PDF herunterladen
Suchttherapie 2013; 14(02): 84-91
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1341453
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Buprenorphin/Naloxon – Ergebnisse aus dem niedergelassenen Bereich[*]

Buprenorphine/Naloxone – Results from the Private Practice Setting
R. Jagsch
1   Institut für Angewandte Psychologie: Gesundheit, Entwicklung, Förderung, Universität Wien
,
G. Fischer
2   Zentrum für Public Health, Medizinische Universität Wien
,
B. Köchl
2   Zentrum für Public Health, Medizinische Universität Wien
,
A. Unger
3   Universitätsklinik für Psychiatrie & Psychiatrie, Medizinische Universität Wien
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
14. Mai 2013 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel:

Untersuchung zur Wirksamkeit, Akzeptanz, Verträglichkeit und Verbleiberate der Buprenorphin/Naloxon-Behandlung bei opioidabhängigen Patienten in einem ambulanten Setting.

Methode:

Die Untersuchung wurde in einem open-label, prospektiven, multizentrischen Design (25 Zentren) mit 307 Patienten über einen Untersuchungszeitraum von 12 Monaten durchgeführt. Dropouts wurden auf Prädiktoren für den Behandlungsabbruch analysiert.

Ergebnisse:

Die Retentionsrate betrug nach 12 Monaten 45,6%, wobei die höchste Retentionsrate Patienten mit Buprenorphinvorbehandlung aufwiesen. Die Dropout-Analyse erbrachte 3 signifikante Prädiktoren für einen vorzeitigen Studienabbruch: Eine kürzere Dauer der Heroinabhängigkeit (p=0,038), ein geringeres Alter beim Erstkontakt mit Heroin (p=0,028) sowie eine höhere Einstellungsdosierung (p=0,017). Etwa zwei Drittel der Befragten zeigten sich mit der Behandlung sehr zufrieden bzw. zufrieden, wobei die Selbsteinschätzung mit der Fremdeinschätzung der Mediziner nicht deckungsgleich war.

Schlussfolgerungen:

Die Untersuchung zeigt, dass noch ein erheblicher Schulungsbedarf zur Buprenorphin/Naloxon-Medikation besteht, insgesamt das Ergebnis bezüglich Retentionsrate und Zufriedenheit mit Ergebnissen chronischer Erkrankungen im Einklang steht.

Abstract

Objective:

Patients receiving office-based buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance treatment for opiate dependence were examined over a time span of 12 months in order to determine treatment efficacy, acceptance, tolerance and retention rates.

Methods:

An open-label, prospective multicenter trial (25 centres) was conducted including 307 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of opiate dependence with or without prior treatment. Study dropouts were analysed for predictors of treatment discontinuation.

Results:

The overall retention rate after 12 months was 45.6%. Patients with prior buprenorphine experience showed the highest retention rate. 3 significant predictors for premature study dropout were detected: a shorter duration of ­heroin dependence at study entrance (p=0.038), younger age at initial drug exposure (p=0.028) and a higher initial dose of maintenance medication (p=0.017). Two thirds of patients reported to be satisfied with treatment. However, self-­assessment was not congruent with assessments provided by doctors.

Conclusions:

The study shows that there is a considerable need for further training concerning buprenorphine/naloxone treatment. Results on patient satisfaction and retention are comparable to other chronic conditions.

Schlüsselwörter

Buprenorphin/Naloxon - Opioiderhaltungstherapie - Patientenzufriedenheit

Key words

buprenorphine/naloxone - maintenance treatment - opioid dependence

* NIDA Clinical Trial Registration Nr.: NCT00725608.


