Subjective Effects:
Comparisons of buprenorphine to full opioid agonists such as methadone and hydromorphone suggest that sublingual
buprenorphine produces typical opioid agonist effects which are limited by a ceiling effect.
In opioid-experienced subjects who were not physically dependent, acute sublingual doses of buprenorphine/naloxone tablets
produced opioid agonist effects which reached a maximum between doses of 8 mg/2 mg and 16 mg/4 mg buprenorphine/naloxone.
Opioid agonist ceiling-effects were also observed in a double-blind, parallel group, dose-ranging comparison of single doses
of buprenorphine sublingual solution (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 mg), placebo and a full agonist control at various doses.
The treatments were given in ascending dose order at intervals of at least one week to 16 opioid-experienced subjects who were not
physically dependent. Both active drugs produced typical opioid agonist effects. For all measures for which the drugs produced an
effect, buprenorphine produced a dose- related response. However, in each case, there was a dose that produced no further effect.
In contrast, the highest dose of the full agonist control always produced the greatest effects. Agonist objective rating scores
remained elevated for the higher doses of buprenorphine (8 to 32 mg) longer than for the lower doses and did not return to baseline
until 48 hours after drug administration. The onset of effects appeared more rapidly with buprenorphine than with the full agonist
control, with most doses nearing peak effect after 100 minutes for buprenorphine compared to 150 minutes for the full agonist
control.
Physiologic Effects:
Buprenorphine in IV (2, 4, 8, 12 and 16 mg) and sublingual (12 mg) doses has been administered to opioid-experienced subjects who were not physically dependent to examine cardiovascular, respiratory, and subjective effects at doses comparable to those used for treatment of opioid dependence. Compared to placebo, there were no statistically significant differences among any of the treatment conditions for blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, O2 saturation, or skin temperature across time. Systolic BP was higher in the 8 mg group than placebo (3-hour AUC values). Minimum and maximum effects were similar across all treatments. Subjects remained responsive to low voice and responded to computer prompts. Some subjects showed irritability, but no other changes were observed.
The respiratory effects of sublingual buprenorphine were compared with the effects of methadone in a double-blind, parallel group, dose ranging comparison of single doses of buprenorphine sublingual solution (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 mg) and oral methadone (15, 30, 45, or 60 mg) in non-dependent, opioid-experienced volunteers. In this study, hypoventilation not requiring medical intervention was reported more frequently after buprenorphine doses of 4 mg and higher than after methadone. Both drugs decreased O2 saturation to the same degree.
Effect of Naloxone:
Physiologic and subjective effects following acute sublingual administration of buprenorphine tablets and
buprenorphine/naloxone tablets were similar at equivalent dose levels of buprenorphine. Naloxone had no clinically significant
effect when administered by the sublingual route, although blood levels of the drug were measurable. Buprenorphine/naloxone, when
administered sublingually to an opioid-dependent cohort, was recognized as an opioid agonist, whereas when administered
intramuscularly, combinations of buprenorphine with naloxone produced opioid antagonist actions similar to naloxone. This finding
suggests that the naloxone in buprenorphine/naloxone tablets may deter injection of buprenorphine/naloxone tablets by persons with
active substantial heroin or other full mu-opioid dependence. However, clinicians should be aware that some opioid-dependent persons,
particularly those with a low level of full mu-opioid physical dependence or those whose opioid physical dependence is predominantly
to buprenorphine, abuse buprenorphine and naloxone combinations by the intravenous or intranasal route. In methadone-maintained
patients and heroin-dependent subjects, IV administration of buprenorphine/naloxone combinations precipitated opioid withdrawal
signs and symptoms and was perceived as unpleasant and dysphoric. In morphine-stabilized subjects, intravenously administered
combinations of buprenorphine with naloxone produced opioid antagonist and withdrawal signs and symptoms that were ratio-dependent;
the most intense withdrawal signs and symptoms were produced by 2:1 and 4:1 ratio, less intense by an 8:1 ratio.
Effects on the Endocrine System:
Opioids inhibit the secretion of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), cortisol, and luteinizing hormone (LH) in humans
[see Adverse Reactions (6.2)]. They also stimulate
prolactin, growth hormone (GH) secretion, and pancreatic secretion of insulin and glucagon.
Chronic use of opioids may influence the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, leading to androgen deficiency that may
manifest as low libido, impotence, erectile dysfunction, amenorrhea, or infertility. The causal role of opioids in the clinical
syndrome of hypogonadism is unknown because the various medical, physical, lifestyle, and psychological stressors that may influence
gonadal hormone levels have not been adequately controlled for in studies conducted to date. Patients presenting with symptoms of
androgen deficiency should undergo laboratory evaluation.
