ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Comparative effectiveness of extended release naltrexone and sublingual buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder among Medicaid patients.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: To compare the real-world effectiveness of extended release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BUP) for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Design: An observational active comparator, new user cohort study. Setting: Medicaid claims records for patients in New Jersey and California, 2016-2019. Participants/Cases: Adult Medicaid patients aged 18-64 years who initiated XR-NTX or SL-BUP for maintenance treatment of OUD and did not use medications for OUD in the 90-days before initiation. Comparators: New initiation with XR-NTX versus SL-BUP for the treatment of OUD. Measurements: We examined two outcomes up to 180 days after medication initiation, 1) composite of medication discontinuation and death, and 2) composite of overdose and death. Findings: Our cohort included 1,755 XR-NTX and 9,886 SL-BUP patients. In adjusted analyses, treatment with XR-NTX was more likely to result in discontinuation or death by the end of follow-up than treatment with SL-BUP: cumulative risk 76% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75%, 78%) versus 62% (95% CI 61%, 63%), respectively (risk difference 14 percentage points, 95% CI 13, 16). There was minimal difference in the cumulative risk of overdose or death by the end of follow-up: XR-NTX 3.8% (95% CI 2.9%, 4.7%) versus SL-BUP 3.3% (95% 2.9%, 3.7%); risk difference 0.5 percentage points, 95%CI -0.5, 1.5. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Longer medication retention is important because risks of negative outcomes are elevated after discontinuation. Our results support selection of SL-BUP over XR-NTX. However, most patients discontinued medication by 6 months indicating that more effective tools are needed to improve medication retention, particularly after initiation with XR-NTX, and to identify which patients do best on which medication.
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.