42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Treatment of Opioid-Use Disorders

      New England Journal of Medicine
      Massachusetts Medical Society

      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 references44

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

          Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial.

          Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Treatment retention among patients randomized to buprenorphine/naloxone compared to methadone in a multi-site trial.

            To examine patient and medication characteristics associated with retention and continued illicit opioid use in methadone (MET) versus buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) treatment for opioid dependence. This secondary analysis included 1267 opioid-dependent individuals participating in nine opioid treatment programs between 2006 and 2009 and randomized to receive open-label BUP or MET for 24 weeks. The analyses included measures of patient characteristics at baseline (demographics; use of alcohol, cigarettes and illicit drugs; self-rated mental and physical health), medication dose and urine drug screens during treatment, and treatment completion and days in treatment during the 24-week trial. The treatment completion rate was 74% for MET versus 46% for BUP (P < 0.01); the rate among MET participants increased to 80% when the maximum MET dose reached or exceeded 60 mg/day. With BUP, the completion rate increased linearly with higher doses, reaching 60% with doses of 30-32 mg/day. Of those remaining in treatment, positive opioid urine results were significantly lower [odds ratio (OR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.52-0.76, P < 0.01] among BUP relative to MET participants during the first 9 weeks of treatment. Higher medication dose was related to lower opiate use, more so among BUP patients. A Cox proportional hazards model revealed factors associated with dropout: (i) BUP [versus MET, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.61, CI = 1.20-2.15], (ii) lower medication dose (<16 mg for BUP, <60 mg for MET; HR = 3.09, CI = 2.19-4.37), (iii) the interaction of dose and treatment condition (those with higher BUP dose were 1.04 times more likely to drop out than those with lower MET dose, and (iv) being younger, Hispanic and using heroin or other substances during treatment. Provision of methadone appears to be associated with better retention in treatment for opioid dependence than buprenorphine, as does use of provision of higher doses of both medications. Provision of buprenorphine is associated with lower continued use of illicit opioids. © 2013 Society for the Study of Addiction.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The efficacy of motivational interviewing as a brief intervention for excessive drinking: a meta-analytic review.

              (1) To examine whether or not motivational interviewing (MI) is more efficacious than no intervention in reducing alcohol consumption; (2) to examine whether or not MI is as efficacious as other interventions. A literature search followed by a meta-analytic review of randomized control trials of MI interventions. Aggregated between-group effect sizes and confidence intervals were calculated for each study. Literature search revealed 22 relevant studies, of which nine compared brief MI with no treatment, and met methodological criteria for inclusion. In these, the aggregate effect size was 0.18 (95% C.I. 0.07, 0.29), but was greater 0.60 (95% C.I. 0.36, 0.83) when, in a post-hoc analysis, the follow-up period was three months or less. Its efficacy also increased when dependent drinkers were excluded. There were nine studies meeting methodological criteria for inclusion which compared brief MI with another treatment (one of a diverse set of interventions), yielding an aggregate effect size of 0.43(95% C.I. 0.17, 0.70). The literature review pointed to several factors which may influence MI's long-term efficacy effectiveness of MI. Brief MI is effective. Future studies should focus on possible predictors of efficacy such as gender, age, employment status, marital status, mental health, initial expectations, readiness to change, and whether the population is drawn from treatment-seeking or non-treatment-seeking populations. Also, the components of MI should be compared to determine which are most responsible for maintaining long-term changes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                New England Journal of Medicine
                N Engl J Med
                Massachusetts Medical Society
                0028-4793
                1533-4406
                July 28 2016
                July 28 2016
                : 375
                : 4
                : 357-368
                Article
                10.1056/NEJMra1604339
                27464203
                cff81e6f-19e0-454e-9a9a-fe2e6c9a9bc5
                © 2016
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article