Cited by 138Pain Management and Opioid UseOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentAnesthesia and Pain Management

Treating Chronic Pain: An Overview of Clinical Studies Centered on the Buprenorphine Option

Open access
Davis, Mellar P., Pasternak, Gavril, Behm, Bertrand·2018·Drugs

Abstract

The buprenorphine receptor binding profile is unique in that it binds to all three major opioid receptors (mu, kappa, delta), and also binds to the orphan-like receptor, the receptor for orphanin FQ/nociceptin, with lower affinity. Within the mu receptor group, buprenorphine analgesia in rodents is dependent on the recently discovered arylepoxamide receptor target in brain, which involves a truncated 6-transmembrane mu receptor gene protein, distinguishing itself from morphine and most other mu opioids. Although originally designed as an analgesic, buprenorphine has mainly been used for opioid maintenance therapy and only now is increasingly recognized as an effective analgesic with an improved therapeutic index relative to certain potent opioids. Albeit a second-, third-, or fourth-line analgesic, buprenorphine is a reasonable choice in certain clinical situations. Transdermal patches and buccal film formulations are now commercially available as analgesics. This review discusses buprenorphine pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, use in certain populations, and provides a synopsis of systematic reviews and randomized analgesic trials. We briefly discuss postoperative management in patients receiving buprenorphine maintenance therapy, opioid equivalence to buprenorphine, rotations to buprenorphine from other opioids, and clinical relevance of buprenorphine-related QTc interval changes.

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/s40265-018-0953-z

Cites

200 of 200 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • In the US, the smallest available dose for sublingual buprenorphine is 2 mg, but buccal film is available as small as 75 ug, equivalent to 150 ug of sublingual buprenorphine, potentially facilitating some of the regimens outlined here.

    “In the US, the smallest available dose for sublingual buprenorphine is 2 mg, but buccal film is available in as small as a dose of 75 ug, equivalent to 150 ug of sublingual buprenorphine, 62 potentially facilitating some of the regimens outlined here.”

    From Tapering and withdrawing opioids: guidance informed by fundamental principles to minimise withdrawal symptoms (2025) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Pharmacokinetics section lists a 75 μg buccal dose and gives an approximate 2:1 conversion from sublingual to buccal formulations, consistent with the stated 150 μg equivalence. But the Introduction also lists a 1.4 mg sublingual buprenorphine combination tablet, so the paper does not support the claim that 2 mg is the smallest available sublingual dose. No page numbers were provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [135]Buprenorphine for chronic pain: a review of the clinical effectiveness. Ottawa (ON); Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2017. 28727399

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davis, M. P., Pasternak, G., & Behm, B.
Affiliations
  • Geisinger Medical Center (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Davis, Mellar P.
Venue
Drugs
Published
2018-07-26
Volume
78
Issue
12
Pages
1211-1228
ISSN
  • 0012-6667 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-1950
OpenAlex
W2883188098
Cited by
138
References
200
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Drugs (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • MAYDAY Fund
  • Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
  • BioDelivery Sciences International
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA007242, R01DA006241, R37DA007242, T32DA007242)
  • National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
buprenorphine, chronic pain, opioid analgesia, mu-opioid receptor, nociceptin receptor, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, transdermal patch, buccal films, opioid maintenance treatment, postoperative analgesia, opioid rotation, QTc prolongation, clinical trials
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Administration, Sublingual, Analgesics, Opioid, Animals, Buprenorphine, Chemistry, Pharmaceutical, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Therapy, Combination, Drug Tolerance, Humans, Narcotic Antagonists, Receptors, Opioid, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Substance-Related Disorders, Transdermal Patch, Chronic Pain, Observational Studies as Topic

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