct addiction study in a few volunteers suggest that the dependence liability of buprenorphine may be lower than that of other older morphine- like drugs. However, a slowly emerging abstinence syndrome did occur on withdrawal after very high doses administered for 1 to 2 months. A definitive statement on the drug’s dependence liability and abuse potential cannot be made until it has had much wider use for a longer period of time.

Pharmacodynamic Studies: In animal tests and in man, buprenorphine has displayed both typical narcotic agonist and antagonist properties. Agonist effects often exhibited a bell-shaped dose-response curve, as occurs with pentazocine, and subjective opiate-like effects reached a maximum at a dose of about 1mg (subcutaneously) in man. The onset of agonist effects in man was slower (peak effects about 6 hours after subcutaneous or intramuscular injection) but the duration of such effects was longer (about 72 hours) than with morphine (about 3 to 4 hours and 24 to 48 hours, respectively). Dose finding tests of analgesic activity in postoperative or cancer patients (some with previous narcotic ‘experience’) showed buprenorphine to be about 25 times as potent as morphine, although in therapeutic trials in postoperative patients this potency ratio was often higher.

In most in vitro and in vivo animal studies buprenorphine has also shown the ability to antagonise the effects of single doses of morphine, and to precipitate abstinence in animals dependent on morphine. Although in several such tests a ‘ceiling effect’ of antagonist activity occurred with higher doses not producing an increased response, in others (precipitation of abstinence in morphine dependent monkeys) such an effect was not observed. In man, the narcotic antagonist activity of buprenorphine has been demonstrated through precipitation of abstinence in narcotic dependent subjects and by reversal of fentanyl anaesthesia.

The respiratory depressant activity of single equianalgesic doses of buprenorphine and morphine appears to be similar. Although a ‘ceiling effect’ for buprenorphine induced respiratory depression has been demonstrated in animals, it is presently unclear whether or not this occurs in man, but within the therapeutic dose range respiratory depression is dose related. The onset of peak respiratory depressant effect is slower after intramuscular buprenorphine than after morphine (3 hours versus 1 hour) and the duration of such an effect, although not clearly determined, is longer. In therapeutic trials published to date respiratory depression with buprenorphine has not been a problem, but such studies have usually involved single doses in fit patients undergoing surgery. The respiratory depressant effects in ‘poor risk’ patients or following repeated doses need further study. There appears to be no completely reliable specific antagonist for buprenorphine induced respiratory depression, since even very high doses of naloxone may produce only partial reversal. However, the respiratory stimulant drug doxapram has reversed respiratory depression due to buprenorphine in a few healthy volunteers and in a few patients in a clinical setting.

Haemodynamic changes in healthy volunteers after intramuscular (0.15 to 0.6mg), sublingual (0.4 or 0.8mg) or oral (1 to 4mg) doses of buprenorphine have been limited to a dose related reduction in heart rate (up to 25%) and a small decrease in systolic blood pressure (about 10%), as occurred with morphine. Similar dose related effects occurred in anaesthetised patients undergoing surgery and in a few patients with myocardial infarctions, although in the latter group the heart rate remained relatively unchanged.

In animal models buprenorphine appeared to have a lower dependence liability than the opioid agonists morphine and codeine or the partial antagonist pentazocine, but the extent to which such results can be extrapolated to man is uncertain. In a single direct addiction study in 5 volunteers, very high (8mg daily) intramuscular doses of buprenorphine administered for 1 to 2 months produced a very slowly emerging abstinence syndrome on withdrawal. Thus, while results to date are encouraging, definitive statements on the dependence liability of the drug cannot be made until it has been much more widely used, particularly in patients with chronic pain receiving repeated doses over an extended time period.

Pharmacokinetic Studies: There is little information available on the pharmacokinetic properties of buprenorphine in man. In primates and in 2 volunteers absorption occurred rapidly after intramuscular administration of a labelled dose (2μg/kg) and more slowly after an oral (15μg/kg) dose (peak plasma radioactivity in man at less than 7 minutes and about 2 hours, respectively). Detectable blood radioactivity persisted for more than 24 hours after oral ingestion compared with about 7 hours after intramuscular injection. The absorption pattern after sublingual administration has not been studied.

