Gowing L, Ali R, White J
Evidence-Based Practice Unit, Drug and Alcohol Services Council, 161 Greenhill Road, Parkside, SA, Australia, 5067.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(3):CD002025. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002025.
Managed withdrawal, or detoxification, is not in itself a treatment for opioid dependence, but it is a required first step for many forms of longer-term treatment. It may also represent the end point of an extensive period of treatment such as methadone maintenance. As such, managed withdrawal is an essential component of an effective treatment system. This review is one of a series that aims to assess the evidence as to the effectiveness of the variety of approaches to managing opioid withdrawal.
To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the short-term use of buprenorphine to manage the acute phase of opioid withdrawal.
Multiple electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, Psychlit, Australian Medical Index and Current Contents, were searched using a strategy designed to retrieve references broadly addressing the management of opioid withdrawal. Reference lists of retrieved studies, reviews and conference abstracts were handsearched.
We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials or prospective controlled cohort studies comparing buprenorphine (treatment 10 days or less) with another form of treatment. Studies were required to provide detailed information on the type and dose of drugs used and the characteristics of patients treated. Studies were also required to provide information on the nature of withdrawal signs and symptoms experienced, the occurrence of adverse effects OR rates of completion of the withdrawal episode.
Potentially relevant studies were assessed for inclusion by one reviewer (LG). Inclusion decisions were confirmed by consultation between reviewers. Included studies were assessed by all reviewers. One reviewer (LG) undertook data extraction with the process confirmed by consultation between all three reviewers.
Five studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. No data tables are included in this review and no meta-analysis has been undertaken because of differences in treatment regimes and the assessment of outcomes in these studies. Four studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine. All found withdrawal to be less severe in the buprenorphine treatment group. In three of these studies all participants were withdrawing from heroin. Participants in one study were withdrawing from methadone, with doses reduced to 10mg/day prior to treatment with buprenorphine. Three of the studies commented on residual symptoms experienced by participants treated with buprenorphine to manage heroin withdrawal. Aches, restlessness, yawning, mydriasis, tremor, insomnia, nausea and mild anxiety were reported as being experienced by some participants. Rates of completion of withdrawal were able to be calculated for all studies included in the review but the definition of completion varied between studies. Rates ranged from 65% to 100%. None of the studies included in the review reported adverse effects. However, approximately approximately Lintzeris 1999a approximately approximately (a single-group study which therefore did not meet the inclusion criteria) reported 50% of participants withdrawing from heroin experienced headaches, 28% sedation, 21% nausea, 21% constipation, 21% anxiety, 17% dizziness and 17% itchiness during withdrawal. These adverse effects were most common in the first 2-3 days of treatment and then subsided. In four of the five studies treatment was undertaken on an inpatient basis. Only approximately approximately O'Connor 1997 approximately approximately provided outpatient treatment. However, two studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria ( approximately approximately Diamant 1998 approximately approximately and approximately approximately Lintzeris 1999a approximately approximately ) also provided outpatient treatment. The findings of these studies support the feasibility of heroin withdrawal being managed with buprenorphine on an outpatient basis
有管理的戒断,即脱毒,其本身并非阿片类药物依赖的一种治疗方法,但它是许多形式的长期治疗所必需的第一步。它也可能代表诸如美沙酮维持治疗等长期治疗阶段的终点。因此,有管理的戒断是有效治疗系统的一个重要组成部分。本综述是一系列旨在评估各种管理阿片类药物戒断方法有效性证据的综述之一。
评估短期使用丁丙诺啡管理阿片类药物戒断急性期的干预措施的有效性。
使用旨在广泛检索涉及阿片类药物戒断管理参考文献的策略,对多个电子数据库进行了检索,包括医学索引数据库(Medline)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)、心理学文摘数据库(Psychlit)、澳大利亚医学索引数据库(Australian Medical Index)和《现刊目次》(Current Contents)。对检索到的研究、综述和会议摘要的参考文献列表进行了手工检索。
我们纳入了将丁丙诺啡(治疗10天或更短时间)与另一种治疗形式进行比较的随机或半随机对照临床试验或前瞻性对照队列研究。要求研究提供所使用药物的类型和剂量以及所治疗患者特征的详细信息。还要求研究提供有关所经历的戒断体征和症状的性质、不良反应的发生情况或戒断期完成率的信息。
由一位评审员(LG)评估潜在相关研究是否纳入。纳入决定通过评审员之间的协商得以确认。所有评审员对纳入的研究进行评估。由一位评审员(LG)进行数据提取,整个过程经所有三位评审员协商确认。
五项研究符合纳入本综述的标准。本综述未包含数据表,且由于这些研究中治疗方案和结局评估存在差异,未进行荟萃分析。四项研究将丁丙诺啡与可乐定进行了比较。所有研究均发现丁丙诺啡治疗组的戒断症状较轻。在其中三项研究中,所有参与者均为海洛因戒断者。一项研究中的参与者为美沙酮戒断者,在接受丁丙诺啡治疗前,美沙酮剂量已减至10毫克/天。三项研究对接受丁丙诺啡治疗以管理海洛因戒断的参与者所经历的残留症状进行了评论。一些参与者报告有疼痛、烦躁不安、打哈欠、瞳孔散大、震颤、失眠、恶心和轻度焦虑。本综述纳入的所有研究均能够计算戒断完成率,但不同研究对完成的定义有所不同。完成率范围为65%至100%。本综述纳入的研究均未报告不良反应。然而,林泽里斯1999a(一项单组研究,因此不符合纳入标准)报告称,50%的海洛因戒断参与者在戒断期间出现头痛,28%出现镇静,21%出现恶心,21%出现便秘,21%出现焦虑,17%出现头晕,17%出现瘙痒。这些不良反应在治疗的前2至3天最为常见,随后逐渐消退。五项研究中有四项是在住院基础上进行治疗的。只有奥康纳1997提供了门诊治疗。然而,两项不符合纳入标准的研究(迪亚曼特1998和林泽里斯1999a)也提供了门诊治疗。这些研究的结果支持了在门诊基础上用丁丙诺啡管理海洛因戒断的可行性。