Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.


Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

Opioid analgesics

Buprenorphine implant beneficial for patients with opioid dependency

Research suggests that the benefits of subcutaneous buprenorphine implants for opioid dependence outweigh their risks

Buprenorphine sublingual tablets

Source: Jim Holden / Alamy Stock Photo

Buprenorphine is commonly used for the treatment of opioid dependency

The benefits of delivering buprenorphine by subcutaneous implant, rather than by sublingual tablet, for the treatment of opioid dependence outweigh the risks, research published in BMJ Evidence Based Medicine (24 February 2020) suggests[1].

Researchers from the Drug Safety Research Unit (DSRU) in Southampton compared the relative risks and benefits of the two formulations as part of the implant’s licensing application to the European Medicines Agency.

They used a systematic, semi-quantitative benefit–risk tool and existing data from clinical trials and observational studies to show that the benefits of the implant outweighed its risks.

The benefits included improved compliance and reduced risk of illicit opioid use, while the risks included implant breakage or migration, infection at the insertion site or allergic reactions.

The researchers calculated that five people would need to receive the implant for one to benefit from improved compliance and convenience. By contrast, 200 people would need to receive the implant for one to experience a clinically significant implant breakage.

The researchers acknowledged that some of their analyses should be interpreted with caution because they did not account for the importance of each benefit and risk.

However, Saad Shakir, director of the DSRU, said the tool — known as the Benefit-Risk Action Team framework — provided more robust evidence than conventional methods.

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal DOI: 10.1211/PJ.2020.20207877

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Jobs you might like

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.