Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2002 Nov;303(2):695-703.
doi: 10.1124/jpet.102.038141.

Self-administration of intravenous buprenorphine and the buprenorphine/naloxone combination by recently detoxified heroin abusers

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Self-administration of intravenous buprenorphine and the buprenorphine/naloxone combination by recently detoxified heroin abusers

Sandra D Comer et al. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002 Nov.

Abstract

Buprenorphine is a partial mu-opioid agonist and kappa-opioid antagonist currently under development as a maintenance medication for heroin dependence. Because of concerns about illicit diversion of buprenorphine, a combination tablet containing buprenorphine and naloxone has been developed. The present study evaluated the reinforcing effects of intravenously administered placebo, buprenorphine alone (BUP; 2 and 8 mg), and the buprenorphine/naloxone combination (BUP/NX; 2 mg of buprenorphine plus 0.5 mg of naloxone, and 8 mg of buprenorphine plus 2 mg of naloxone) in recently detoxified heroin abusers during a 6-week inpatient study. Participants (n = 6) were detoxified from heroin over approximately 1 week immediately after admission. During the next 5 weeks, the reinforcing effects of placebo, BUP, and BUP/NX were evaluated. Participants first received a dose of drug and $20 and then were given the opportunity to self-administer either the dose or $20 during choice sessions. Progressive ratio break point values were significantly higher after active drug, compared with placebo, but they did not significantly differ as a function of dose or drug. In contrast, positive subjective ratings were higher after administration of BUP compared with BUP/NX, and these ratings increased in a dose-dependent manner. BUP and the combination had few effects on performance. Relative to placebo, both BUP and BUP/NX decreased pupil diameter, but there were no significant differences in pupil diameter as a function of drug or dose. These results demonstrate that both BUP and BUP/NX served as reinforcers under these conditions and that they may have similar abuse liability in recently detoxified individuals who abuse heroin.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Progressive ratio break point values for drug (top panel) and money (bottom panel) as a function of dose and choice session. Break point values could range between 0 and 2800. Data points represent the mean across 6 participants and 4 choice sessions (solid bars), and the mean across 6 participants during each of the 4 choice sessions. Error bars represent ± 1 standard error of the mean (S.E.M.). * indicates significant differences from placebo; brackets indicate significant differences between those two data points (P<0.01).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Selected Drug Effects Questionnaire ratings as a function of dose. Data points represent mean ratings for the 6 participants across the sample and no drug sessions. Error bars represent ± 1 standard error of the mean (S.E.M.). * indicates significant differences from placebo (P<0.01).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Drug Effects Questionnaire ratings of “Good Effects” during the sample session and subsequent no drug sessions as a function of dose and time. Data points represent mean ratings for the 6 participants. Error bars represent ± 1 standard error of the mean (S.E.M.). * indicates significant differences from placebo at that time point (P<0.01).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Visual analog scale ratings of “Good Effects” during the sample and no drug sessions as a function of dose and time. Data points represent mean ratings for the 6 participants. Error bars represent ± 1 standard error of the mean (S.E.M.). * indicates significant differences from placebo at that time point (P<0.01). BL, baseline.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Pupil diameter during the sample and no drug sessions as a function of buprenorphine dose and time. See Figure 4 legend for additional details. Asterisks were aligned vertically for some data points to improve clarity.

References

    1. Amass L, Kamien JB, Reiber C, Branstetter SA. Abuse liability of IV buprenorphine-naloxone, buprenorphine, and hydromorphone in buprenorphine-naloxone maintained volunteers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;60(Suppl. 1):S6–S7.
    1. Baumevieille M, Haramburu F, Begaud B. Abuse of prescription medicines in southwestern France. Ann Pharmacother. 1997;31:847–850. - PubMed
    1. Bickel WK, Amass L. Buprenorphine treatment of opioid dependence: A review. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1995;3(4):477–489.
    1. Bigelow GE, Preston KL, Liebson IA. Abuse liability assessment of buprenorphine-naloxone combinations. In: Harris LS, editor. Problems of Drug Dependence 1986 Proceeding of the 48th Annual Scientific Meeting (National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph, No. 76. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1987. pp. 145–149. - PubMed
    1. Comer SD, Collins ED, Fischman MW. Choice between money and intranasal heroin in morphine-maintained humans. Behav Pharmacol. 1997;8:677–690. - PubMed

Publication types