This paper reviews studies examining the pharmacological interactions and epidemiology of the combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines (BZD). A search of English language publications from 1970 - 2012 was conducted using PubMed and PsycINFO®. Our search found approximately 200 articles appropriate for inclusion in this paper. While numerous reports indicate that the co-abuse of opioids and BZDs is ubiquitous around the world, the reasons for the co-abuse of these medications are not entirely clear. Though the possibility remains that opioid (ab)users are using BZDs therapeutically to self-medicate anxiety, mania or insomnia, the data reviewed in this paper suggest that BZD use is primarily recreational. For example, co-users report seeking BZD prescriptions for the purpose of enhancing opioid intoxication or “high,” and use doses that exceed the therapeutic range. Since there are few clinical studies investigating the pharmacological interaction and abuse liability of their combined use, this hypothesis has not been extensively evaluated in clinical settings. As such, our analysis encourages further systematic investigation of BZD abuse among opioid users. The co-abuse of BZDs and opioids is substantial and has negative consequences for general health, overdose lethality, and treatment outcome. Physicians should address this important and underappreciated problem with more cautious prescribing practices, and increased vigilance for abusive patterns of use.

The concurrent use of opioids, benzodiazepines (BZDs), and/or alcohol poses a formidable challenge for clinicians who manage chronic pain. While the escalating use of opioid analgesics for the treatment of chronic pain and the concomitant rise in opioid-related abuse and misuse are widely recognized trends, the contribution of combination use of BZDs, alcohol, and/or other sedative agents to opioid-related morbidity and mortality is underappreciated, even when these agents are used appropriately. Patients with chronic pain who use opioid analgesics along with BZDs and/or alcohol are at higher risk for fatal/nonfatal overdose and have more aberrant behaviors. Few practice guidelines for BZD treatment are readily available, especially when they are combined clinically with opioid analgesics and other central nervous system–depressant agents. However, coadministration of these agents produces a defined increase in rates of adverse events, overdose, and death, warranting close monitoring and consideration when treating patients with pain. To improve patient outcomes, ongoing screening for aberrant behavior, monitoring of treatment compliance, documentation of medical necessity, and the adjustment of treatment to clinical changes are essential. In this article, we review the prevalence and pharmacologic consequences of BZDs and/or alcohol use among patients with pain on chronic opioid therapy, as well as the importance of urine drug testing, an indispensable tool for therapeutic drug monitoring, which helps to ensure the continued safety of patients. Regardless of risk or known aberrant drug-related behaviors, patients on chronic opioid therapy should periodically undergo urine drug testing to confirm adherence to the treatment plan.

Aim Few studies have examined abuse of prescription opioids (PO) among individuals with chronic pain under buprenorphine/naloxone (Bup/Nx) maintenance. The current 7-week inpatient study assessed oral oxycodone self-administration by patients with chronic pain who had a history of opioid abuse. Methods Participants (N=25) were transitioned from their pre-admission prescribed opioid to Bup/Nx. All of the participants were tested under each of the sublingual Bup/Nx maintenance doses (2/0.5, 8/2 or 16/4 mg) in random order. During each maintenance period, participants could self-administer oxycodone orally (0, 10, 20, 40 or 60 mg, PO) or receive money during laboratory sessions. Drug choice (percent) was the primary dependent variable. Subjective ratings of clinical pain and withdrawal symptoms also were measured. Mann-Whitney tests compared % drug choice for each active oxycodone dose to placebo. Logistic regression analyses identified correlates of oxycodone preference, defined as 60% or greater choice of oxycodone compared to money. Results Pain was significantly reduced while participants were maintained on Bup/Nx compared to pre-admission ratings. No differences in percent drug choice were observed between the active oxycodone doses and placebo under each Bup/Nx maintenance dose. However, factors associated with oxycodone preference were: lower Bup/Nx maintenance dose, more withdrawal symptoms and more pain. Conclusions These data suggest that Bup/Nx was effective in reducing pain and supplemental oxycodone use. Importantly, adequate management of pain and withdrawal symptoms by Bup/Nx may reduce oxycodone preference in this population.

Despite the prevalent worldwide abuse of stimulants, such as amphetamines and cocaine, no medications are currently approved for treating this serious public health problem. Both preclinical and clinical studies suggest that the opioid antagonist naltrexone (NTX) is effective in reducing the abuse liability of amphetamine, raising the question of whether similar positive findings would be obtained for cocaine. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of oral NTX to alter the cardiovascular and subjective effects of D-amphetamine (D-AMPH) and cocaine (COC). Non-treatment-seeking COC users (N=12) completed this 3-week inpatient, randomized, crossover study. Participants received 0, 12.5, or 50 mg oral NTX 60 min before active or placebo stimulant administration during 10 separate laboratory sessions. Oral AMPH (0, 10, and 20 mg; or all placebo) was administered in ascending order within a laboratory session using a 60-min interdose interval. Smoked COC (0, 12.5, 25, and 50 mg; or all placebo) was administered in ascending order within a laboratory session using a 14-min interdose interval. Active COC and AMPH produced dose-related increases in cardiovascular function that were of comparable magnitude. In contrast, COC, but not AMPH, produced dose-related increases in several subjective measures of positive drug effect (eg, high, liking, and willingness to pay for the drug). NTX did not alter the cardiovascular effects of AMPH or COC. NTX also did not alter positive subjective ratings after COC administration, but it did significantly reduce ratings of craving for COC and tobacco during COC sessions. These results show that (1) oral AMPH produces minimal abuse-related subjective responses in COC smokers, and (2) NTX reduces craving for COC and tobacco during COC sessions. Future studies should continue to evaluate NTX as a potential anti-craving medication for COC dependence.

