Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32068247›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020

Dihydrocodeine for detoxification and maintenance treatment in individuals with opiate use disorders.

Tara Carney, Marie Claire Van Hout, Ian Norman, Siphokazi Dada, Nandi Siegfried, Charles Dh Parry

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tara CarneySouth African Medical Research Council, Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Research Unit, Francie Van Zijl Drive, Tygerberg, Western Cape, South Africa, 7505.
Marie Claire Van HoutLiverpool John Moores University, Public Health Institute, 2nd Floor Henry Cotton Campus, 15-21 Webster Street, Liverpool, UK, L32ET.
Ian NormanKing's College London, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, James Clerk Maxwell Building , Waterloo Road, London, UK, SE1 8WA.
Siphokazi DadaSouth African Medical Research Council, Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Research Unit, Francie Van Zijl Drive, Tygerberg, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa, 7505.
Nandi SiegfriedSouth African Medical Research Council, Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Research Unit, Francie Van Zijl Drive, Tygerberg, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa, 7505.
Charles Dh ParrySouth African Medical Research Council, Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Research Unit, Francie Van Zijl Drive, Tygerberg, Western Cape, South Africa, 7505.
South African Medical Research Council · ZAKing's College London · GBLiverpool John Moores University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical treatment and detoxification from opiate disorders includes oral administration of opioid agonists. Dihydrocodeine (DHC) substitution treatment is typically low threshold and therefore has the capacity to reach wider groups of opiate users. Decisions to prescribe DHC to patients with less severe opiate disorders centre on its perceived safety, reduced toxicity, shorter half-life and more rapid onset of action, and potential retention of patients. This review set out to investigate the effects of DHC in comparison to other pharmaceutical opioids and placebos in the detoxification and substitution of individuals with opiate use disorders.

objectivesTo investigate the effectiveness of DHC in reducing illicit opiate use and other health-related outcomes among adults compared to other drugs or placebos used for detoxification or substitution therapy. SEARCH

methodsIn February 2019 we searched Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Trialsjournal.com. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effect of DHC for detoxification and maintenance substitution therapy for adolescent (aged 15 years and older) and adult illicit opiate users. The primary outcomes were abstinence from illicit opiate use following detoxification or maintenance therapy measured by self-report or urinalysis. The secondary outcomes were treatment retention and other health and behaviour outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures that are outlined by Cochrane. This includes the GRADE approach to appraise the quality of evidence. MAIN

resultsWe included three trials (in five articles) with 385 opiate-using participants that measured outcomes at different follow-up periods in this review. Two studies with 150 individuals compared DHC with buprenorphine for detoxification, and one study with 235 participants compared DHC to methadone for maintenance substitution therapy. We downgraded the quality of evidence mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision. For the two studies that compared DHC to buprenorphine, we found low-quality evidence of no significant difference between DHC and buprenorphine for detoxification at six-month follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.39; P = 0.23) in the meta-analysis for the primary outcome of abstinence from illicit opiates. Similarly, low-quality evidence indicated no difference for treatment retention (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.68; P = 0.06). In the single trial that compared DHC to methadone for maintenance substitution therapy, the evidence was also of low quality, and there may be no difference in effects between DHC and methadone for reported abstinence from illicit opiates (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.29). For treatment retention at six months' follow-up in this single trial, the RR calculated with an intention-to-treat analysis also indicated that there may be no difference between DHC and methadone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16). The studies that compared DHC to buprenorphine reported no serious adverse events, while the DHC versus methadone study reported one death due to methadone overdose. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe found low-quality evidence that DHC may be no more effective than other commonly used pharmacological interventions in reducing illicit opiate use. It is therefore premature to make any conclusive statements about the effectiveness of DHC, and it is suggested that further high-quality studies are conducted, especially in low- to middle-income countries.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidCodeineHumansMaintenance ChemotherapyOpiate Substitution TreatmentOpioid-Related DisordersRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnalgesics, OpioidCodeinedihydrocodeine

Identifiers

PMID32068247
PMCPMC7027221
OpenAlexW3007756313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.