Hser Yih-Ing, Evans Elizabeth, Huang David, Weiss Robert, Saxon Andrew, Carroll Kathleen M, Woody George, Liu David, Wakim Paul, Matthews Abigail G, Hatch-Maillette Mary, Jelstrom Eve, Wiest Katharina, McLaughlin Paul, Ling Walter
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA.
Addiction. 2016 Apr;111(4):695-705. doi: 10.1111/add.13238. Epub 2016 Jan 13.
To compare long-term outcomes among participants randomized to buprenorphine or methadone.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Follow-up was conducted in 2011-14 of 1080 opioid-dependent participants entering seven opioid treatment programs in the United States between 2006 and 2009 and randomized (within each program) to receive open-label buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone for up to 24 weeks; 795 participants completed in-person interviews (~74% follow-up interview rate) covering on average 4.5 years.
Outcomes were indicated by mortality and opioid use. Covariates included demographics, site, cocaine use and treatment experiences.
Mortality was not different between the two randomized conditions, with 23 (3.6%) of 630 participants randomized to buprenorphine having died versus 26 (5.8%) of 450 participants randomized to methadone. Opioid use at follow-up was higher among participants randomized to buprenorphine relative to methadone [42.8 versus 31.7% positive opioid urine specimens, P < 0.01, effect size (h) = 0.23 (0.09, 0.38); 5.8 days versus 4.4 days of past 30-day heroin use, P < 0.05, effect size (d) = 0.14 (0.00, 0.28)]. Opioid use during the follow-up period by randomization condition was also significant (F(7,39,600) = 3.16; P < 0.001) due mainly to less treatment participation among participants randomized to buprenorphine than methadone. Less opioid use was associated with both buprenorphine and methadone treatment (relative to no treatment); no difference was found between the two treatments. Individuals who are white or used cocaine at baseline responded better to methadone than to buprenorphine.
There are few differences in long-term outcomes between buprenorphine and methadone treatment for opioid dependence, and treatment with each medication is associated with a strong reduction in opioid use.
比较随机接受丁丙诺啡或美沙酮治疗的参与者的长期结局。
设计、地点和参与者:对2006年至2009年间进入美国七个阿片类药物治疗项目的1080名阿片类药物依赖参与者进行随访,这些参与者于2011年至2014年被随机分组(在每个项目内)接受开放标签的丁丙诺啡/纳洛酮或美沙酮治疗长达24周;795名参与者完成了面对面访谈(随访访谈率约为74%),平均随访时间为4.5年。
结局指标为死亡率和阿片类药物使用情况。协变量包括人口统计学特征、地点、可卡因使用情况和治疗经历。
两种随机分组情况下的死亡率无差异,随机接受丁丙诺啡治疗的630名参与者中有23人(3.6%)死亡,而随机接受美沙酮治疗的450名参与者中有26人(5.8%)死亡。与美沙酮相比,随机接受丁丙诺啡治疗的参与者随访时的阿片类药物使用情况更高[阿片类药物尿液标本呈阳性的比例分别为42.8%和31.7%,P<0.01,效应量(h)=0.23(0.09,0.38);过去30天内海洛因使用天数分别为5.8天和4.4天,P<0.05,效应量(d)=0.14(0.00,0.28)]。按随机分组情况划分的随访期间阿片类药物使用情况也有显著差异(F(7,39,600)=3.16;P<0.001),主要原因是随机接受丁丙诺啡治疗的参与者比接受美沙酮治疗的参与者治疗参与度更低。丁丙诺啡和美沙酮治疗(相对于未治疗)均与较少的阿片类药物使用相关;两种治疗之间未发现差异。基线时为白人或使用过可卡因的个体对美沙酮的反应比对丁丙诺啡的反应更好。
丁丙诺啡和美沙酮治疗阿片类药物依赖的长期结局差异不大,且每种药物治疗均与阿片类药物使用的大幅减少相关。