Cited by 53Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentPharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismPharmaceutical studies and practices

Population Pharmacokinetics of a Monthly Buprenorphine Depot Injection for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder: A Combined Analysis of Phase II and Phase III Trials

Open access
Jones, Aksana K., Ngaimisi, Eliford, Gopalakrishnan, Mathangi, Young, Malcolm A., Laffont, Celine M.·2021·Clinical Pharmacokinetics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: BUP-XR (a.k.a. RBP-6000 or SUBLOCADE™) is an extended-release subcutaneous buprenorphine formulation for the treatment of opioid use disorder. BUP-XR was designed to provide sustained buprenorphine exposure throughout the monthly dosing interval, at concentrations sufficient to control all aspects of the disease (withdrawal, craving, and blockade of opioid subjective effects). OBJECTIVES: To characterize the population pharmacokinetics of BUP-XR based on phase II and phase III data and to evaluate whether target therapeutic concentrations were reached with the dosing regimens evaluated in the phase III program. METHODS: The population pharmacokinetic analysis included 570 subjects with opioid use disorder who received up to 12 monthly BUP-XR injections following induction with sublingual buprenorphine. RESULTS: In phase III studies, target therapeutic concentrations of buprenorphine were achieved from the first injection and maintained over the entire treatment duration. Buprenorphine plasma concentration-time profiles were well described by a two-compartment model, with first-order absorption for sublingual buprenorphine and a dual absorption submodel for BUP-XR. A covariate analysis evaluated the effects of subjects' demographic characteristics, laboratory data, and genetic status regarding buprenorphine-metabolizing enzymes. Only two covariates, body mass index and body weight, were retained in the final model. Overall, their effects were not of sufficient magnitude to justify a dose adjustment. Finally, pharmacokinetic simulations showed that buprenorphine plasma concentrations decreased slowly after discontinuation of treatment and that a 2-week occasional delay in dosing would not impact efficacy, which translated into labeling claims. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, the present analysis led to the development of a robust population pharmacokinetic model and confirms the ability of BUP-XR to deliver and maintain therapeutic plasma concentrations over the entire treatment duration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40262-020-00957-0

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sequential lowering of the doses of long-acting formulations or extending the dosing interval might provide a smoother transition in tapering dose, making the process more tolerable.

    “Sequential lowering of the doses of these long-acting formulations or extending the dosing interval 67 might provide a smoother transition in tapering dose, making the process more tolerable.”

    From Tapering and withdrawing opioids: guidance informed by fundamental principles to minimise withdrawal symptoms (2025) · cites this paper as [67]

    The Introduction describes a shift from 300-mg loading doses to 100-mg monthly maintenance, and the Results (Simulation Studies) predict a slow decline in concentrations after discontinuation. The Discussion says occasional dosing delays of up to two weeks have little clinical impact. These findings provide some basis for the suggestion, but the paper does not evaluate sequential dose lowering or extended intervals as tapering strategies, or show that either makes tapering more tolerable; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 53

Authors
Jones, A. K., Ngaimisi, E., Gopalakrishnan, M., Young, M. A., & Laffont, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Indivior (United States) (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author
Laffont, Celine M.
Venue
Clinical Pharmacokinetics
Published
2020-11-02
Volume
60
Issue
4
Pages
527-540
ISSN
  • 0312-5963 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-1926
OpenAlex
W3094906106
Cited by
53
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Pharmacokinetics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Indivior
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
Keywords
buprenorphine, opioid use disorder, population pharmacokinetics, sustained-release formulation, two-compartment model, covariate analysis, body mass index, body weight, pharmacokinetic simulation, therapeutic plasma concentration
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Opioid, Buprenorphine, Delayed-Action Preparations, Humans, Narcotic Antagonists, Opioid-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review