Search

Background: These studies compared the diversion and injection of buprenorphine-naloxone (BNX), buprenorphine (BPN) and methadone (MET) in Australia., Methods: Surveys were conducted with regular injecting drug users (IDUs) (2004-2009, N=881-943), opioid substitution treatment (OST) clients (2008, N=440) and authorised OST prescribers (2007, N=291). Key outcome measures include the unsanctioned removal of supervised doses, diversion, injection, motivations, drug liking and street price. Levels of injection among IDUs were adjusted for background availability of medications. Doses not taken as directed by OST clients were adjusted by total number of daily doses dispensed., Results: Among regular IDUs, levels of injection were lower for BNX relative to BPN, but comparable to those for MET, adjusting for background availability. Among OST clients, fewer BNX clients (13%) reported recently injecting their medication, than BPN (28%) and MET clients (23%). Fewer MET clients (10%) reported removal of supervised doses, than BPN (35%) and BNX clients (22%). There were no differences in prevalence of recent diversion (28% of all OST clients). Adjusting for the total doses dispensed, more BPN was injected (10%), removed (12%) and diverted (5%), than MET (5%, <1% and 2% respectively) and BNX (5%, 9% and <1% respectively). In 2009, the median street price of BNX was equivalent to that for BPN., Conclusions: BNX was less commonly and less frequently injected than BPN, but both sublingual medications were diverted more than liquid MET., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Buprenorphine has been reported as an alternative to methadone for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence, but differing results are reported concerning its relative effectiveness indicating the need for an integrative review., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of buprenorphine maintenance against placebo and methadone maintenance in retaining patients in treatment and in suppressing illicit drug use., Search Strategy: We searched the following databases up to October 2006: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK , Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia, Australian Drug Foundation, Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol, Library of Congress databases, reference lists of identified studies and reviews, authors were asked about any other published or unpublished relevant RCT., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials of buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance., Data Collection and Analysis: Authors separately and independently evaluated the papers and extracted data for meta-analysis., Main Results: Twenty four studies met the inclusion criteria (4497 participants), all were randomised clinical trials, all but six were double-blind. The method of allocation concealment was not clearly described in the majority (20) of the studies, but where it was reported the methodological quality was good. Buprenorphine was statistically significantly superior to placebo medication in retention of patients in treatment at low doses (RR=1.50; 95% CI: 1.19 - 1.88), medium (RR=1.74; 95% CI: 1.06 - 2.87), and high doses (RR=1.74; 95% CI: 1.02 - 2.96). The high statistical heterogeneity prevented the calculation of a cumulative estimate. However, only medium and high dose buprenorphine suppressed heroin use significantly above placebo. Buprenorphine given in flexible doses was statistically significantly less effective than methadone in retaining patients in treatment (RR= 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68 - 0.95), but no different in suppression of opioid use for those who remained in treatment. Low dose methadone is more likely to retain patients than low dose buprenorphine (RR= 0.67; 95% CI: 0.52 - 0.87). Medium dose buprenorphine does not retain more patients than low dose methadone, but may suppress heroin use better. There was no advantage for medium dose buprenorphine over medium dose methadone in retention (RR=0.79; 95% CI:0.64 - 0.99) and medium dose buprenorphine was inferior in suppression of heroin use., Authors' Conclusions: Buprenorphine is an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, but it is less effective than methadone delivered at adequate dosages.

Background: Buprenorphine has recently been reported to be an alternative to methadone and LAAM for maintenance treatment of opioid dependent individuals, differing results are reported concerning its relative effectiveness indicating the need for an integrative review., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of buprenorphine maintenance against placebo and methadone maintenance in retaining patients in treatment and in suppressing illicit drug use., Search Strategy: We searched the following databases up to 2001, inclusive: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF -VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), and Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews and authors of identified RCT's were asked about any other published or unpublished relevant RCT., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials of buprenorphine maintenance compared with either placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence., Data Collection and Analysis: Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of concealment of allocation; data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered., Main Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, all were randomised clinical trials, all but one were double-blind. The method of concealment of allocation was not clearly described in 11 of the studies, otherwise methodological quality was good. Buprenorphine given in flexible doses appeared statistically significantly less effective than methadone in retaining patient in treatment (RR= 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.96). Low dose buprenorphine is not superior to low dose methadone. High dose buprenorphine does not retain more patients than low dose methadone, but may suppress heroin use better. There was no advantage for high dose buprenorphine over high dose methadone in retention (RR=0.79; 95% CI:0.62-1.01), and high dose buprenorphine was inferior in suppression of heroin use. Buprenorphine was statistically significantly superior to placebo medication in retention of patients in treatment at low doses (RR=1.24; 95% CI: 1.06-1.45), high doses (RR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.02-1.44), and very high doses (RR=1.52; 95% CI: 1.23-1.88). However, only high and very high dose buprenorphine suppressed heroin use significantly above placebo., Reviewers' Conclusions: Buprenorphine is an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, but it is not more effective than methadone at adequate dosages.

