HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Boothby, L. A. Articles by Doering, P. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Boothby, L. A. Articles by Doering, P. L.

LISA A. BOOTHBY, PHARM.D., BCPS, is Coordinator, Drug Information Services, Columbus Regional Healthcare System, Columbus, GA, and Affiliate Clinical Associate Professor, Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn University, Auburn, AL. PAUL L. DOERING, M.S., FAPHA, is Distinguished Service Professor of Pharmacy Practice and Codirector, Drug Information and Pharmacy Resource Center, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Address correspondence to Dr. Boothby at Drug Information Services, Columbus Regional Healthcare System, 710 Center Street, Columbus, GA 31902-0950 (lisa.boothby{at}crhs.net).

Purpose. The clinical issues surrounding the use of buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid dependence are reviewed. Summary. Opioids continue to be some of the most frequently reported prescription medications in substance abuse- related cases. A semisynthetic derivative of thebaine, buprenorphine hydrochloride is a partial µ-opioid receptor agonist and -receptor antagonist with a long duration of action. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of buprenorphine are not well characterized. The ethical and legal issues associated with the maintenance treatment of opioid dependence are complex. Clinical trials have compared the efficacy of methadone, buprenorphine, and buprenorphine–naloxone for the detoxification and maintenance treatment of opioid dependence. Based on the available literature, it appears that buprenorphine, buprenorphine–naloxone, and methadone are similarly efficacious for the treatment of opioid-dependent patients. Buprenorphine–naloxone has less potential for abuse and diversion. The adverse-effect profiles for buprenorphine, buprenorphine–naloxone, and methadone are similar. Once-weekly office visits for patient evaluation and dispensing of buprenorphine seem feasible and convenient for both practitioners and patients. The three phases of opioid maintenance treatment are induction, stabilization, and maintenance. It is good practice for the admitting physician to consult with the patient’s addiction treatment provider, when possible, to obtain the patient’s treatment history. Conclusion. Buprenorphine is an attractive option for the pharmacologic treatment of opioid dependence. Compliance and adherence to buprenorphine therapy for opioid-dependent patients remain clinical issues. Future research efforts should focus on improving compliance and adherence to buprenorphine therapy. Index terms: Buprenorphine hydrochloride; Compliance; Dependence; Drug abuse; Drug comparisons; Duration of action; Ethics; Mechanism of action; Methadone; Naloxone; Opiate antagonists; Opiates; Patients; Pharmacodynamics; Pharmacokinetics; Regulations; Toxicity