The Langton Centre, South East Sydney Illawarra Area Health Service, 591 South Dowling St, Surry Hills, NSW 2010, Australia.
Addiction. 2009 Jul;104(7):1193-200. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02627.x.
AIM To compare retention in treatment and mortality among people entering methadone and buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence.
The Pharmaceutical Drugs of Abuse System (PHDAS) database records start- and end-dates of all episodes of methadone and buprenorphine treatment in New South Wales, and the National Death Index (NDI) records all reported deaths.
Data linkage study. First entrants to treatment between June 2002 and June 2006 were identified from the PHDAS database. Retention in treatment was compared between methadone and buprenorphine. Names were linked to the NDI database, and 'good matches' were identified. Deaths were classified as occurring during induction, maintenance and either post-methadone or post-buprenorphine, depending on the latest episode of treatment prior to death. The numbers of inductions into treatment, of total person-years spent in each treatment, and person-years post-methadone or buprenorphine, were calculated. Risk of death in different periods, and different treatments, was analysed using Poisson regression.
A total of 5992 people entered their first episode of treatment-3349 (56%) on buprenorphine, 2643 on methadone. Median retention was significantly longer in methadone (271 days) than buprenorphine (40 days). During induction, the risk of death was lower for buprenorphine (relative risk = 0.114, 95% confidence interval = 0.002-0.938, P = 0.02, Fisher's exact test). Risk of death was lowest during treatment, significantly higher in the first 12 months after leaving both methadone and buprenorphine. Beyond 12 months after leaving treatment, risk of death was non-significantly higher than during treatment.
Buprenorphine was safer during induction. Despite shorter retention in treatment, buprenorphine maintenance was not associated with higher risk of death.
比较阿片类药物依赖者接受美沙酮和丁丙诺啡治疗的保留率和死亡率。
滥用药物处方系统(PHDAS)数据库记录了新南威尔士州所有美沙酮和丁丙诺啡治疗开始和结束日期,国家死亡索引(NDI)记录了所有报告的死亡。
数据链接研究。从 PHDAS 数据库中确定 2002 年 6 月至 2006 年 6 月期间首次进入治疗的患者。比较美沙酮和丁丙诺啡的治疗保留率。将姓名与 NDI 数据库链接,并确定“良好匹配”。根据死亡前最后一次治疗的情况,将死亡分类为诱导期、维持期和美沙酮或丁丙诺啡后。计算进入治疗的诱导次数、每种治疗方法的总人年数以及美沙酮或丁丙诺啡后的人年数。使用泊松回归分析不同时期和不同治疗方法的死亡风险。
共有 5992 人首次进入治疗期,其中 3349 人(56%)接受丁丙诺啡治疗,2643 人接受美沙酮治疗。美沙酮的中位保留时间明显长于丁丙诺啡(271 天比 40 天)。在诱导期,丁丙诺啡的死亡风险较低(相对风险=0.114,95%置信区间=0.002-0.938,P=0.02,Fisher 精确检验)。治疗期间死亡风险最低,离开美沙酮和丁丙诺啡后 12 个月内死亡风险显著升高。离开治疗 12 个月后,死亡风险高于治疗期间,但无统计学意义。
丁丙诺啡在诱导期更安全。尽管治疗保留时间较短,但丁丙诺啡维持治疗与死亡风险增加无关。