Cargando…

Retention in opioid agonist treatment: a rapid review and meta-analysis comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Although oral opioid agonist therapies (OATs), buprenorphine and methadone, are effective first-line treatments, OAT remains largely underutilized due to low retention rates and wide variation across programs. This rapid review therefore sought to summarize the retention rates reported b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Klimas, Jan, Hamilton, Michee-Ana, Gorfinkel, Lauren, Adam, Ahmed, Cullen, Walter, Wood, Evan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8348786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34362464
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01764-9
_version_ 1783735428063428608
author Klimas, Jan
Hamilton, Michee-Ana
Gorfinkel, Lauren
Adam, Ahmed
Cullen, Walter
Wood, Evan
author_facet Klimas, Jan
Hamilton, Michee-Ana
Gorfinkel, Lauren
Adam, Ahmed
Cullen, Walter
Wood, Evan
author_sort Klimas, Jan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although oral opioid agonist therapies (OATs), buprenorphine and methadone, are effective first-line treatments, OAT remains largely underutilized due to low retention rates and wide variation across programs. This rapid review therefore sought to summarize the retention rates reported by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational study designs that compared methadone to buprenorphine (or buprenorphine-naloxone). METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, up to April 2018) for RCTs and controlled observational studies that compared oral fixed-dose methadone to buprenorphine versus methadone (or buprenorphine-naloxone). Data were extracted separately for two different definitions of retention in treatment: (1) length of time retained in the study and (2) presence on the final day of a study. Separate random effects meta-analyses were performed for RCTs and controlled observational studies. Data from controlled observational studies where retention was measured as the length of time retained in the study were not amenable to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Among 7603 studies reviewed, 10 RCTs and 3 observational studies met inclusion criteria (n = 5065) and compared fixed-dose oral buprenorphine with methadone. Across studies, the average retention rate was highly variable (RCTs: buprenorphine 20.0–82.5% and methadone 30.7–83.8%; observational studies: buprenorphine 20.2–78.3% and methadone 48.3–74.8%). For time period retained in the study, we observed no significant difference in treatment retention for buprenorphine versus methadone in RCTs (standardized mean difference [SMD] =  − 0.07; 95% CI − 0.35–0.21, p = 0.63; quality of evidence: low). For presence on the final study day, we observed no significant difference between buprenorphine and methadone treatment retention in RCTs (risk ratio [RR] = 0.89; 95% CI 0.73–1.08, p = 0.24; quality of evidence: low) and controlled observational studies (RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.36–1.58, p = 0.45). CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of existing RCTs suggests retention in oral fixed-dose opioid agonist therapy with methadone appears to be generally equal to buprenorphine (or buprenorphine-naloxone), with wide variation across studies. Similarly, a meta-analysis of three controlled observational studies indicated no difference in treatment retention although there was significant heterogeneity among the included studies. The length of follow-up did not appear to affect the retention rate. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018104452. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-021-01764-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8348786
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83487862021-08-09 Retention in opioid agonist treatment: a rapid review and meta-analysis comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials Klimas, Jan Hamilton, Michee-Ana Gorfinkel, Lauren Adam, Ahmed Cullen, Walter Wood, Evan Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Although oral opioid agonist therapies (OATs), buprenorphine and methadone, are effective first-line treatments, OAT remains largely underutilized due to low retention rates and wide variation across programs. This rapid review therefore sought to summarize the retention rates reported by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational study designs that compared methadone to buprenorphine (or buprenorphine-naloxone). METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, up to April 2018) for RCTs and controlled observational studies that compared oral fixed-dose methadone to buprenorphine versus methadone (or buprenorphine-naloxone). Data were extracted separately for two different definitions of retention in treatment: (1) length of time retained in the study and (2) presence on the final day of a study. Separate random effects meta-analyses were performed for RCTs and controlled observational studies. Data from controlled observational studies where retention was measured as the length of time retained in the study were not amenable to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Among 7603 studies reviewed, 10 RCTs and 3 observational studies met inclusion criteria (n = 5065) and compared fixed-dose oral buprenorphine with methadone. Across studies, the average retention rate was highly variable (RCTs: buprenorphine 20.0–82.5% and methadone 30.7–83.8%; observational studies: buprenorphine 20.2–78.3% and methadone 48.3–74.8%). For time period retained in the study, we observed no significant difference in treatment retention for buprenorphine versus methadone in RCTs (standardized mean difference [SMD] =  − 0.07; 95% CI − 0.35–0.21, p = 0.63; quality of evidence: low). For presence on the final study day, we observed no significant difference between buprenorphine and methadone treatment retention in RCTs (risk ratio [RR] = 0.89; 95% CI 0.73–1.08, p = 0.24; quality of evidence: low) and controlled observational studies (RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.36–1.58, p = 0.45). CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of existing RCTs suggests retention in oral fixed-dose opioid agonist therapy with methadone appears to be generally equal to buprenorphine (or buprenorphine-naloxone), with wide variation across studies. Similarly, a meta-analysis of three controlled observational studies indicated no difference in treatment retention although there was significant heterogeneity among the included studies. The length of follow-up did not appear to affect the retention rate. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018104452. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-021-01764-9. BioMed Central 2021-08-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8348786/ /pubmed/34362464 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01764-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Klimas, Jan
Hamilton, Michee-Ana
Gorfinkel, Lauren
Adam, Ahmed
Cullen, Walter
Wood, Evan
Retention in opioid agonist treatment: a rapid review and meta-analysis comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials
title Retention in opioid agonist treatment: a rapid review and meta-analysis comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials
title_full Retention in opioid agonist treatment: a rapid review and meta-analysis comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Retention in opioid agonist treatment: a rapid review and meta-analysis comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Retention in opioid agonist treatment: a rapid review and meta-analysis comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials
title_short Retention in opioid agonist treatment: a rapid review and meta-analysis comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials
title_sort retention in opioid agonist treatment: a rapid review and meta-analysis comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8348786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34362464
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01764-9
work_keys_str_mv AT klimasjan retentioninopioidagonisttreatmentarapidreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingobservationalstudiesandrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT hamiltonmicheeana retentioninopioidagonisttreatmentarapidreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingobservationalstudiesandrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT gorfinkellauren retentioninopioidagonisttreatmentarapidreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingobservationalstudiesandrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT adamahmed retentioninopioidagonisttreatmentarapidreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingobservationalstudiesandrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT cullenwalter retentioninopioidagonisttreatmentarapidreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingobservationalstudiesandrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT woodevan retentioninopioidagonisttreatmentarapidreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingobservationalstudiesandrandomizedcontrolledtrials