In animal distribution studies the liver and brain contained the highest levels of radioactivity. In pregnant rats, radioactivity readily reached the placenta after oral or parenteral doses.

In man, N-dealkylbuprenorphine and conjugates of this and the parent drug are the only metabolites so far identified. The pharmacological activity of these metabolites has not been studied. Excretion occurred primarily in the faeces (71% and 68% of radioactivity after 15μg/kg orally and 2μg/kg intravenously, respectively) which contained mainly unchanged buprenorphine, while urinary excretion products (15% and 27% of radioactivity after oral and intramuscular administration) were conjugates of buprenorphine and N-dealkylbuprenorphine.

Therapeutic Trials: Most studies of buprenorphine have been single dose trials in small groups of postoperative patients. In such studies a dose of 0.2 to 0.6mg of buprenorphine parenterally (intramuscular or intravenous injection) or 0.4 to 0.8mg sublingually was at least as effective as usual analgesic doses of morphine, pentazocine or pethidine for 1 to 2 hours after drug administration, and was often superior to the comparison drug at subsequent evaluation periods, indicating a longer duration of analgesic effect (about 6 to 8 hours in many studies). Buprenorphine has not been studied in therapeutic trials in patients with pain due to acute myocardial infarction.

In a small number of patients with chronic pain, usually due to cancer, sublingual buprenorphine (up to 0.8mg 4-hourly) provided adequate pain relief for periods of up to several months but side effects (usually nausea or vomiting) required discontinuing treatment in about 1/3 to 1/2 of the ambulant patients treated in this way.

Following analgesic anaesthesia, usually with fentanyl, in about 180 patients buprenorphine (usually 0.4 to 0.8mg intravenously) has been used to reverse some of the anaesthetic effects while producing continued analgesia which lasted about 8 to 12 hours after a single dose. The antagonist activity, however, was frequently more short lived, declining rapidly after 90 to 120 minutes; and a second dose of buprenorphine was often required at this time to prevent re-emergence of anaesthetic effects.

Side Effects: The overall profile of side effects which occur with buprenorphine appears similar to that for other morphine-like analgesics. Most patients studied to date have received a single dose while recovering from surgery. Whether the incidence of side effects would be increased in ambulatory patients, as occurs with other morphine-like agents, cannot be clearly determined from present studies but it is reasonable to expect that this would occur. Only a small number of patients with chronic pain have received repeated doses of buprenorphine over a long period, and the incidence and nature of side effects with this type of administration needs further clarification.

Moderate to marked drowsiness has been reported in about 40 to 45 % of patients (up to 75% in some studies), but all such patients were easily arousable on stimulation. Nausea and/or vomiting occurred in about 15% of patients. Other minor side effects typical of strong analgesics such as dizziness, sweating, headache, or confusion have been reported with a widely varying incidence. Euphoria has been reported on rare occasions.

Respiratory depression, as determined by laboratory measurements of respiratory function, does occur with buprenorphine, the extent of such depression being similar to that seen with other opioid drugs administered in usual clinical doses; but this has not been a problem in clinical studies to date which were usually conducted in fit patients. The effect of buprenorphine on respiration in ‘poor risk’ patients such as those with respiratory disease or congestive heart failure has not been determined. However, it appears that buprenorphine would have the same potential problems as morphine in this patient group.

Dosage and Administration: Buprenorphine is presently generally available only for parenteral use. The recommended dosage is 0.3 to 0.6mg by intramuscular or slow intravenous injection, repeated every 6 to 8 hours as needed.

Administration of buprenorphine to patients already receiving large doses of narcotic drugs should be undertaken with caution until the response is established, since its antagonist activity could conceivably precipitate abstinence in this situation.

