Individuals on methadone maintenance for the treatment of addiction (MM) are demonstrated to be hyperalgesic to cold-pressor pain in comparison to matched controls and ex-opioid addicts, a finding described as clinical evidence of opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH). Interestingly, opioids induce hyperalgesia via many of the same neuro-inflammatory and central sensitization processes that occur with the development of neuropathic pain. Evaluated in this study was the efficacy of a key pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, gabapentin (GPN), to reverse OIH in MM patients. Utilizing a clinical trial design and double blind conditions, changes in cold-pressor pain threshold and tolerance following a five-week trial of GPN (titrated to 2400mg/day) were evaluated at peak and trough methadone plasma levels in a well-characterized MM sample. Drug abstinence was encouraged via an escalating payment schedule, and compliance monitored via pill counts and GPN plasma levels; entered into the analyses were only those subjects compliant and abstinent throughout the study (approx 45%). Utilizing change scores from baseline, significant improvements in coldpressor pain threshold and pain tolerance were observed at both peak and trough methadone levels (p < 0.05). Notably, drop-out rates due to medication side effects were low (2%) and the medication was well-tolerated. These results support that GPN, as prescribed for the treatment of neuropathic pain, is effective in decreasing OIH in patients who are abstinent and stable in methadone treatment.

Although use of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid dependence is expected to continue to increase, little is known about the optimal setting for providing the medical and psychosocial care required with buprenorphine pharmacotherapy. OBJECTIVE This study compared buprenorphine therapy delivered in three distinct treatment settings: an opioid-treatment program (OTP) offering individual counseling; a group counseling program utilizing the manualized Matrix Model (MMM) of cognitive-behavioral treatment; and a private clinic setting mirroring standard medical management for buprenorphine treatment provided specifically at a psychiatrist’s private practice (PCS). METHOD Participants were inducted on buprenorphine and provided with treatment over a 52-week study duration. All participants were scheduled for weekly treatment visits for the first 6 study weeks, and two sites reduced treatment to monthly visits for dispensing of medication and psychosocial counseling. Outcomes include opioid use, participant retention in treatment, and treatment participation. RESULTS Participants presenting for treatment at the sites differed only by race/ethnicity, and opioid use did not differ by site. Retention differed by treatment site, with the number of participants who stayed in the study until the end of 20 weeks significantly associated with treatment site. The mean number of minutes spent in each individual counseling session also differed by site. Although no difference in opioid use by treatment site was found, results document a significant association between opioid use and buprenorphine dose. DISCUSSION These results show some differences by treatment site, although the similarity and relative ease in which the sites were able to recruit participants for treatment with buprenorphine, and minor implementation problems reported suggests the feasibility of treatment with buprenorphine across various treatment settings. CONCLUSION Similar rates of continued opioid use across study sites and few qualitative reports of problems indicates that treatment with buprenorphine and associated psychosocial counseling are safe and relatively easy to implement in a variety of treatment settings.