ArticleClinical drug investigation2010
Clinical experience with fortnightly buprenorphine/naloxone versus buprenorphine in Italy: preliminary observational data in an office-based setting.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of buprenorphine dosage adequacy in opioid receptor agonist substitution therapy for heroin dependence: first use of the BUprenorphine-naloxone Dosage Adequacy eVAluation (BUDAVA) questionnaire.Clinical drug investigation · 2012Article
- Feeding and reward: perspectives from three rat models of binge eating.Physiology & behavior · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Buprenorphine/naloxone is a new option for the management of opioid dependence. It has a reduced potential for abuse or misuse compared with methadone and buprenorphine alone, and has a long half-life allowing less frequent dosing. Buprenorphine/naloxone appears to be well suited for the management of opioid dependence in an office-based setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a buprenorphine/naloxone combination treatment in an office-based setting. Therefore, we evaluated the effect on misuse/diversion, quality of care, quality of life and service delivery. Seventy-eight patients were switched to buprenorphine/naloxone from either methadone or buprenorphine alone; the median duration of previous buprenorphine or methadone treatment was 10 years. Patients received buprenorphine/naloxone and were evaluated throughout a 1-year follow-up period. Treatment was self-administered by the patients every 2 weeks and the mean buprenorphine dosage at 1 year was 8 mg/day. Comparisons were made before and after the switch for patients who switched from buprenorphine alone to buprenorphine/naloxone. Switching to buprenorphine/naloxone was not associated with clinically relevant problems in 50% of patients studied. Buprenorphine/naloxone provided satisfactory coverage of withdrawal symptoms in 78.1% of patients, and 50% of patients were satisfied with buprenorphine/naloxone therapy. Seventy-eight per cent of patients reported improved psychosocial functioning. The majority of patients (approximately 85%) were negative for opioids during toxicological testing. A significantly higher proportion of treatment recipients were highly satisfied during buprenorphine/naloxone administration (p < 0.001 compared with buprenorphine given before the switch). Other outcomes were similar during buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone administration. Fortnightly self-administration of buprenorphine/naloxone appeared to be cost saving for the clinic. Buprenorphine/naloxone is an effective and safe treatment option for the outpatient management of opioid dependence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.