Keywords

Morphine Naloxone Buprenorphine Respiratory Depression Pethidine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andriaensen, H. and Van De Walle, J.: Clinical use of buprenorphine in chronic administration. Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica 27: 187 (1976).Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, D.C. and Cowan, A.: Reversal of yeast-induced motor impairment in rats as a test for narcotic and non-narcotic analgesics. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 26: 727 (1974).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baster, T.J.; Gibbs, J.M. and Richardson, T.: The respiratory effects of buprenorphine. New Zealand Medical Journal 84: 325 (1976).Google Scholar
  4. Baster, T.J.; Gibbs, J.M. and Richardson, T.: Effect of buprenorphine on the ventilatory response to carbon dioxide. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 5: 128 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brogden, R.N.; Speight, T.M. and Avery, G.S.: Pentazocine: A review of its pharmacological properties, therapeutic efficacy and dependence liability. Drugs 5: 6 (1973).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckley, F.P.: A comparison of buprenorphine (15 and 20μg/kg, i.m.) and pentazocine (0.86mg/kg, i.m.) in post-operative pain. Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1976).Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, D.: Comparison of intramuscular buprenorphine (4 and 8μg/kg) and morphine (10mg) in severe pain after thoracotomy. Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1976).Google Scholar
  8. Costall, B. and Naylor, R.J.: Serotonergic involvement with the stereotypy/catalepsy induced by morphine-like agents in the rat. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 27: 67 (1975).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowan, A.: Evaluation in nonhuman primates: evaluation of the physical dependence capacities of oripavine-thebaine partial agonists in patas monkeys. Advances in Biochemical Psycho-pharmacology 8: 427 (1974).Google Scholar
  10. Cowan, A.: Use of the mouse jumping test for estimating antagonistic potencies of morphine antagonists. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 28: 177 (1976).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowan, A.: The unusual antagonist profile of buprenorphine in morphine-dependent rats. Federation Proceedings 37: 568 (1978).Google Scholar
  12. Cowan, A.; Boardman, S. and Robinson, T.: Buprenorphine and intestinal motility: A pharmacological analysis of the biphasic dose-response curve. Federation Proceedings 36: 994 (1977c).Google Scholar
  13. Cowan, A.; Dettmar, P.W. and Walter, D.S.: The effects of buprenorphine, morphine and pentazocine on turning behaviour and stereotypy induced by apomorphine in the rat. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 27: 15P (1975a).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cowan, A.; Dettmar, P.W. and Walter, D.S.: Analgesics and rotational behaviour in rats with unilateral substantia nigra lesions. Effects in the presence and absence of (+)-amphetamine. British Journal of Pharmacology 55: 316P (1975b).Google Scholar
  15. Cowan, A.; Dettmar, P.W. and Walter, D.S.: The effect of acute doses of buprenorphine on concentrations of homovanillic acid (HVA), 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) and 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol (MHPG) in the rat forebrain. British Journal of Pharmacology 58: 275P (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Cowan, A.; Doxey, J.C. and Harry, E.J.R.: The animal pharmacology of buprenorphine, an oripavine analgesic agent. British Journal of Pharmacology 60: 547 (1977a).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cowan, A.; Ghezzi, D. and Samanin, R.: Effect of midbrain raphe lesion and of 6-hydroxydopamine on the antinociceptive action of buprenorphine in rats. Archives Internationale de Pharmacodynamie et de Therapie 208: 302 (1974).Google Scholar
  18. Cowan, A.; Lewis, J.W. and MacFarlane, I.R.: Agonist and antagonist properties of buprenorphine, a new antinociceptive agent. British Journal of Pharmacology 60: 537 (1977b).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Castro, J. and Parmentier, P.: Utilisation de la buprenorphine dans l’anesthesie analgesique (rapport sur 200 cas), in De Castro (Ed.): Nouveaux Morphiniques Morphinoides, Potentialisateurs et Antidotes des Morphiniques, p. 191 (Academia S.A., St.-Stevens-Woluwe, Belgium 1975).Google Scholar
