Evaluation of functional status among patients undergoing maintenance treatments for opioid use disorders

Buprenorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid dependence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies

BACKGROUND

Opioid dependence is associated with substantial health and social burdens, and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is highly effective in improving multiple outcomes for people who receive this treatment. Methadone and buprenorphine are common medications provided as OAT. We aimed to examine buprenorphine compared with methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence across a wide range of primary and secondary outcomes.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with GATHER and PRISMA guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO from database inception to Aug 1, 2022; clinical trial registries and previous relevant Cochrane reviews were also reviewed. We included all RCTs and observational studies of adults (aged ≥18 years) with opioid dependence comparing treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Primary outcomes were retention in treatment at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, treatment adherence (measured through doses taken as prescribed, dosing visits attended, and biological measures), or extra-medical opioid use (measured by urinalysis and self-report). Secondary outcomes were use of benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, and alcohol; withdrawal; craving; criminal activity and engagement with the criminal justice system; overdose; mental and physical health; sleep; pain; global functioning; suicidality and self-harm; and adverse events. Single-arm cohort studies and RCTs that collected data on buprenorphine retention alone were also reviewed. Data on study, participant, and treatment characteristics were extracted. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional data when required. Comparative estimates were pooled with use of random-effects meta-analyses. The proportion of individuals retained in treatment across multiple timepoints was pooled for each drug. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020205109).

FINDINGS

We identified 32 eligible RCTs (N=5808 participants) and 69 observational studies (N=323 340) comparing buprenorphine and methadone, in addition to 51 RCTs (N=11 644) and 124 observational studies (N=700 035) that reported on treatment retention with buprenorphine. Overall, 61 studies were done in western Europe, 162 in North America, 14 in north Africa and the Middle East, 20 in Australasia, five in southeast Asia, seven in south Asia, two in eastern Europe, three in central Europe, one in east Asia, and one in central Asia. 1 040 827 participants were included in these primary studies; however, gender was only reported for 572 111 participants, of whom 377 991 (66·1%) were male and 194 120 (33·9%) were female. Mean age was 37·1 years (SD 6·0). At timepoints beyond 1 month, retention was better for methadone than for buprenorphine: for example, at 6 months, the pooled effect favoured methadone in RCTs (risk ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·67-0·85]; I·=74·2%; 16 studies, N=3151) and in observational studies (0·77 [0·68-0·86]; I·=98·5%; 21 studies, N=155 111). Retention was generally higher in RCTs than observational studies. There was no evidence suggesting that adherence to treatment differed with buprenorphine compared with methadone. There was some evidence that extra-medical opioid use was lower in those receiving buprenorphine in RCTs that measured this outcome by urinalysis and reported proportion of positive urine samples (over various time frames; standardised mean difference -0·20 [-0·29 to -0·11]; I·=0·0%; three studies, N=841), but no differences were found when using other measures. Some statistically significant differences were found between buprenorphine and methadone among secondary outcomes. There was evidence of reduced cocaine use, cravings, anxiety, and cardiac dysfunction, as well as increased treatment satisfaction among people receiving buprenorphine compared with methadone; and evidence of reduced hospitalisation and alcohol use in people receiving methadone. These differences in secondary outcomes were based on small numbers of studies (maximum five), and were often not consistent across study types or different measures of the same constructs (eg, cocaine use).

INTERPRETATION

Evidence from trials and observational studies suggest that treatment retention is better for methadone than for sublingual buprenorphine. Comparative evidence on other outcomes examined showed few statistically significant differences and was generally based on small numbers of studies. These findings highlight the imperative for interventions to improve retention, consideration of client-centred factors (such as client preference) when selecting between methadone and buprenorphine, and harmonisation of data collection and reporting to strengthen future syntheses.

FUNDING

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2021

This paper is the forty-fourth consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2021 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonizts and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (1), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (2) and humans (3), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (4), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (5), stress and social status (6), learning and memory (7), eating and drinking (8), drug abuse and alcohol (9), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (10), mental illness and mood (11), seizures and neurologic disorders (12), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (13), general activity and locomotion (14), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (15), cardiovascular responses (16), respiration and thermoregulation (17), and immunological responses (18).

Sexual Dysfunctions in Patients Receiving Opioid Agonist Treatment and Heroin-Assisted Treatment Compared to Patients in Private Practice-Identifying Group Differences and Predictors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Sexual dysfunctions (SDs) show a marked impact on a person's general wellbeing. Several risk-factors like physical and mental illnesses as well as alcohol and tobacco use have to date been identified to contribute to the occurrence of SDs. The impact of opioid-agonist treatment (OAT) on SDs remains unclear, with some studies demonstrating an improvement after methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) initiation. However, no studies on the prevalence and predictors of SDs in heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) exist to date.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted with patients from a MMT center (n = 57) and a center specializing in HAT (n = 47). A control group of patients with mild transient illnesses (n = 67) was recruited from a general practitioner (GP). The International Index of Erectile Function, the Female Sexual Function Index, as well as measurements for psychological distress, depressive state, nicotine dependence, and high-risk alcohol use were employed. Patients also completed a self-designed questionnaire on help-seeking behavior regarding sexual health. Mann-Whitney-U tests and chi-square tests were performed for group comparisons and binary logistic regression models were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-five percent of the GP sample (n = 17), 70.2% (n = 40) of the MMT sample, and 57.4% (n = 27) of the HAT sample suffered from SDs at the time of study conduction. OAT patients differed significantly from GP patients in depressive state, high-risk alcohol use, nicotine dependence, and psychological distress. Age, depressive state, and opioid dependence predicted the occurrence of SDs in the total sample. No differences between OAT and GP patients were found regarding help-seeking behavior.

DISCUSSION

Age, depressive state, and opioid dependence predicted the occurrence of SDs in the total sample. It remains unclear whether SDs are caused by opioid intake itself or result from other substance-use related lifestyle factors, that were not controlled for in this study. A lack of help-seeking behavior was observed in our sample, underlining the importance of clinicians proactively inquiring about the sexual health of their patients.

CONCLUSION

The high prevalence of SDs observed in MMT does not differ from the prevalence in HAT. Clinicians should actively inquire about their patients' sexual health in GP and OAT centers alike.