Lintzeris Nicholas, Bell James, Bammer Gabriele, Jolley Damien J, Rushworth Louise
Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.
Addiction. 2002 Nov;97(11):1395-404. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00215.x.
To determine whether buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine and other symptomatic medications in managing ambulatory heroin withdrawal.
Open label, prospective randomized controlled trial examining withdrawal and 4-week postwithdrawal outcomes on intention-to-treat.
Two specialist, out-patient drug treatment centres in inner city Melbourne and Sydney, Australia.
One hundred and fourteen dependent heroin users were recruited. Participants were 18 years or over, and with no significant other drug dependence, medical or psychiatric conditions or recent methadone treatment. One hundred and one (89%) participants completed a day 8 research interview examining withdrawal outcomes, and 92 (81%) completed day 35 research interview examining postwithdrawal outcomes.
Participants randomized to control (n = 56) (up to 8 days of clonidine and other symptomatic medications) or experimental (n = 58) (up to 5 days of buprenorphine) withdrawal groups. Following the 8-day withdrawal episode, participants could self-select from range of postwithdrawal options (naltrexone, substitution maintenance, or counselling).
Retention in withdrawal; heroin use during withdrawal; and retention in drug treatment 4 weeks after withdrawal.
Withdrawal severity; adverse events, and heroin use in the postwithdrawal period.
The experimental group had better treatment retention at day 8 (86% versus 57%, P = 0.001, 95% CI for numbers needed to treat (NNT) = 3-8) and day 35 (62% versus 39%, P = 0.02, 95% CI for NNT = 4-18); used heroin on fewer days during the withdrawal programme (2.6 +/- 2.5 versus 4.5 +/- 2.3, P < 0.001, 95% CI = 1-2.5 days) and in the postwithdrawal period (9.0 +/- 8.2 versus 14.6 +/- 10, P < 0.01, 95% CI = 1.8-9.4); and reported less withdrawal severity. No severe adverse events reported.
Buprenorphine is effective for short-term ambulatory heroin withdrawal, with greater retention, less heroin use and less withdrawal discomfort during withdrawal; and increased postwithdrawal treatment retention than symptomatic medications.
确定丁丙诺啡在门诊海洛因戒断治疗中是否比可乐定及其他对症药物更有效。
开放标签、前瞻性随机对照试验,按意向性治疗原则检查戒断情况及戒断后4周的结果。
澳大利亚墨尔本和悉尼市中心的两家专科门诊药物治疗中心。
招募了114名海洛因依赖者。参与者年龄在18岁及以上,无其他明显药物依赖、医疗或精神疾病,近期未接受美沙酮治疗。101名(89%)参与者完成了第8天的研究访谈以检查戒断结果,92名(81%)参与者完成了第35天的研究访谈以检查戒断后结果。
参与者被随机分为对照组(n = 56)(使用可乐定及其他对症药物最多8天)或试验组(n = 58)(使用丁丙诺啡最多5天)戒断组。在8天的戒断期后,参与者可从一系列戒断后选项(纳曲酮、替代维持治疗或咨询)中自行选择。
戒断期的留存率;戒断期间的海洛因使用情况;以及戒断后4周的药物治疗留存率。
戒断严重程度;不良事件,以及戒断后期的海洛因使用情况。
试验组在第8天(86%对57%,P = 0.001,治疗所需人数(NNT)的95%置信区间 = 3 - 8)和第35天(62%对39%,P = 0.02,NNT的95%置信区间 = 4 - 18)的治疗留存率更高;在戒断计划期间使用海洛因的天数更少(2.6 ± 2.5对4.5 ± 2.3,P < 0.001,95%置信区间 = 1 - 2.5天)以及在戒断后期(9.0 ± 8.2对14.6 ± 10,P < 0.01,95%置信区间 = 1.8 - 9.4);且报告的戒断严重程度更低。未报告严重不良事件。
丁丙诺啡对门诊短期海洛因戒断有效,在戒断期间留存率更高、海洛因使用更少且戒断不适更少;与对症药物相比,戒断后治疗留存率更高。