Abstract
Background: Opioid dependence is associated with substantial health and social burden, and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is highly effective in improving multiple outcomes for people who receive this treatment. Methadone and buprenorphine are two of the most common medications provided as OAT. We aimed to examine buprenorphine maintenance compared to methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence, assessed in RCTs and observational study designs, across multiple primary and secondary outcomes.
Methods: We aligned with GATHER, PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO through August 2022; clinical trial registries, and previous relevant Cochrane reviews were also reviewed. All RCT and observational studies among people with opioid dependence treated with buprenorphine compared to methadone that collected data on retention, adherence or extra-medical opioid use, or a wide range of secondary outcomes, were included. Single arm cohort studies and randomised controlled trials that collected data on buprenorphine retention were also collected. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional data. Data on study, participant and treatment characteristics were extracted; comparative estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Retention across multiple time points was pooled for methadone and buprenorphine. Meta-regressions examined potential reasons for variation in observed effects.
Results: 33 eligible RCTs, N=6,028 participants; 70 observational studies, N=376,664. Retention was better for methadone than buprenorphine, and RCTs had higher retention than observational studies. Of these studies 61 were conducted in Western Europe, 164 in North America, 15 in Middle East/North Africa, 20 in Australasia, 5 in South-East Asa, 7 in South Asia, 5 in Eastern Europe, 2 in Central Europe and 1 in East Asia. There were 291,347 (71.7%) male participants and 114,512 (28.2) female participants with a mean age of 37.8 (26.7 - 54. 7; SD = 5.6). There was no evidence suggesting adherence to treatment differed for buprenorphine compared to methadone. There was some evidence that extra-medical opioid use was lower in those receiving buprenorphine. There was limited evidence of lower levels of cocaine use cravings, anxiety and cardiac risk, and higher levels of treatment satisfaction among people receiving buprenorphine compared to methadone. There was limited evidence of lower levels of hospitalisation and alcohol use in people receiving methadone. There were no differences on other secondary outcomes examined.
Conclusion: Evidence from trials and observational studies suggest that treatment retention is better for methadone than buprenorphine. There was a lack of comparative evidence on many other outcomes examined.
PROSPERO: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=205109
Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
Methods: We aligned with GATHER, PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO through August 2022; clinical trial registries, and previous relevant Cochrane reviews were also reviewed. All RCT and observational studies among people with opioid dependence treated with buprenorphine compared to methadone that collected data on retention, adherence or extra-medical opioid use, or a wide range of secondary outcomes, were included. Single arm cohort studies and randomised controlled trials that collected data on buprenorphine retention were also collected. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional data. Data on study, participant and treatment characteristics were extracted; comparative estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Retention across multiple time points was pooled for methadone and buprenorphine. Meta-regressions examined potential reasons for variation in observed effects.
Results: 33 eligible RCTs, N=6,028 participants; 70 observational studies, N=376,664. Retention was better for methadone than buprenorphine, and RCTs had higher retention than observational studies. Of these studies 61 were conducted in Western Europe, 164 in North America, 15 in Middle East/North Africa, 20 in Australasia, 5 in South-East Asa, 7 in South Asia, 5 in Eastern Europe, 2 in Central Europe and 1 in East Asia. There were 291,347 (71.7%) male participants and 114,512 (28.2) female participants with a mean age of 37.8 (26.7 - 54. 7; SD = 5.6). There was no evidence suggesting adherence to treatment differed for buprenorphine compared to methadone. There was some evidence that extra-medical opioid use was lower in those receiving buprenorphine. There was limited evidence of lower levels of cocaine use cravings, anxiety and cardiac risk, and higher levels of treatment satisfaction among people receiving buprenorphine compared to methadone. There was limited evidence of lower levels of hospitalisation and alcohol use in people receiving methadone. There were no differences on other secondary outcomes examined.
Conclusion: Evidence from trials and observational studies suggest that treatment retention is better for methadone than buprenorphine. There was a lack of comparative evidence on many other outcomes examined.
PROSPERO: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=205109
Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | P386-402 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Lancet Psychiatry |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Early online date | 8 May 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jun 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre is supported by funding from the Australian Government Department of Health under the Drug and Alcohol Program. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Australian Government. LD is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellowship (APP1135991); SN is supported by an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1163961). Work on this review was also supported by the US National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (grant R01AI147490 RFA-AI-18-026) and the ASCEND NHMRC Program (grant APP1150078). MH acknowledges support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at University of Bristol. MH is an NIHR senior investigator and acknowledges support from the NIHR School of Public Health Research and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Bristol. We thank Lucy Tran, Jeyran Shahbazi, Chrianna Bharat, Tom Santo Jr, Sonja Memedovic, and Emily Stockings for their early advice on conceptualisation, search strategies, or screening, advice on analyses, or assistance with producing figures; Ahmed Hassan, Bernard Cerutti, Kathleen McGinnis, Icro Maremmani, Michael Ferri, Kostyantyn Dumchev, Joshua Garfield, Richard Hallinan, Brent Moore, and Bohdan Nosyk for providing additional data to inform this review; Patrizia Carrieri, Thomas Kosten, and Anthony Harris for their clarification and efforts to assist us; and David Fiellin, Paul Haber, Dan Lubman, and Barbara Broers for facilitating access to additional data.
Funding Information:
The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre is supported by funding from the Australian Government Department of Health under the Drug and Alcohol Program. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Australian Government. LD is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellowship (APP1135991); SN is supported by an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1163961). Work on this review was also supported by the US National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (grant R01AI147490 RFA-AI-18-026) and the ASCEND NHMRC Program (grant APP1150078). MH acknowledges support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at University of Bristol. MH is an NIHR senior investigator and acknowledges support from the NIHR School of Public Health Research and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Bristol. We thank Lucy Tran, Jeyran Shahbazi, Chrianna Bharat, Tom Santo Jr, Sonja Memedovic, and Emily Stockings for their early advice on conceptualisation, search strategies, or screening, advice on analyses, or assistance with producing figures; Ahmed Hassan, Bernard Cerutti, Kathleen McGinnis, Icro Maremmani, Michael Ferri, Kostyantyn Dumchev, Joshua Garfield, Richard Hallinan, Brent Moore, and Bohdan Nosyk for providing additional data to inform this review; Patrizia Carrieri, Thomas Kosten, and Anthony Harris for their clarification and efforts to assist us; and David Fiellin, Paul Haber, Dan Lubman, and Barbara Broers for facilitating access to additional data.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Elsevier Ltd
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (accepted manuscript)
This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Elsevier at https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00095-0. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.