Wittchen Hans-Ulrich, Apelt Sabine M, Bühringer Gerhard, Gastpar Markus, Backmund Markus, Gölz Jörg, Kraus Michael R, Tretter Felix, Klotsche Jens, Siegert Jens, Pittrow David, Soyka Michael
Institut für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, TU Dresden, Germany.
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2005;14(1):14-28. doi: 10.1002/mpr.14.
Buprenorphine and methadone are the two established substitution drugs licensed in many countries for the treatment of opioid dependence. Little is known, however, about how these two drugs are applied and how they work in clinical practice. In this paper we present the aims, methods, design and sampling issues of a collaborative multi-stage epidemiological study (COBRA) to address these issues. Based on a nationally representative sample of substitution physicians, the study is designed as an observational, naturalistic study, consisting of three major parts. The first part was a national survey of substitution doctors (prestudy, n = 379 doctors). The second part was a cross-sectional study (n = 223 doctors), which consisted of a target-week assessment of 2,694 consecutive patients to determine (a) the severity and problem profiles and treatment targets; (b) the choice and dosage scheme of the substitution drug; (c) past and current interventions, including treatment of comorbid hepatitis C; and (d) cross-sectional differences between the two drugs with regard to comorbidity, clinical course, acceptance/compliance and social integration. The third part consists of a prospective-longitudinal cohort study of 48 methadone-treated and 48 buprenorphine-treated patients. The cohort is followed up over a period of 12 months to investigate whether course and outcome of the patients differ by type or treatment received in terms of clinical, psychosocial, pharmaco-economic and other related measures. The response rate among substitution doctors was 57.1%; that among eligible patients was 71.7%. Comparisons with the federal registers reveal that the final samples of doctors and patients may be considered nationally representative with regard to regional distribution, training, type of setting as well as the frequency of patients treated with buprenorphine or methadone. The COBRA study provides a unique comprehensive database, informing about the natural allocation and intervention processes in routine care and about the course and outcome of patients treated with buprenorphine or methadone.
丁丙诺啡和美沙酮是许多国家批准用于治疗阿片类药物依赖的两种既定替代药物。然而,对于这两种药物在临床实践中的应用方式及作用机制,人们了解甚少。在本文中,我们介绍了一项协作性多阶段流行病学研究(COBRA)的目的、方法、设计和抽样问题,以解决这些问题。该研究基于具有全国代表性的替代治疗医生样本,设计为一项观察性、自然主义研究,由三个主要部分组成。第一部分是对替代治疗医生的全国性调查(预研究,n = 379名医生)。第二部分是一项横断面研究(n = 223名医生),包括对2694名连续患者进行为期一周的目标评估,以确定(a)严重程度和问题概况以及治疗目标;(b)替代药物的选择和剂量方案;(c)过去和当前的干预措施,包括合并丙型肝炎的治疗;以及(d)两种药物在合并症、临床病程、接受度/依从性和社会融合方面的横断面差异。第三部分包括对48名接受美沙酮治疗和48名接受丁丙诺啡治疗的患者进行前瞻性纵向队列研究。该队列随访12个月,以调查患者的病程和结局在临床、心理社会、药物经济学及其他相关指标方面是否因治疗类型不同而存在差异。替代治疗医生的回复率为57.1%;符合条件患者的回复率为71.7%。与联邦登记数据的比较显示,医生和患者的最终样本在区域分布、培训、机构类型以及丁丙诺啡或美沙酮治疗患者的频率方面可被视为具有全国代表性。COBRA研究提供了一个独特的综合数据库,可告知常规护理中的自然分配和干预过程以及接受丁丙诺啡或美沙酮治疗患者的病程和结局。