Short Communication
Randomized Single Blind Study of the Efficacy of Pregabalin vs. Clonidine in the Treatment of Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome: Results of Intermediate Analysis
Krupitsky EM1,2*, Ilyuk RD1, Mikhailov AD1, Kazankov KA3, Rybakova KV1, Zaplatkin IA3 and Neznanov NG1
1St. Petersburg V.M. Bekhterev Research Psychoneurological Institute, Russia
2St. Petersburg Pavlov State Medical University, Russia
3Murmansk Regional Addiction Hospital, Russia
*Corresponding author: Krupitsky EM, St. Petersburg V.M. Bekhterev Research Psychoneurological Institute, St. Petersburg Pavlov State Medical University, St.-Petersburg, Russia
Published: 10 Mar, 2017
Cite this article as: Krupitsky EM, Ilyuk RD, Mikhailov AD,
Kazankov KA, Rybakova KV, Zaplatkin
IA, et al. Randomized Single Blind
Study of the Efficacy of Pregabalin vs.
Clonidine in the Treatment of Opioid
Withdrawal Syndrome: Results of
Intermediate Analysis. Ann Clin Case
Rep. 2017; 2: 1297.
Abstract
Introduction: Treatment of opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS), commonly referred to
as “detoxification”, is one of the most important problems in addiction psychiatry. Existing
pharmacotherapy detoxification protocols are poorly tolerated and studies indicate that many of the
patients do not complete treatment. Hyperalgesia, sleep disturbances and anxiety are the symptoms
often cited as causes of failure to detoxify. Pregabalin (Lyrica®) is an effective analgesic, anxiolytic
and hypnotic medication. This study tested the hypothesis that Pregabalin is a safe and effective
adjunct to opioid detoxification therapy.
Methods: Study design: Single-blind randomized symptom-regulated protocol with an active
control. Thirty-four patients admitted to an inpatient addiction treatment program were randomly
assigned to two groups. The first group (N=19) received up to 600 mg a day of Pregabalin for six
days along with symptomatic therapy that was divided into basic treatment that was given to all
patients (Doxylamin 30 mg/day) and additional medications based on patients’ needs as determined
by a psychiatrist using the Opioid Withdrawal Scale and included Ketorolac, Loperamide,
Metoclopramide, Nefazolin and Phenazepam (a benzodiazepine developed in Russia for sleep). The
second group (N=15) received up to 600 micrograms of Clonidine a day as the main treatment
along with the same basic and symptomatic regimen. No other medications were prescribed to these
patients. Opiate withdrawal severity, craving, sleep disturbance, anxiety and depression, as well as
general clinical impressions and side effects were assessed daily by psychiatrists who were blind to
patients’ group assignment using internationally validated quantitative psychometric instruments.
Results: The two patient groups did not differ significantly on baseline in clinical or demographic
characteristics or severity of opioid withdrawal. In the Pregabalin group, 15 out of 19 patients
completed treatment (79%) compared to 7 out of 15 patients (47%) in the Clonidine group (p =
0,05; Fisher exact test). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis also confirmed better patient retention in
the Pregabalin group (p = 0,001; Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) criterion). There were no statistically
significant differences between groups on any assessments of the severity of OWS (reduction of
the severity of opiate withdrawal), perhaps because of the symptom-triggered study design and
small sample size. However, in the Pregabalin group there were lower indicators of the severity of
craving for opiates (p = 0,05), anxiety (p = 0,05) and depression (p < 0,05), while patient-rated selfassessment
of their general health condition with a visual analog scale was significantly better in the
Pregabalin group (p < 0,05). An average dose of symptom-triggered ketorolac (NSAID analgesic) in
the Clonidine group was almost twice that of the Pregabalin group (60,5±8,2mg vs. 36,0±7,8mg, p <0,05). There were no significant differences in the frequency of adverse events between the groups,
however, the Pregabalin group reported less fatigue compared to the Clonidine group (16% vs. 47%,
p < 0,05). We conclude that reduced craving, fatigue and analgesic requirements in the Pregabalin
patients indicate that they tolerated the withdrawal better than the clonidine comparison group, and
that led to a higher detoxification completion rate (retention).
Conclusion: These preliminary results indicate that a Pregabalin-based opioid withdrawal protocol
is likely safe and effective and results in better outcomes than the usual Clonidine-based protocol.
The mechanism underlying this effect is likely related to a reduction in glutamate release from
hyper-excited glutamatergic neurons which might reduce dysregulations of endogenous opioid
neuropeptides.