Background: Buprenorphine has recently been reported to be an alternative to methadone and LAAM for maintenance treatment of opioid dependent individuals, differing results are reported concerning its relative effectiveness indicating the need for an integrative review., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of buprenorphine maintenance against placebo and methadone maintenance in retaining patients in treatment and in suppressing illicit drug use., Search Strategy: We searched the following databases up to 2001, inclusive: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF -VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), and Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews and authors of identified RCT's were asked about any other published or unpublished relevant RCT., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials of buprenorphine maintenance compared with either placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence., Data Collection and Analysis: Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of concealment of allocation; data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered., Main Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, all were randomised clinical trials, all but one were double-blind. The method of concealment of allocation was not clearly described in 11 of the studies, otherwise methodological quality was good. Buprenorphine given in flexible doses appeared statistically significantly less effective than methadone in retaining patient in treatment (RR= 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.96). Low dose buprenorphine is not superior to low dose methadone. High dose buprenorphine does not retain more patients than low dose methadone, but may suppress heroin use better. There was no advantage for high dose buprenorphine over high dose methadone in retention (RR=0.79; 95% CI:0.62-1.01), and high dose buprenorphine was inferior in suppression of heroin use. Buprenorphine was statistically significantly superior to placebo medication in retention of patients in treatment at low doses (RR=1.24; 95% CI: 1.06-1.45), high doses (RR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.02-1.44), and very high doses (RR=1.52; 95% CI: 1.23-1.88). However, only high and very high dose buprenorphine suppressed heroin use significantly above placebo., Reviewer's Conclusions: Buprenorphine is an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, but it is not more effective than methadone at adequate dosages.

Background: Methadone maintenance was the first widely used form of opioid replacement therapy developed to treat heroin dependence, and it remains the best-researched treatment for this problem. Despite the widespread use of methadone in maintenance treatment for opioid dependence in many countries, it is a controversial treatment whose effectiveness has been disputed., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) compared with treatments that did not involve opioid replacement therapy (i.e., detoxification, offer of drug-free rehabilitation, placebo medication, wait-list controls) for opioid dependence., Search Strategy: We searched all the following databases up to 2001: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF-VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), and Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews; authors of identified RCTs were asked about other published or unpublished relevant RCTs., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled clinical trials of methadone maintenance therapy compared with either placebo maintenance or other non-pharmacological therapy for the treatment of opioid dependence., Data Collection and Analysis: Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of concealment of allocation, data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered., Main Results: Six studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review, all were randomised clinical trials, two were double-blind. There were a total number of 954 participants. The method of concealment of allocation was inadequate in one study, not clearly described in four studies, but adequate in a sixth study. Based on the meta-analysis, methadone appeared statistically significantly more effective than non-pharmacological approaches in retaining patient in treatment (3 RCTs, RR=3.05; 95%CI: 1.75-5.35) and in the suppression of heroin use (3 RCTs, RR=0.32; 95%CI: 0.23-0.44), but not statistically in criminal activity (3 RCTs, RR=0.39; 95%CI: 0.12-1.25)., Reviewer's Conclusions: Methadone is an effective maintenance therapy intervention for the treatment of heroin dependence as it retains patients in treatment and decreases heroin use better than treatments that do not utilise opioid replacement therapy. It does not show a statistically significant superior effect on criminal activity.