Cardiac Electrophysiology
Thorough QT studies with buprenorphine products have demonstrated QT prolongation ≤15 msec.
Absorption:
Plasma levels of buprenorphine and naloxone increased with the sublingual dose of buprenorphine and naloxone sublingual
tablets (Table 4). There was wide inter-patient variability in the sublingual absorption of buprenorphine and naloxone, but within
subjects the variability was low. Both Cmax and AUC of buprenorphine increased in a linear fashion with the increase in dose
(in the range of 4 to 16 mg), although the increase was not directly dose-proportional.
Naloxone did not affect the pharmacokinetics of buprenorphine and both buprenorphine and naloxone sublingual tablets.
At the three naloxone doses of 1, 2, and 4 mg, levels above the limit of quantitation (0.05 ng/mL) were not detected beyond 2 hours
in seven of eight subjects. In one individual, at the 4 mg dose, the last measurable concentration was at 8 hours. Within each
subject (for most of the subjects), across the doses there was a trend toward an increase in naloxone concentrations with increase
in dose. Mean peak naloxone levels ranged from 0.11 ng/mL to 0.28 ng/mL in the dose range of 1 mg to 4 mg.
Table 4. Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Mean ± SD) of Buprenorphine, Norbuprenorphine, and Naloxone following the Sublingual Administration of
Buprenorphine and Naloxone Sublingual Tablets
| *Tmax is reported as median value with range |
| PK Parameter | Buprenorphine and Naloxone Sublingual Tablet Dose (mg) |
| | 2/0.5 mg | 8/2 mg |
| Buprenorphine |
| Cmax (ng/mL) | 0.780 ± 0.323 | 2.58 ± 1.10 |
| Tmax (hr)* | 1.50 (0.75-3.00) | 1.50 (0.50-3.03) |
| AUCinf (ng.hr/mL) | 7.651 ± 2.650 | 25.31 ± 9.500 |
| t1/2 (hr) | 30.75 ± 15.04 | 31.94 ± 15.27 |
| Norbuprenorphine |
| Cmax (ng/mL) | 0.293 ± 0.129 | 1.35 ± 0.977 |
| Tmax (hr)* | 1.25 (0.50-8.00) | 1.25 (0.75-12.00) |
| AUCinf (ng.hr/mL) | 13.59 ± 4.887 | 52.84 ± 31.15 |
| t1/2 (hr) | 45.84 ± 15.85 | 44.76 ± 28.74 |
| Naloxone |
| Cmax (pg/mL) | 51.3 ± 21.1 | 135 ± 57.3 |
| Tmax (hr)* | 0.75 (0.30-1.50) | 0.75 (0.50-1.25) |
| AUCinf (pg.hr/mL) | 124.2 ± 52.49 | 374.6 ± 132.8 |
| t1/2 (hr) | 5.15 ± 5.28 | 7.65 ± 3.99 |
Distribution:
Buprenorphine is approximately 96% protein bound, primarily to alpha and beta globulin.
Naloxone is approximately 45% protein bound, primarily to albumin.
Elimination
Metabolism:
Buprenorphine undergoes both N-dealkylation to norbuprenorphine and glucuronidation. The N-dealkylation pathway is mediated primarily by the CYP3A4. Norbuprenorphine,
the major metabolite, can further undergo glucuronidation. Norbuprenorphine has been found to bind opioid receptors in-vitro; however, it is not known whether norbuprenorphine contributes
to the overall effect of buprenorphine and naloxone. . Naloxone undergoes direct glucuronidation to naloxone-3-glucuronide as well as N-dealkylation, and reduction of the 6-oxo group.
Excretion
A mass balance study of buprenorphine showed complete recovery of radiolabel in urine (30%) and feces (69%) collected up to 11 days after dosing. Almost all of the dose was accounted for in terms of buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, and two unidentified buprenorphine metabolites. In urine, most of buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine was conjugated (buprenorphine, 1% free and 9.4% conjugated; norbuprenorphine, 2.7% free and 11% conjugated). In feces, almost all of the buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine were free (buprenorphine, 33% free and 5% conjugated; norbuprenorphine, 21% free and 2% conjugated).
When buprenorphine and naloxone sublingual tablets are administered sublingually buprenorphine has a mean elimination half-life ranging from 24 to 42 hours and naloxone has a mean elimination half-life ranging from 2 to 12 hours.
Drug Interactions Studies
CYP3A4 Inhibitors and Inducers:
Buprenorphine has been found to be a CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 inhibitor and its major metabolite, norbuprenorphine, has been found to be a moderate CYP2D6 inhibitor in in-vitro
studies employing human liver microsomes. However, the relatively low plasma concentrations of buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine resulting from therapeutic doses are
not expected to raise significant drug-drug interaction concerns [see Drug Interactions (7)].