Keywords: Pregabalin; Clonidne; Opioid withdrawal syndrome; Pharmacotherapy
Introduction
Existing abstinence oriented detoxification protocols (treatment of opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS)) are clonidine based, poorly tolerated and many of the patients do not complete treatment [1,2]. Hyperalgesia, sleep disturbances and anxiety are the main symptoms of OWS. Pregabalin is an effective analgesic, anxiolytic and hypnotic medication. This study tested the hypothesis that Pregabalin is a safe and effective adjunct to opioid detoxification therapy.
Methods
Study design
Single-blind randomized symptom-regulated protocol with an
active control. Thirty-four patients admitted to an inpatient addiction
treatment program were randomly assigned to two groups. The first
group (N = 19) received up to 600 mg a day of Pregabalin for six
days along with symptomatic therapy that was divided into basic
treatment that was given to all patients (Doxylamin 30 mg/day) and
additional medications based on patients’ needs as determined by
a psychiatrist using the Opioid Withdrawal Scale [3] and included
Ketorolac, Loperamide, Metoclopramide, Nefazolin and Phenazepam
(benzodiazepine). The second group (N = 15) received up to 600
micrograms of Clonidine a day as the main treatment along with the
same basic and symptomatic regimen. Opiate withdrawal severity
[3,4], craving for opiates (visual analog scale), sleep disturbance,
anxiety and depression [5], as well as general clinical impressions
[6] and side effects were assessed daily by psychiatrists who were
blind to patients’ group assignment using internationally validated
quantitative psychometric instruments.
Results and Discussion
The two patient groups did not differ significantly on baseline.
In the Pregabalin group, 15 out of 19 patients completed treatment
(79%) compared to 7 out of 15 patients (47%) in the Clonidine group
(p = 0.05; Fisher exact test). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (Figure 1)
also confirmed better patient retention in the Pregabalin group (p =
0.001; Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) criterion).
There were no statistically significant differences between groups
on any assessments of the severity of OWS (reduction of the severity of
opiate withdrawal), perhaps because of the symptom-triggered study
design and small sample size. However, in the Pregabalin group there
were lower indicators of the severity of craving for opiates (ANOVA,
Group effect, p = 0.05), anxiety (ANOVA, Group effect, p = 0.05) and
depression (ANOVA, Group effect, p <0.05), while patient-rated selfassessment
of their general health condition with a visual analog scale
was significantly better in the Pregabalin group (ANOVA, Group
effect, p <0.05). An average dose of symptom-triggered ketorolac
(NSAID analgesic) in the Clonidine group was almost twice that of
the Pregabalin group (60,5 ± 8,2mg vs. 36,0 ± 7,8mg, p <0.05). There
were no significant differences in the frequency of adverse events
between the groups, however, the Pregabalin group reported less
fatigue compared to the Clonidine group (16% vs. 47%, p <0.05). We
conclude that reduced craving, fatigue and analgesic requirements in
the Pregabalin patients indicate that they tolerated the withdrawal
better than the clonidine comparison group, and that led to a higher
detoxification completion rate (retention).
Results of this study suggest that pregabalin based opoid
detoxification is effective approach to treat opioid withdrawal
syndrome. These results corresponds well to the anecdotal reports
of patients with opioid use disorders about their pregabalin use to
self-medicate opioid withdrawal syndrome. It might be that recent
reports on prgabalin abuse by opiate addicts (Schifano, 2014) do not
discern pregabalin abuse and pregabline use for self-medication of
opioid withdrawal syndrome which becomes quite common.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Statistical significance of
differences between groups: p = 0.001; Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) criterion.
Conclusion
These preliminary results indicate that a Pregabalin-based opioid withdrawal protocol is likely safe and effective and results in better outcomes than the usual Clonidine-based protocol. The mechanism underlying this effect is likely related to a reduction in glutamate release from hyper-excited glutamatergic neurons which might reduce dysregulations of endogenous opioid neuropeptides.
References
- Amato L, Davoli M, Ferri M, Gowing L, Perucci CA. Effectiveness of interventions on opiate withdrawal treatment: an overview of systematic reviews. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004; 73: 219-226.
- Diaper AV, Law FD, Melichar JK. Pharmacological strategies for detoxification. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014; 77: 302–314.
- Wesson D, Ling W. The Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS). J Psychoactive Drugs. 2003; 35: 253-259.
- Handelsman L, Cochrane K, Aronson M, Ness R, Rubinstein K, Kanof P. Two New Rating Scales for Opiate Withdrawal. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1987; 13: 293-308.
- Zigmond A, Snaith R. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1983; 67: 361-370.
- Guy W. ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology. Rockville. US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute of Mental Health, Psychopharmacology Research Branch, Division of Extramural Research Programs. 1976: 217-222.
- Schifano F. Misuse and Abuse of Pregabalin and Gabapentin: Cause for Concern?. CNS Drugs. 2014; 28: 491-496.