  20. De Castro, J. and Parmentier, P.: Utilisation of buprenorphine in analgesic anaesthesia. 6th World Congress on Anesthesiology, section 5, sub-section 5, p.103, Mexico City, April 24–30 (1976).Google Scholar
  21. Delooz, H.H. and Vercruysse, P.: Evaluation of buprenorphine in injectable form for the treatment of pain of all origin in an emergency department, with special reference to the respiratory effect of the drug. 6th World Congress of Anesthesiology, section 5, sub-section 5, p.233, Mexico City, April 24–30 (1976).Google Scholar
  22. Devaux, C.; Besse, M.D.; Tricard, D.; Zimmer, R. and Gauthier-Lafaye, J.P.: Action cardio-vasculaire et respiratoire de la buprenorphine. 6th World Congress of Anesthesiology, section 5, sub-section 5, p.301, Mexico City, April 24–30 (1976).Google Scholar
  23. Dewey, W.L.; Patrick, G.A. and Harris, L.D.: Narcotic antagonists in the rat infusion technique. Reported to the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Washington, D.C., USA, p.64, May 19–21 (1975a).Google Scholar
  24. Dewey, W.L.; Harris, L.S. and Ritter, K.S.: Blockade of the development of morphine dependence and substitution studies in rats. Pharmacologist 17: 236 (1975b).Google Scholar
  25. Dobkin, A.B.: Buprenorphine hydrochloride: Determination of analgesic potency. Canadian Anaesthetists’ Society Journal 24: 186 (1977).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dobkin, A.B.; Esposito, B. and Philbin, C.: Double-blind evaluation of buprenorphine hydrochloride for post-operative pain. Canadian Anaesthetists’ Society Journal 24: 195 (1977).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dodson, M.E.; Hussain, A. and Mathesour, H.: A study comparing intravenous buprenorphine, morphine, and pentazocine in post-operative pain relief: In Harcus et al. (Ed.) Pain — New Perspectives in Measurement and Management, p. 181 (Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1977).Google Scholar
  28. Downing, J.W.; Leary, W.P. and White, E.S.: Buprenorphine: A new potent long-acting synthetic analgesic. Comparison with morphine. British Journal of Anaesthesia 49: 251 (1977).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fairbrother, P.F.: A double-blind trial to compare the analgesic effects of sublingual buprenorphine and parenteral pethidine during labour. Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1977).Google Scholar
  30. Gibbs, J.M. and Johnson, H.: Comparison of buprenorphine and pethidine for analgesia after abdominal surgery. New Zealand Medical Journal, in press (1978).Google Scholar
  31. Graham, J.D.P. and Lewis, J.W.: The assessment of abuse potential drugs of the opiate type: in Harcus et al. (Ed.) Pain — New Perspectives in Measurement and Management, p.84 (Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1977).Google Scholar
  32. Hambrook, J.M. and Rance, M.J.: The interaction of buprenorphine with the opiate receptor: Lipophilicity as a determining factor in drug receptor kinetics: in Opiates and Endogeneous Opioid Peptides, p.295 (Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam 1976).Google Scholar
  33. Hampton, J.R.: Management of the pain of myocardial infarction: in Harcus et al. (Ed.) Pain — New Perspectives in Measurement and Management, p.97 (Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1977).Google Scholar
  34. Harris, L.S.: Interactions of narcotic antagonists. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 281: 288 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heel, R.C.; Brogden, R.N.; Speight, T.M. and Avery, G.S.: Butorphanol: A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 16: 473 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Houde, R.W.: Assessment of patients with pain, in Hercus et al. (Ed.) Pain — New Perspectives in Measurement and Management, p.5 (Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1977).Google Scholar
  37. Houde, R.W.; Wallenstein, S.L.; Rogers, A. and Kaiko, R.F.: Annual report of the analgesic studies section of the memorial Sloan-Kettering cancer centre. Buprenorphine (NIH-8805). Reported to the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, p.164, Richmond, Virginia, USA (1976)Google Scholar
  38. Houde, R.W.; Wallenstein, S.L.; Rogers, A. and Kaiko, R.F.: Annual Report of the Memorial Sloane-Kettering Cancer Center Analgesic Studies Section, Reported to the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Boston, p.179 (1977).Google Scholar