Specific Populations:
Hepatic Impairment:
In a pharmacokinetic study, the disposition of buprenorphine and naloxone were determined after administering a 2 mg/0.5 mg buprenorphine and naloxone sublingual tablet in subjects with varied degrees of hepatic impairment as indicated by Child-Pugh criteria. The disposition of buprenorphine and naloxone in patients with hepatic impairment were compared to disposition in subjects with normal hepatic function.
In subjects with mild hepatic impairment, the changes in mean Cmax, AUC0-last, and half-life values of both buprenorphine and naloxone were not clinically significant. No dosing adjustment is needed in patients with mild hepatic impairment.
For subjects with moderate and severe hepatic impairment, mean Cmax, AUC0-last, and half-life values of both buprenorphine and naloxone were increased; the effects on naloxone are greater than that on buprenorphine (Table 5).
Table 5. Changes in Pharmacokinetic Parameters in Subjects with Moderate and Severe Hepatic Impairment
| Hepatic Impairment | PK Parameters | Increase in buprenorphine compared to healthy subjects | Increase in naloxone compared to healthy subjects |
| Moderate | C max | 8% | 170% |
| AUC 0-last | 64% | 218% |
| Half-life | 35% | 165% |
| Severe | C max | 72% | 1030% |
| AUC 0-last | 181% | 1302% |
| Half-life | 57% | 122% |
The difference in magnitude of the effects on naloxone and buprenorphine are greater in subjects with severe hepatic impairment than subjects with moderate hepatic impairment [see Warnings and Precautions (5.12), Use in Specific Populations (8.6)] .
HCV infection: In subjects with HCV infection but no sign of hepatic impairment, the changes in the mean Cmax, AUC0-last, and half-life values of buprenorphine and naloxone were not clinically significant in comparison to healthy subjects without HCV infection.
Carcinogenicity:
A carcinogenicity study of buprenorphine/naloxone (4:1 ratio of the free bases) was performed in Alderley Park rats. Buprenorphine/naloxone was administered in the diet at doses of approximately 7, 31, and 123 mg/kg/day for 104 weeks (estimated exposure was approximately 4, 18, and 44 times the recommended human sublingual dose of 16 mg/4 mg buprenorphine/naloxone based on buprenorphine AUC comparisons). A statistically significant increase in Leydig cell adenomas was observed in all dose groups. No other drug-related tumors were noted.
Carcinogenicity studies of buprenorphine were conducted in Sprague-Dawley rats and CD-1 mice. Buprenorphine was administered in the diet to rats at doses of 0.6, 5.5, and 56 mg/kg/day (estimated exposure was approximately 0.4, 3, and 35 times the recommended human daily sublingual dose of 16 mg on a mg/m 2 basis) for 27 months. As in the buprenorphine/naloxone carcinogenicity study in rat, statistically significant dose-related increases in Leydig cell tumors occurred. In an 86-week study in CD-1 mice, buprenorphine was not carcinogenic at dietary doses up to 100 mg/kg/day (estimated exposure was approximately 30 times the recommended human daily sublingual dose of 16 mg on a mg/m2 basis).
Mutagenicity:
The 4:1 combination of buprenorphine and naloxone was not mutagenic in a bacterial mutation assay (Ames test) using four strains of S. typhimurium and two strains of E. coli. The combination was not clastogenic in an in-vitro cytogenetic assay in human lymphocytes or in an IV micronucleus test in the rat.
Buprenorphine was studied in a series of tests utilizing gene, chromosome, and DNA interactions in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems. Results were negative in yeast (S. cerevisiae) for recombinant, gene convertant, or forward mutations; negative in Bacillus subtilis “rec” assay, negative for clastogenicity in CHO cells, Chinese hamster bone marrow and spermatogonia cells, and negative in the mouse lymphoma L5178Y assay.
Results were equivocal in the Ames test: negative in studies in two laboratories, but positive for frame shift mutation at a high dose (5 mg/plate) in a third study. Results were positive in the Green-Tweets (E. coli) survival test, positive in a DNA synthesis inhibition (DSI) test with testicular tissue from mice, for both in-vivo and in-vitro incorporation of [3H]thymidine, and positive in unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) test using testicular cells from mice.
Impairment of Fertility:
Dietary administration of buprenorphine in the rat at dose levels of 500 ppm or greater (equivalent to approximately 47 mg/kg/day or greater; estimated exposure approximately 28 times the recommended human daily sublingual dose of 16 mg on a mg/m 2 basis) produced a reduction in fertility demonstrated by reduced female conception rates. A dietary dose of 100 ppm (equivalent to approximately 10 mg/kg/day; estimated exposure approximately 6 times the recommended human daily sublingual dose of 16 mg on a mg/m 2 basis) had no adverse effect on fertility.