 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Wittchen HU, Jacobi F, Rehm J et al. The size and burden of mental disorders and other disorders of the brain in Europe 2010. European Neuropsychopharmacology 2011; 21: 655-679
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 World Health Organisation (WHO) . The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. Geneva: WHO; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Soyer R, Schumann S Hrsg Therapie statt Strafe – Gesundheitsbezogene Maßnahmen bei Substanzabhängigkeit und Suchtmittel(straf)recht. Wien: Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Amato L, Davoli M, Perucci CA et al. An overview of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of opiate maintenance therapies: Available evidence to inform clinical practice and research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2005; 28: 321-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mattick RP, Ali R, White JM et al. Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance therapy: A randomized double-blind trial with 405 opioid-dependent patients. Addiction 2003; 98: 441-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fiellin DA, O‘Connor PG. Office-based treatment of opioid-dependent patients. New Engl J Med 2002; 347: 817-823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Eder H, Jagsch R, Kraigher D et al. Comparative study of the effectiveness of slow-release morphine and methadone for opioid maintenance therapy. Addiction 2005; 100: 1101-1109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 EMCDDA. Jahresbericht 2005. Stand der Drogenproblematik in Europa (Kap. 6 Heroinkonsum und injizierender Drogenkonsum). Verfügbar unter: http://ar2005.emcdda.europa.eu/de/page075-de.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dahan A, Yassen A, Romberg R et al. Buprenorphine induces ceiling in respiratory depression but not in analgesia. Br J Anaesth 2006; 96: 627-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sander G. Suboxone – das neue Kombinationspräparat zur Behandlung der manifesten Opiatabhängigkeit. Suchtmed 2007; 9: 65-68
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wish ED, Artigiani E, Billing A et al. The emerging buprenorphine epidemic in the United States. J Addict Dis 2012; 31: 3-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Strain EC, Moody DE, Stoller KB et al. Relative bioavailability of different buprenorphine formulations under chronic dosing conditions. Drug Alcohol Dep 2004; 74: 37-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Amato P. Clinical experience with fortnightly buprenorphine/naloxone versus buprenorphine in Italy: Preliminary observational data in an office-based setting. Clinical Drug Investigation 2010; 30 (Suppl. 01) 33-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lee JD, Grossman E, Truncali A et al. Buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance following release from jail. Substance Abuse 2012; 33: 40-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Magnelli F, Biondi L, Calabria R et al. Safety and efficacy of buprenorphine/naloxone in opioid-dependent patients: An Italian observational study. Clinical Drug Investigation 2010; 30 (Suppl. 01) 21-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Petke Z, Csorba J, Meszaros J et al. Changes in psychosocial symptoms of opiate users over six months with buprenorphine/naloxone substitution therapy. Neuropsychopharmacologia Hungarica 2012; 14: 7-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 American Psychiatric Association (APA) . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Text Revision, DSM-IV-TR™. 4th ed. Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Degenhardt L, Randall D, Hall W et al. Mortality among clients of a state-wide opioid pharmacotherapy program over 20 years: Risk factors and lives saved. Drug Alcohol Depend 2009; 105: 9-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gossop M, Stewart D, Treacy S et al. A prospective study of mortality among drug misusers during a 4-year period after seeking treatment. Addiction 2002; 97: 39-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cornish R, Macleod J, Strang J et al. Risk of death during and after opiate substitution treatment in primary care: prospective observational study in UK General Practice Research Database. BMJ 2010; 341: c5475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fiellin DA, Moore BA, Sullivan LE et al. Long-term treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone in primary care: Results at 2–5 years. Am J Addict 2008; 17: 116-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ross J, Teesson M, Darke S et al. The characteristics of heroin users entering treatment: findings from the Australian treatment outcome study (ATOS). Drug Alcohol Rev 2005; 24: 411-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Back SE, Payne RL, Wahlquist AH et al. Comparative profiles of men and women with opioid dependence: results from a national multisite effectiveness trial. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2011; 37: 313-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Van Etten ML, Anthony JC. Comparative epidemiology of initial drug opportunities and transitions to first use: marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogens and heroin. Drug Alcohol Depend 1999; 54: 117-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Haas AL, Peters RH. Development of substance abuse problems among drug-involved offenders – Evidence for the Telescoping effect. J Subst Abuse 2000; 12: 241-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lieberman JA, Tollefson G, Tohen M et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus haloperidol. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 1396-1404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Darke S, Ross J, Teesson M et al. Factors associated with 12 months continuous heroin abstinence: findings from the Australian Treatment Outcome Study (ATOS). J Subst Abuse Treat 2005; 28: 255-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hubbard RL, Craddock SG, Anderson J. Overview of five-year follow-up outcomes in the drug abuse treatment outcome studies (DATOS). J Subst Abuse Treat 2003; 25: 125-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Fudala PJ, Bridge P, Herber S et al. Office-based treatment of opiate addiction with a sublingual-tablet formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone. New Engl J Med 2003; 349: 949-958
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fiellin DA, Pantalon MV, Chawarski MC et al. Counseling plus buprenorphine-naloxone therapy for opioid dependence. New Engl J Med 2006; 355: 365-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Joe GW, Simpson DD, Hubbard RL. Treatment predictors of tenure in methadone maintenance. J Subst Abuse 1991; 3: 73-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mintzer IL, Eisenberg M, Terra M et al. Treating opioid addiction with buprenorphine-naloxone in community-based primary care settings. Ann Fam Med 2007; 5: 146-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Strain EC, Bigelow GE, Liebson IA et al. Moderate- vs. high-dose methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence: A randomized trial. JAMA 1999; 281: 1000-1005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ling W, Charuvastra C, Collins JF et al. Buprenorphine maintenance treatment of opiate dependence: A multicenter randomized clinical trial. Addiction 1998; 93: 475-486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Fareed A, Vayalapalli S, Casarella J et al. Effect of buprenorphine dose on treatment outcome. J Addict Dis 2012; 31: 8-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Del Rio M, Mino A, Perneger T. Predictors of patient retention in a newly established methadone maintenance treatment programme. Addiction 1997; 92: 1353-1360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Soyka M, Zingg C, Koller G et al. Retention rate and substance use in methadone and buprenorphine maintenance therapy and predictors of outcome: result from a randomized study. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2008; 11: 641-653
    PubMedGoogle Scholar