  39. Hovell, B.C.: Use of buprenorphine by the intravenous route as an antagonist following analgesic anaesthesia. Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1976).Google Scholar
  40. Hovell, B.C.: Comparison of buprenorphine, pethidine and pentazocine for the relief of pain after operation. British Journal of Anaesthesia 49: 913 (1977a).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hovell, B.C.: Buprenorphine. Comparative studies, in Harcus et al. (Ed.) Pain — New Perspectives in Measurement and Management, p.176 (Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1977b).Google Scholar
  42. Hovell, B.C. and Ward, A.E.: Pain relief in the post-operative period: A comparative trial of morphine and a new analgesic buprenorphine. Journal of International Medical Research 5: 417 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Humphrey, D.: Use of buprenorphine by the intravenous route as an agent for pre-operative medication. Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1976).Google Scholar
  44. Huse, K.: The effect of buprenorphine upon cardiovascular and respiratory parameters. (Post-operative evaluation in 12 neuro-surgical patients). Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1976).Google Scholar
  45. Jacob, J.J.; Tremblay, E.C. and Michaud, G.M.: Antagonism of precipitated abstinence by narcotics, narcotic antagonists and mixed agonist-antagonists: in Opiates and Endogenous Opioid Peptides, p.377 (Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam 1976).Google Scholar
  46. Jasinski, D.R.; Pevnick, J.S. and Griffith, J.D.: Buprenorphine: A potential agent for treating narcotics addiction. Federation Proceedings 36: 1025 (1977).Google Scholar
  47. Jasinski, D.R.; Pevnick, J.S. and Griffith, J.D.: Human pharmacology and abuse potential of the analgesic buprenorphine. A potential agent for treating narcotic addiction. Archives of General Psychiatry 35: 501 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jasinski, D.R.; Pevnick, J.S.; Griffith, J.D.; Gorodetzky, C.W. and Cone, E.J.: Progress report on studies from the clinical pharmacology section of the addiction research centre. Assessment of buprenorphine for morphine-like effects in man and evaluation as a maintenance drug in the treatment of narcotic addiction. Reported to the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Richmond, Virginia, USA, p.131 (1976).Google Scholar
  49. Kamel, M.M. and Geddes, I.C.: Buprenorphine. Clinical trial in post-operative pain, in Harcus et al. (Ed.) Pain — New Perspectives in Measurement and Management, p.166 (Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1977).Google Scholar
  50. Kamel, M.M. and Geddes, I.C.: A comparison of buprenorphine and pethidine for immediate postoperative pain relief by the I.V. route. British Journal of Anaesthesia 50: 599 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kay, B.: A double-blind comparison of morphine and buprenorphine in the prevention of pain after operation. British Journal of Anaesthesia 50: 605 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kosterlitz, H.W.: Pharmacological advances in analgesics: in Harcus et al. (Ed) Pain — New Perspectives in Measurement and Management, p.63 (Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1977).Google Scholar
  53. Kosterlitz, H.W.; Leslie, F.M. and Waterfield, A.A.: Rates of onset and offset of action of narcotic analgesics in isolated preparations. European Journal of Pharmacology 32: 10 (1975).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lecron, L. and Levy, D.: Buprenorphine in per and postoperative pain. 6th World Congress of Anesthesiology, section 5, subsection 5, p.219, Mexico City, April 24–30 (1976).Google Scholar
  55. Lecron, L.; Levy, D.; Collard, C. and Vermeulen, J.: Premiers resultats sur l’utilisation de la buprenorphine en anesthesiereanimation comme analgesique per- et post-operatoire, in De Castro (Ed.) Nouveaux Morphiniques Morphinoides, Potentialisateurs et Antidotes des Morphiniques, p.265 (Academia S.A., St-Stevens-Woluwe, Belgium 1975).Google Scholar
  56. Lecron, L.; Levy, D.; Toppet, E.; Vermeulen, J. and Raynal, L.: Complements d’informations sur l’analgesie a base de buprenorphine en per-operatoire. 6th World Congress of Anesthesiology, section 5, sub-section 5, p.369, Mexico City, April 24–30 (1976).Google Scholar
  57. Lewis, J.W.: Ring C-bridged derivatives of thebaine and oripavine. Advances in Biochemical Psychopharmacology 8: 123 (1974).Google Scholar
  58. Lewis, J.W. and Cowan, A.: 6029-M. Reported to the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 22-24 May (1972).Google Scholar
