Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26400835›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal on addictions2015

Treatment outcomes in opioid dependent patients with different buprenorphine/naloxone induction dosing patterns and trajectories.

Petra Jacobs, Alfonso Ang, Maureen P Hillhouse, Andrew J Saxon, Suzanne Nielsen, Paul G Wakim, Barbara E Mai, Larissa J Mooney, Jennifer S Potter, Jack D Blaine

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal on addictions, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Petra JacobsThe EMMES Corporation, Rockville, Maryland.
Alfonso AngUCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Maureen P HillhouseUCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Andrew J SaxonVA Puget Sound Health Care, Seattle, Washington.
Suzanne NielsenUniversity of New South Wales, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Sydney, Australia.
Paul G WakimNIDA Center for the Clinical Trials Network, Rockville, Maryland.
Barbara E MaiThe Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.
Larissa J MooneyUCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Jennifer S PotterUniversity of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas.
Jack D BlaineThe EMMES Corporation, Rockville, Maryland.
UCLA Health · USEmmes (United States) · USAIDS Clinical Trials Group · USNational Centre for Clinical Research on Emerging Drugs · AUThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · USVA Puget Sound Health Care System · US

Funding

CLINICAL TRIALS NETWORK: PACIFIC NORTHWEST NODEU10DA013714 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DONOVAN, DENNIS MICHAEL, ROLL, JOHN M. · 2001 to 2015
$25.5M
NIDA NIH HHS 5 U10 DA013714-08NIDA NIH HHS U10 DA013714
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesInduction is a crucial period of opioid addiction treatment. This study aimed to identify buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) induction patterns and examine their association with outcomes (opioid use, retention, and related adverse events [AEs]).

methodsThe secondary analysis of a study of opioid-dependent adults seeking treatment in eight treatment settings included 740 participants inducted on BUP with flexible dosing.

resultsLatent class analysis models detected six distinctive induction trajectories: bup1-started and remained on low; bup2-started low, shifted slowly to moderate; bup3-started low, shifted quickly to moderate; bup4-started high, shifted to low; bup5-started and remained on moderate; bup6-started moderate, shifted to high dose (Fig. 1). Baseline characteristics, including Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS), were important predictors of retention. When controlled for the baseline characteristics, bup6 participants were three times less likely to drop out the first 7 days than bup1 participants (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = .28, p = .03). Opioid use and AEs were similar across trajectories. Participants on ≥16 mg BUP compared to those on <16 mg at Day 28 were less likely to drop out (aHR = .013, p = .001) and less likely to have AEs during the first 28 days (aOR = .57, p = .03). DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsBUP induction dosing was guided by an objective measure of opioid withdrawal. Participants with higher baseline COWS whose BUP doses were raised more quickly were less likely to drop out in the first 7 days than those whose doses were raised slower. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This study supports the use of an objective measure of opioid withdrawal (COWS) during BUP induction to improve retention early in treatment.

Indexed as

AdultBuprenorphine, Naloxone Drug CombinationDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleHumansMaleNarcotic AntagonistsOpioid-Related DisordersPatient DropoutsTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultBuprenorphine, Naloxone Drug CombinationNarcotic Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID26400835
PMCPMC5322942
OpenAlexW2168594794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.