Background: Buprenorphine has recently been reported to be an alternative to methadone and LAAM for maintenance treatment of opioid dependent individuals, differing results are reported concerning its relative effectiveness indicating the need for an integrative review., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of buprenorphine maintenance against placebo and methadone maintenance in retaining patients in treatment and in suppressing illicit drug use., Search Strategy: We searched the following databases up to 2001, inclusive: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF -VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), and Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews and authors of identified RCT's were asked about any other published or unpublished relevant RCT., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials of buprenorphine maintenance compared with either placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence., Data Collection and Analysis: Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of concealment of allocation; data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered., Main Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, all were randomised clinical trials, all but one were double-blind. The method of concealment of allocation was not clearly described in 11 of the studies, otherwise methodological quality was good. Buprenorphine given in flexible doses appeared statistically significantly less effective than methadone in retaining patient in treatment (RR= 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.96). Low dose buprenorphine is not superior to low dose methadone. High dose buprenorphine does not retain more patients than low dose methadone, but may suppress heroin use better. There was no advantage for high dose buprenorphine over high dose methadone in retention (RR=0.79; 95% CI:0.62-1.01), and high dose buprenorphine was inferior in suppression of heroin use. Buprenorphine was statistically significantly superior to placebo medication in retention of patients in treatment at low doses (RR=1.24; 95% CI: 1.06-1.45), high doses (RR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.02-1.44), and very high doses (RR=1.52; 95% CI: 1.23-1.88). However, only high and very high dose buprenorphine suppressed heroin use significantly above placebo., Reviewer's Conclusions: Buprenorphine is an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, but it is not more effective than methadone at adequate dosages.

Background: Methadone maintenance was the first widely used form of opioid replacement therapy developed to treat heroin dependence, and it remains the best-researched treatment for this problem. Despite the widespread use of methadone in maintenance treatment for opioid dependence in many countries, it is a controversial treatment whose effectiveness has been disputed., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) compared with treatments that did not involve opioid replacement therapy (i.e., detoxification, offer of drug-free rehabilitation, placebo medication, wait-list controls) for opioid dependence., Search Strategy: We searched all the following databases up to 2001: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF-VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), and Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews; authors of identified RCTs were asked about other published or unpublished relevant RCTs., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled clinical trials of methadone maintenance therapy compared with either placebo maintenance or other non-pharmacological therapy for the treatment of opioid dependence., Data Collection and Analysis: Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of concealment of allocation, data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered., Main Results: Six studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review, all were randomised clinical trials, two were double-blind. There were a total number of 954 participants. The method of concealment of allocation was inadequate in one study, not clearly described in four studies, but adequate in a sixth study. Based on the meta-analysis, methadone appeared statistically significantly more effective than non-pharmacological approaches in retaining patient in treatment (3 RCTs, RR=3.05; 95%CI: 1.75-5.35) and in the suppression of heroin use (3 RCTs, RR=0.32; 95%CI: 0.23-0.44), but not statistically in criminal activity (3 RCTs, RR=0.39; 95%CI: 0.12-1.25)., Reviewer's Conclusions: Methadone is an effective maintenance therapy intervention for the treatment of heroin dependence as it retains patients in treatment and decreases heroin use better than treatments that do not utilise opioid replacement therapy. It does not show a statistically significant superior effect on criminal activity.

Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) involves the daily administration of the oral opioid agonist methadone as a treatment for opioid dependence-a persistent disorder with a substantial risk of premature death. MMT improves health and reduces illicit heroin use, infectious-disease transmission, and overdose death. However, its effectiveness is compromised if low maintenance doses of methadone (<60 mg) are used and patients are pressured to become prematurely abstinent from methadone. Pregnancy and psychiatric comorbidity are not contraindications for MMT. As an alternative to MMT, other oral opioid agents (eg, naltrexone, buprenorphine) may increase patient choice and avoid some of the more unpleasant aspects of MMT. The public-health challenge for the future is to develop and continue to deliver safe and effective forms of opioid maintenance treatment to as many opioid-dependent individuals as can benefit from them.

Using data from an evaluation of methadone maintenance treatment, this study investigated factors associated with continued involvement in crime during treatment, and in particular whether there appeared to be differences in effectiveness of treatment between different methadone clinics. The methodology was an observational study, in which 304 patients attending three low-intervention, private methadone clinics in Sydney were interviewed on three occasions over a twelve month period. Outcome measures were self-reported criminal activity and police department records of convictions. By self-report, crime dropped promptly and substantially on entry to treatment, to a level of acquisitive crime about one-eighth that reported during the last addiction period. Analysis of official records indicated that rates of acquisitive convictions were significantly lower in the in-treatment period compared to prior to entry to treatment, corroborating the changes suggested by self-report. Persisting involvement in crime in treatment was predicted by two factors: the cost of persisting use of illicit drugs, particularly cannabis, and ASPD symptom count. Treatment factors also were independently predictive of continued involvement in crime. By both self-report and official records, and adjusting for subject factors, treatment at one clinic was associated with greater involvement in crime. This clinic operated in a chaotic and poorly organized way. It is concluded that crime during methadone treatment is substantially lower than during street addiction, although the extent of reduction depends on the quality of treatment being delivered.