Short-Acting, Full Agonist Opioids During Opioid Agonist Treatment

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.11398

2024-05-16

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:The study conveyed by Min et al 1 grew out of the fact that, during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic, British Columbia allowed the dispensation of additional full agonist opioids to patients who were also receiving opioid agonist treatment (methadone, buprenorphine, or slow-release oral morphine) for opioid use disorder. Patients who received additional opioids were rigorously propensity score matched to patients who did not receive additional opioids. The analysis used available administrative data from many different sources to provide convincing findings and conclusions that the receipt of additional opioids was strongly associated with better retention on opioid agonist treatment. This work addresses some of the more disconcerting challenges confronting clinicians during the opioid and overdose crisis currently plaguing North America. Despite some strong efforts by government, health care systems, individual clinicians, and researchers to solve the crisis, we seem to be sinking deeper into the crisis rather than extricating ourselves. Much of this failure can be ascribed to the advent of fentanyl and related molecules as the most widespread nonprescribed opioids used by individuals with opioid use disorder. 2 The phenomenology and pathophysiology of fentanyl use disorder seem substantially different from opioid use disorder related to most prescription opioids or heroin. Fentanyl was originally synthesized to serve as a potent, short-acting, parenteral opioid for use in a time-limited fashion to manage severe acute pain or anesthesia. It turns out that when fentanyl is used in the long term, tissue stores accumulate, essentially turning it into a long-acting agent. 3 So, in addition to the facts that it is far more potent than other typically used opioids, is easy to manufacture, and has become cheap and ubiquitous in many North American communities, with regular use fentanyl elimination appears to be prolonged. The US Food and Drug Administration has approved 3 pharmacologic treatments for opioid use disorder: methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone. (Canada has additional options, as Min et al 1 point out.) We know unequivocally that the former 2 medications reduce overdose and all-cause mortality associated with opioid use disorder, 4 and so deploying them widely and successfully represents one route out of the opioid crisis. However, the unique pharmacology of fentanyl poses greater challenges for initiating and stabilizing patients with these medications than previously experienced. In the case of methadone, itself a full μ-opioid agonist, the challenge revolves around fentanyl's potency. Because methadone has a long half-life and can accumulate over repeated doses, poor metabolizers, who cannot be identified clinically with currently available tools, can be at risk of an iatrogenic methadone overdose. For safety reasons, therefore, methadone has to be titrated upward very gradually under close clinical supervision to achieve a stabilizing dose. Given fentanyl's potency, patients who use it have extremely high opioid tolerance and will ultimately need high methadone doses to stabilize, but because these high doses cannot be attained quickly, patients initially tend to feel that the treatment is not helping them and either continue using dangerous amounts of fentanyl or, even worse, drop out of treatment early with increased risk of dying. Indeed, Min et al 1 note a recent decrease in retention in opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia. One challenge for starting buprenorphine, a partial μ-opioid agonist, resides in fentanyl's tissue accumulation. As a partial agonist, buprenorphine has the potential to cause precipitated opioid withdrawal when it replaces full agonists on the μ-receptors. For short-acting opioids, such as heroin, patients were asked to stop their use 12 to 24 hours before starting buprenorphine, and their readiness to make the transition without precipitated withdrawal could be determined by the presence of signs of moderate opioid withdrawal, indicating that receptors were now unbound to the short-acting, full agonist opioids and available for buprenorphine binding without displacement of the other opioid. With fentanyl it can take days with considerable subjective discomfort for such signs to emerge, or when they do emerge, a release of fentanyl from tissue stores again saturates receptors, setting the patient up for precipitated withdrawal. When patients experience precipitated withdrawal, which can be extremely uncomfortable, they tend to leave treatment before stabilization. Fentanyl's potency also creates problems with buprenorphine stabilization. For the available sublingual formulations, the package insert lists 24 mg/d as the maximum dose. This dose may be insufficient to stabilize some patients with high fentanyl-induced opioid tolerance. (The long-a -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal