29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Comparative Effectiveness of Different Treatment Pathways for Opioid Use Disorder

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Increases in Acute Hepatitis C Virus Infection Related to a Growing Opioid Epidemic and Associated Injection Drug Use, United States, 2004 to 2014

          To compare US trends in rates of injection drug use (IDU), specifically opioid injection, with national trends in the incidence of acute HCV infection to assess whether these events correlated over time.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Adjunctive counseling during brief and extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for prescription opioid dependence: a 2-phase randomized controlled trial.

            No randomized trials have examined treatments for prescription opioid dependence, despite its increasing prevalence. To evaluate the efficacy of brief and extended buprenorphine hydrochloride-naloxone hydrochloride treatment, with different counseling intensities, for patients dependent on prescription opioids. Multisite, randomized clinical trial using a 2-phase adaptive treatment research design. Brief treatment (phase 1) included 2-week buprenorphine-naloxone stabilization, 2-week taper, and 8-week postmedication follow-up. Patients with successful opioid use outcomes exited the study; unsuccessful patients entered phase 2: extended (12-week) buprenorphine-naloxone treatment, 4-week taper, and 8-week postmedication follow-up. Ten US sites. Patients A total of 653 treatment-seeking outpatients dependent on prescription opioids. In both phases, patients were randomized to standard medical management (SMM) or SMM plus opioid dependence counseling; all received buprenorphine-naloxone. Predefined "successful outcome" in each phase: composite measures indicating minimal or no opioid use based on urine test-confirmed self-reports. During phase 1, only 6.6% (43 of 653) of patients had successful outcomes, with no difference between SMM and SMM plus opioid dependence counseling. In contrast, 49.2% (177 of 360) attained successful outcomes in phase 2 during extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment (week 12), with no difference between counseling conditions. Success rates 8 weeks after completing the buprenorphine-naloxone taper (phase 2, week 24) dropped to 8.6% (31 of 360), again with no counseling difference. In secondary analyses, successful phase 2 outcomes were more common while taking buprenorphine-naloxone than 8 weeks after taper (49.2% [177 of 360] vs 8.6% [31 of 360], P < .001). Chronic pain did not affect opioid use outcomes; a history of ever using heroin was associated with lower phase 2 success rates while taking buprenorphine-naloxone. Prescription opioid-dependent patients are most likely to reduce opioid use during buprenorphine-naloxone treatment; if tapered off buprenorphine-naloxone, even after 12 weeks of treatment, the likelihood of an unsuccessful outcome is high, even in patients receiving counseling in addition to SMM.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part I.

              Health insurers, physicians, and patients worldwide need information on the comparative effectiveness and safety of prescription drugs in routine care. Nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary databases may supplement the evidence based from randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies. Recognizing the challenges to conducting valid retrospective epidemiologic and health services research studies, a Task Force was formed to develop a guidance document on state of the art approaches to frame research questions and report findings for these studies. The Task Force was commissioned and a Chair was selected by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Board of Directors in October 2007. This Report, the first of three reported in this issue of the journal, addressed issues of framing the research question and reporting and interpreting findings. The Task Force Report proposes four primary characteristics-relevance, specificity, novelty, and feasibility while defining the research question. Recommendations included: the practice of a priori specification of the research question; transparency of prespecified analytical plans, provision of justifications for any subsequent changes in analytical plan, and reporting the results of prespecified plans as well as results from significant modifications, structured abstracts to report findings with scientific neutrality; and reasoned interpretations of findings to help inform policy decisions. Comparative effectiveness research in the form of nonrandomized studies using secondary databases can be designed with rigorous elements and conducted with sophisticated statistical methods to improve causal inference of treatment effects. Standardized reporting and careful interpretation of results can aid policy and decision-making.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Network Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                2574-3805
                February 05 2020
                February 05 2020
                : 3
                : 2
                : e1920622
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
                [2 ]Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [3 ]Clinical Addiction Research and Education Unit, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
                [5 ]Integrated Programs, OptumLabs Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts
                [6 ]Department of Research, OptumLabs, Minnetonka, Minnesota
                [7 ]Department of Research, OptumLabs, Cambridge, Massachusetts
                [8 ]Department of Research, Optum Behavioral Health, Cambridge, Massachusetts
                [9 ]Department of Medicare and Retirement, United Healthcare, Minnetonka, Minnesota
                Article
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622
                32022884
                3501e8db-d6a5-491a-b434-85d64ef4f0f6
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article