Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33135125›Full record

Trial reportClinical pharmacokinetics2021

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.

Aksana K Jones, Eliford Ngaimisi, Mathangi Gopalakrishnan, Malcolm A Young, Celine M Laffont

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Long-Acting injectable buprenorphine PLGA microparticle formulation.International journal of pharmaceutics · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aksana K Jones *Indivior Inc., 10710 Midlothian Turnpike, Suite 125, North Chesterfield, VA, 23235, USA.
Eliford Ngaimisi *Center for Translational Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA.
Mathangi GopalakrishnanCenter for Translational Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA.
Malcolm A YoungIndivior Inc., 10710 Midlothian Turnpike, Suite 125, North Chesterfield, VA, 23235, USA.
Celine M LaffontIndivior Inc., 10710 Midlothian Turnpike, Suite 125, North Chesterfield, VA, 23235, USA. celine.laffont@indivior.com.
Indivior (United States) · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBUP-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).

objectivesTo 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.

methodsThe population pharmacokinetic analysis included 570 subjects with opioid use disorder who received up to 12 monthly BUP-XR injections following induction with sublingual buprenorphine.

resultsIn 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.

Indexed as

BuprenorphineOpioid-Related DisordersAnalgesics, OpioidDelayed-Action PreparationsHumansNarcotic AntagonistsAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineDelayed-Action PreparationsNarcotic Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID33135125
PMCPMC8016750
OpenAlexW3094906106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.