  59. Malcolm, A.D. and Coltart, D.J.: Cardiocirculatory effects of strong analgesic agents: in Harcus et al. (Ed.) Pain — New Perspectives in Measurement and Management (Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1977).Google Scholar
  60. Martin, W.R.; Gilbert, P.E.; Eades, C.G.; Thompson, J.A. and Huppier, R.E.: Progress report on the animal assessment program of the addiction research center. Reported to the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Washington, D.C., USA, p.110, May 19–21 (1975).Google Scholar
  61. Martin, W.R.; Gilbert, P.E.; Thompson, J.A. and Jesse, C.A.: Progress report on the animal assessment program of the addiction research center: use of the chronic spinal dog for the assessment of the abuse potentiality and utility of narcotic analgesics and narcotic antagonists. Reported to the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Richmond, Virginia, USA, p.100 (1976a).Google Scholar
  62. Martin, W.R.; Eades, C.G.; Thompson, J.A.; Huppier, R.E. and Gilbert, P.E.: The effects of morphine- and nalorphine-like drugs in the nondependent and morphine-dependent chronic spinal dog. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 197: 517 (1976b).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Masson, A.H.B.: Buprenorphine (RX 6029-M). Clinical trial in post-operative pain by the sub-lingual route. 6th World Congress of Anesthesiology, section 5, sub-section 5, p.257, Mexico City, April 24–30 (1976).Google Scholar
  64. Matsuki, K.; Kata, A.; Takei, H.; Inomata, E. and Iwabuchi, T.: Pharmacological studies of N-cyclopropylmethyl-7α-(l -(5)-hy-droxy-1, 2, 2-trimethylpropyl)-6, 14-endoethano-6,7,8,14-tetrahydronororipavine hydrochloride [MR-56]. Effect on native behaviour and analgesic activity in the laboratory animal. Oyo Yakuri 13: 257 (1977).Google Scholar
  65. McQuillan, D.A.: An initial assessment of buprenorphine in post caesarian section pain relief. 6th World Congress of Anesthesiology, section 5, sub-section 5, p.261, Mexico City, April 24–30 (1976).Google Scholar
  66. Michne, W.F.; Salsbury, R.L. and Michalec, S.J.: Synthesis and narcotic agonist-antagonist evaluation of some 2,6-methano-3-benzazocine-11 -propanols. Analogues of the ring C bridged oripavine methanols. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 20: 682 (1977).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Orwin, J.M.: The effect of doxapram on buprenorphine induced respiratory depression. Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica 28: 93 (1977a).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Orwin, J.M.: Buprenorphine pharmacological aspects in man: in Harcus et al. (Ed.) Pain — New Perspectives in Measurement and Management, p.141 (Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1977b).Google Scholar
  69. Orwin, J.M.; Robson, P.J.; Orwin, J. and Price, M.: The effects of buprenorphine and morphine on respiration following administration by the intramuscular route in man. 6th World Congress of Anesthesiology, section 5, sub-section 5, p.157, Mexico City, April 24–30 (1976a).Google Scholar
  70. Orwin, J.M.; Robson, P.J.; Orwin, J. and Price, M.: Antagonist action of naloxone on the acute effects of buprenorphine. 6th World Congress of Anesthesiology, section 5, sub-section 5, p.189, Mexico City, April 24–30 (1976b).Google Scholar
  71. Orwin, J.M.; Orwin, J. and Price, M.: A double blind comparison of buprenorphine and morphine in conscious subjects following administration by the intramuscular route. Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica 27: 171 (1976c).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Oullette, R.: Single dose, double blind comparative study of buprenorphine and morphine administered intramuscularly to post-operative patients. Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1976).Google Scholar
  73. Pircio, A.W.; Fedele, C.T. and Bierwagen, M.E.: A new method for the evaluation of analgesic activity using adjuvant-induced arthritis in the rat. European Journal of Pharmacology 31: 207 (1975).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rance, M.J. and Dickens, J.M.: The influence of drug-receptor kinetics on the pharmacological and pharmacokinetic profiles of buprenorphine: in Van Ree and Terenius (Eds.) Characteristics and Function of Opioids, in press (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1978).Google Scholar
