Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38045803›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2023

Superiority and cost-effectiveness of monthly extended-release buprenorphine versus daily standard of care medication: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

John Marsden, Mike Kelleher, Eilish Gilvarry, Luke Mitcheson, Jatinder Bisla, Angela Cape, Fiona Cowden, Edward Day, Jonathan Dewhurst, Rachel Evans and 13 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05164549 (Extended-release Pharmacotherapy for Opioid Use Disorder), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05164549 phase3completednot on this map

Extended-release Pharmacotherapy for Opioid Use Disorder (EXPO): Protocol for an Open-label Randomised Controlled Trial of Injectable Maintenance Buprenorphine With Personalised Psychosocial Intervention.

TypeinterventionalSponsorKing's College LondonRan2019 to 2023Enrolled342ConditionsOpiate Substitution TreatmentArmsBuprenorphine Injectable Product, Methadone, Buprenorphine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Cost per Opioid-Free Year: A Systematic Review and Summary Analysis.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A systematic approach to develop and characterize a compositionally equivalent buprenorphine in situ forming implant (Sublocade®).Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. The Socioeconomic Impact of Long-Acting Injectable Buprenorphine.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

23 authors.

John MarsdenAddictions Department, School of Academic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Mike KelleherAddictions Department, School of Academic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Eilish GilvarryCumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Addictions Service, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Luke MitchesonAddictions Department, School of Academic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Jatinder BislaKing's Clinical Trials Unit, Research Management and Innovation Directorate, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Angela CapeKing's Clinical Trials Unit, Research Management and Innovation Directorate, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Fiona CowdenNHS Tayside and Dundee Health and Social Care Partnership, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Edward DayBirmingham and Solihull Mental Health, NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Jonathan DewhurstAddictions Division, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Rachel EvansSchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Wales, United Kingdom.
Will HardyClinic for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Wales, United Kingdom.
Andrea HearnCumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Addictions Service, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Joanna KellyKing's Clinical Trials Unit, Research Management and Innovation Directorate, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Natalie LowryAddictions Department, School of Academic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Martin McCuskerLambeth Service User Council, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Caroline MurphyKing's Clinical Trials Unit, Research Management and Innovation Directorate, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Robert MurrayCumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Addictions Service, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Tracey MytonAddictions Division, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Sophie QuarshieCumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Addictions Service, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Rob VanderwaalSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
April WarehamPatient and Public Involvement and Engagement Representative, United Kingdom.
Dyfrig HughesClinic for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Wales, United Kingdom.
Zoë HoareSchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Wales, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Daily methadone maintenance or buprenorphine treatment is the standard-of-care (SoC) medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Subcutaneously injected, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) may be more effective-but there has been no superiority evaluation. Methods: This pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness superiority randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at five National Health Service community-based treatment clinics in England and Scotland. Participants (adults aged ≥ 18 years; all meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe OUD at admission to their current maintenance treatment episode) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continued daily SoC (liquid methadone (usual dose range: 60-120 mg) or sublingual/transmucosal buprenorphine (usual dose range: 8-24 mg) for 24 weeks; or monthly BUP-XR (Sublocade;® two injections of 300 mg, then four maintenance injections of 100 mg or 300 mg, with maintenance dose selected by response and preference) for 24 weeks. In the intent-to-treat population (senior statistician blinded to blinded to treatment group allocation), and with a seven-day grace period after randomisation, the primary endpoint was the count of days abstinent from non-medical opioids between days 8-168 (i.e., weeks 2-24; range: 0-161 days). Safety was reported for the intention-to- treat population. Adopting a broad societal perspective inclusive of criminal justice, NHS and personal social service costs, a trial-based cost-utility analysis estimated the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of BUP-XR versus SoC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The study was registered EudraCT (2018-004460-63) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05164549), and is completed. Findings: Between Aug 9, 2019 and Nov 2, 2021, 314 participants were randomly allocated to receive SoC (n = 156) or BUP-XR (n = 158). Participants were abstinent from opioids for an adjusted mean of 104.37 days (standard error [SE] 9.89; range: 0-161 days) in the SoC group and an adjusted mean of 123.43 days (SE 4.76; range: 24-161 days) in the BUP-XR group (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.33; p-value 0.004). The incidence of any adverse event was higher in the BUP-XR group than the SoC group (128 [81.0%] of 158 participants versus 67 [42.9%] of 156 participants, respectively-most commonly rapidly-resolving (mild-moderate range) pain from drug administration in the BUP-XR group (121 [26.9%] of 450 adverse events). There were 11 serious adverse events (7.0%) in the 158 participants in the BUP-XR group, and 18 serious adverse events (11.5%) in the 156 participants in the SoC group-none judged to be related to study treatment. The BUP-XR treatment group had a mean incremental cost of £1033 (95% central range [CR] -1189 to 3225) and was associated with a mean incremental QALY of 0.02 (95% CR 0.00-0.05), and an ICER of £47,540 (0.37 probability of being cost-effective at the £30,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold). However, BUP-XR dominated the SoC among participants who were rated more severe at study baseline, and among participants in maintenance treatment for more that 28 days at study enrolment. Interpretation: Evaluated against the daily oral SoC, monthly BUP-XR is clinically superior, delivering greater abstinence from opioids, and with a comparable safety profile. BUP-XR was not cost-effective in a base case cost-utility analysis using the societal perspective, but it was more effective and less costly (dominant) among participants with more severe OUD, or those whose current treatment episode was longer than 28 days. Further trials are needed to evaluate if BUP-XR is associated with better clinical and health economic outcomes over the longer term. Funding: Indivior.

Indexed as

Cost-effectivenessEffectivenessExtended-release buprenorphineOpioid use disorderStandard of care

Identifiers

PMID38045803
PMCPMC10692661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.