Ibudilast, a nonselective phosphodiesterase inhibitor, is used clinically in Asia for the treatment of asthma and poststroke dizziness. Recent preclinical studies have suggested that it also inhibits glial cell activation in rodents, and may alter opioid-mediated effects, including analgesia and withdrawal symptoms. The effects of ibudilast on the abuse potential of opioids in humans are largely unknown. The present study was designed to examine the influence of ibudilast on subjective (including drug craving), reinforcing, and analgesic effects of oxycodone in human volunteers diagnosed with opioid dependence (equivalent to moderate-severe opioid use disorder). Non-treatment-seeking opioid-dependent male volunteers (n=11) underwent an in-patient detoxification with morphine, followed by maintenance on placebo (0 mg b.i.d.) and active ibudilast (50 mg b.i.d.). Under each maintenance dose, six experimental sample and choice sessions were completed involving oral oxycodone administration (0, 15, and 30 mg/70 kg, p.o.). Subjective effects of oxycodone and drug craving were measured with visual analog scales (VAS) and a Drug Effects Questionnaire. The cold pressor test was used to produce pain, and a modified progressive-ratio choice procedure was used to measure the reinforcing effects of oxycodone. Under the active ibudilast condition compared with the placebo condition, ratings of drug liking following 15 mg of oxycodone were decreased significantly. The mean drug breakpoint value was also significantly lower in the active vs the placebo ibudilast condition under the 15 mg oxycodone condition, but not significantly lower under the 30 mg oxycodone condition. Heroin craving was significantly reduced under active ibudilast vs placebo, and similar effects were observed for tobacco and cocaine craving. Furthermore, mean subjective ratings of pain were lower in the active ibudilast condition. Our data suggest that ibudilast may be useful for treating opioid use disorders and it may enhance the analgesic effects of oxycodone.

Possibly through their actions upon glia, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists (PPAR) have been shown to alter the abuse potential of addictive drugs in several preclinical models. The current study extends this research into the human laboratory as the first clinical study into the effects of the PPAR gamma agonist, pioglitazone, on the abuse potential of nicotine. Heavy smokers were recruited for this 3-week study. Upon admission, participants were randomized to either active (45 mg, n = 14) or placebo (0 mg, n = 13) PIO maintenance conditions for the duration of the study. After 5–7 days of stabilization on a 7 mg nicotine patch, participants began laboratory testing. On the 1st–4th test days, participants could self-administer cigarettes or receive money by making verbal choices for either option. On the 5th day, participants were administered 10 puffs of their usual brand of cigarette in the morning and later chose between smoking and money by making finger presses on a computer mouse in a progressive ratio self-administration task. Later on the 5th day participants also underwent a smoking cue exposure session. The 8th–11th test days were identical to the 1st–4th test days with the exception that during one of the test weeks de-nicotinized cigarettes were available, and during the other nicotinized cigarettes were available. Nicotinized cigarettes were always administered on the 5th and 12th days. On some measures PIO increased indicators of abuse potential, though this effect was typically not statistically significant. However, PIO did significantly reduce measures of craving.

Aims Activation of PPARγ by pioglitazone (PIO) has shown some efficacy in attenuating addictive-like responses in laboratory animals. The ability of PIO to alter the effects of opioids in humans has not been characterized in a controlled laboratory setting. The proposed investigation sought to examine the effects of PIO on the subjective, analgesic, physiological and cognitive effects of oxycodone (OXY). Methods During this investigation, nondependent prescription opioid abusers (N=17 completers) were maintained for 2–3 weeks on ascending daily doses of PIO (0 mg, 15 mg, 45 mg) prior to completing a laboratory session assessing the aforementioned effects of OXY [using a within-session cumulative dosing procedure (0, 10, and 20 mg, cumulative dose = 30 mg)]. Results OXY produced typical mu opioid agonist effects: miosis, decreased pain perception, and decreased respiratory rate. OXY also produced dose-dependent increases in positive subjective responses. Yet, ratings such as: drug “liking,” “high,” and “good drug effect,” were not significantly altered as a function of PIO maintenance dose. Discussion These data suggest that PIO may not be useful for reducing the abuse liability of OXY. These data were obtained with a sample of nondependent opioid users and therefore may not be applicable to dependent populations or to other opioids. Although PIO failed to alter the abuse liability of OXY, the interaction between glia and opioid receptors is not well understood so the possibility remains that medications that interact with glia in other ways may show more promise.

In spite of the clinical utility of buprenorphine, parenteral abuse of this medication has been reported in several laboratory investigations and in the real world. Studies have demonstrated lower abuse liability of the buprenorphine/naloxone combination relative to buprenorphine alone. However, clinical research has not yet examined the utility of the combined formulation to deter intranasal use in a buprenorphine-maintained population. Heroin-using volunteers (n = 12) lived in the hospital for 8–9 weeks and were maintained on each of three sublingual buprenorphine doses (2, 8, 24 mg). Under each maintenance dose, participants completed laboratory sessions during which the reinforcing and subjective effects of intranasal doses of buprenorphine (8, 16 mg), buprenorphine/naloxone (8/2, 8/8, 8/16, 16/4 mg) and controls (placebo, heroin 100 mg, naloxone 4 mg) were assessed. Intranasal buprenorphine alone typically produced increases in positive subjective effects and the 8 mg dose was self-administered above the level of placebo. The addition of naloxone dose-dependently reduced positive subjective effects and increased aversive effects. No buprenorphine/naloxone combination dose was self-administered significantly more than placebo. These data suggest that within a buprenorphine-dependent population, intranasal buprenorphine/naloxone has reduced abuse potential in comparison to buprenorphine alone. These data strongly argue in favor of buprenorphine/naloxone rather than buprenorphine alone as the more reasonable option for managing the risk of buprenorphine misuse.