  75. Rance, M.J. and Shillingford, J.S.: The role of the gut in the metabolism of strong analgesics. Biochemical Pharmacology 25: 735 (1976).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rance, M.J. and Shillingford, J.S.: The metabolism of phenolic opiates by rat intestine. Xenobiotica 7: 529 (1977).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rees-Jones, E.: Early experience of a six-hourly regimen in postoperative pain: In Harcus et al. (Ed.) Pain — New Perspectives in Measurement and Management, p.187 (Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1977).Google Scholar
  78. Robbie, D.S.: A comparison of buprenorphine (2 and 4μg/kg, i.m.) and pentazocine (0.6mg/kg, i.m.) for the relief of pain in cancer patients. Unpublished report on file Reckitt & Colman (1976).Google Scholar
  79. Robbie, D.S.: A comparison of sublingual buprenorphine, oral pentazocine, and oral dihydrocodeine in the treatment of malignant (cancer) pain. Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1977a).Google Scholar
  80. Robbie, D.S.: Study of sublingual buprenorphine in the treatment of chronic (cancer) pain — evaluation of various dosage regimes. Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1977b).Google Scholar
  81. Robbie, D.S.; Lipton, S.; Brown, J.R.; White, J.D. and Cameron, S.J.: Initial study of the use of multiple doses of buprenorphine in the treatment of chronic (malignant) pain. Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1977a).Google Scholar
  82. Robbie, D.S.; Budd, K.; Lipton, S. and Dodson, M.E.: Further studies of the use of multiple doses of buprenorphine in treatment of chronic (malignant and non-malignant) pain. Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1977b).Google Scholar
  83. Roily, G. and Versichelen, L.: First experience with a new analgesic drug: buprenorphine. Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica 27 (Suppl.): 134 (1976a).Google Scholar
  84. Roily, G. and Versichelen, L.: Experience with a new analgesic drug: buprenorphine. 6th World Congress of Anesthesiology, section 5, sub-section 5, p.243, Mexico City, April 24–30 (1976b).Google Scholar
  85. Roily, G. and Versichelen, L.: Buprenorphine as postoperative analgesic. Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica 27: 183 (1976c).Google Scholar
  86. Rosen, M.: The measurement of pain; in Harcus et al. (Ed.) Pain — New Perspectives in Measurement and Management, p. 13 (Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1977).Google Scholar
  87. Rosenfeldt, F.L.; Houston, B.; Dussek, J.; Thompson, D.; Malcolm, A.D.; Williams, B.T. and Coltart, D.J.: Haemodynamic effects of a new analgesic agent, buprenorphine. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 5: 362P (1978).Google Scholar
  88. Samayoa De Leon, R.: Clinical use of fentathienyl in sequential analgesic anaesthesia. 6th World Congress of Anaesthesiology, Session III Mexico City: Symposium on new morphinic, morphinoid and anti-morphinic drugs and potentiators of morphinics. Societe d’Anesthesie de Charleroi, Belgium, p.211 (1976).Google Scholar
  89. Simon, E.J.; Hiller, J.M.; Groth, J. and Edelman, I.: Further properties of stereospecific opiate binding sites in rat brain: On the nature of the sodium effect. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 192: 531 (1975).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Sargison, K.D.: Sublingual buprenorphine in orthopaedic pain. Interim report on 25 completed cross-over studies at Hull Royal Infirmary. Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1977).Google Scholar
  91. Stephen, G.W. and Cooper, L.V.: The role of analgesics in respiratory depression: a rabbit model. Anaesthesia 32: 324 (1977).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Swain, H.H. and Seevers, M.H.: Primary addiction study UM952. Reported to the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., p.791, May 19–21 (1975).Google Scholar
  93. Woods, J.H.: Narcotic-reinforced responding. A rapid screening procedure. Reported to the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Boston, p.420 (1977).Google Scholar
  94. Wust, H.J.: Clinical report on buprenorphine in patients following aorto-femoral bypass operation. Unpublished report, on file Reckitt & Colman (1976).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ADIS Press Australasia Pty Ltd 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. C. Heel
    • 1
  • R. N. Brogden
    • 1
  • T. M. Speight
    • 1
  • G. S. Avery
    • 1
  1. 1.Australasian Drug Information ServicesBirkenhead, Auckland 10New Zealand

Personalised recommendations