Suppr超能文献

安非他酮缓释剂与安慰剂联合适应性奖励治疗接受美沙酮治疗阿片类药物使用障碍者可卡因使用障碍:一项随机临床试验。

Bupropion Slow Release vs Placebo With Adaptive Incentives for Cocaine Use Disorder in Persons Receiving Methadone for Opioid Use Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

机构信息

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Mar 1;6(3):e232278. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.2278.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Opioid-stimulant co-use is a common problem with few evidence-based treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To examine bupropion slow release (SR) enhancement of a tailored abstinence incentive program for stimulant use in persons with opioid use disorder.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 26-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with a 4-week follow-up period was conducted at 4 methadone treatment programs in Baltimore, Maryland. Included participants were persons receiving methadone for the treatment of opioid use disorder with past 3-month cocaine use and current cocaine use disorder between March 2015 and September 2019. Data were analyzed from November 2020 through August 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

A 6-week incentive induction period with monetary incentives for evidence of cocaine abstinence during thrice-weekly urine testing was conducted. Persons achieving 2 weeks of consecutive abstinence during induction were assigned to the relapse prevention group (20 individuals); otherwise, individuals were assigned to the abstinence initiation group (60 individuals). Participants were randomized within incentive groups to bupropion SR (150 mg oral twice daily; 40 participants) or placebo (40 participants). Incentives were available until week 26, and study medication ended week 30.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The mean percentage of participants with cocaine abstinence (by negative urinalysis or self-report) during weeks 7 to 26 (ie, the incentive intervention period) and 27 to 30 (ie, the follow-up period) and the percentage of participants testing negative for cocaine at weeks 26 and 30 were assessed. Main effects of medication collapsed across incentive conditions and sensitivity analyses of medications within incentive conditions were assessed. Analyses were conducted in the modified intention-to-treat sample (ie, 80 individuals who received ≥1 dose of study medication) and completers (ie, 52 individuals who completed ≥1 visit during week 30).

RESULTS

Among 80 participants (42 Black [52.5% ] and 35 White [43.8%]; mean [SD] age, 45.7 (9.4) years; 52 males [65.0%]) receiving methadone for opioid use disorder, 40 participants were randomized to receive bupropion SR and 40 participants to receive placebo. No significant difference on urinalysis or self-reported cocaine use was observed between medication groups. Sensitivity analyses revealed differential patterns for incentive subgroups. Participants in the relapse prevention group had high abstinence (>80%; eg, during weeks 7-26 in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 410 of 456 samples [89.9%] from participants in the bupropion SR group tested negative for cocaine) throughout the trial regardless of whether they were randomized to bupropion SR or placebo. Participants in the abstinence initiation group had better outcomes with bupropion SR than placebo throughout the trial (mean [SD] total number of samples testing negative for cocaine, 30.3 [21.6] samples for bupropion SR vs 17.1 [14.9] samples for placebo; P = .05) and more participants receiving bupropion SR than placebo were abstinent at the end of the study (20 of 30 participants [66.7%] vs 9 of 30 participants [30.0%]; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, an overall benefit for bupropion SR vs placebo when combined with a financial abstinence incentive program was not observed. Results among incentive subgroups suggest that continued evaluation of medications, including bupropion SR, for stimulant treatment using a tailored approach that factors early abstinence into study design and interpretation may be needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02111798.

摘要

重要性

阿片类药物-兴奋剂共同使用是一个常见的问题,几乎没有基于证据的治疗方法。

目的

研究安非他酮缓释(SR)增强刺激物使用障碍患者的个体化戒断激励计划对兴奋剂使用的效果。

设计、地点和参与者:这是一项为期 26 周、双盲、安慰剂对照的随机临床试验,有 4 周的随访期,在马里兰州巴尔的摩的 4 个美沙酮治疗项目中进行。纳入的参与者为正在接受美沙酮治疗阿片类药物使用障碍的患者,在过去 3 个月内有可卡因使用史,目前有可卡因使用障碍。数据于 2020 年 11 月至 2022 年 8 月进行分析。

干预措施

进行了 6 周的激励诱导期,通过三次每周的尿液检测证明可卡因戒断,给予金钱奖励。在诱导期内连续两周戒断的患者被分配到预防复发组(20 人);否则,患者被分配到戒断起始组(60 人)。参与者根据激励组内随机分配接受安非他酮 SR(150mg 口服每日两次;40 人)或安慰剂(40 人)。激励措施持续到第 26 周,研究药物结束到第 30 周。

主要结果和测量

评估第 7 周到 26 周(即激励干预期)和第 27 周到 30 周(即随访期)期间参与者可卡因戒断的平均百分比(通过阴性尿液检测或自我报告),以及第 26 周和第 30 周参与者可卡因检测阴性的百分比。评估了药物在整个激励条件下的主要作用和药物在激励条件内的敏感性分析。分析在接受至少一剂研究药物的 80 名参与者(修改后的意向治疗样本)和完成者(30 周至少完成一次就诊的 52 名参与者)中进行。

结果

在 80 名接受阿片类药物使用障碍美沙酮治疗的参与者(42 名黑人[52.5%]和 35 名白人[43.8%];平均[SD]年龄,45.7[9.4]岁;52 名男性[65.0%])中,40 名参与者随机接受安非他酮 SR,40 名参与者接受安慰剂。药物组之间在尿液检测或自我报告的可卡因使用方面没有显著差异。敏感性分析显示激励亚组的不同模式。预防复发组的参与者在整个试验中都有很高的戒断率(>80%;例如,在修改后的意向治疗分析中,第 7 周到 26 周期间,安非他酮 SR 组 456 个样本中的 410 个[89.9%]检测可卡因阴性),无论他们是否随机分配到安非他酮 SR 或安慰剂。在整个试验中,戒断起始组的参与者使用安非他酮 SR 比安慰剂有更好的结果(安非他酮 SR 组检测可卡因阴性的总样本数[SD]为 30.3[21.6]个,安慰剂组为 17.1[14.9]个;P = .05),并且在研究结束时,更多的接受安非他酮 SR 的参与者戒断(30 名参与者中的 20 名[66.7%] vs 30 名参与者中的 9 名[30.0%];P = .04)。

结论和相关性

在这项随机临床试验中,当与财务戒断激励计划相结合时,安非他酮 SR 与安慰剂相比总体上没有益处。激励亚组的结果表明,可能需要继续评估药物,包括安非他酮 SR,对于使用个体化方法的兴奋剂治疗,该方法将早期戒断纳入研究设计和解释。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT02111798。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bf5a/10018324/0d9bedd1cc8e/jamanetwopen-e232278-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验