Cited by 288Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

Mortality prior to, during and after opioid maintenance treatment (OMT): A national prospective cross-registry study

Clausen, Thomas, Anchersen, Katinka, Waal, Helge·2008·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract

Background Opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) is generally considered to reduce mortality in opiate dependents. However, the level of mortality reduction is still uncertain. This study investigates mortality reductions in an "intention-to-treat" perspective including all dropouts. The mortality reducing effects of OMT are examined both within treatment and post-treatment. The study separates overdose and total mortality reductions.Methods The study is a prospective cross-registry study with up to 7 years follow-up. All opiate dependents in Norway who applied for OMT (a total of 3789 subjects) were cross-linked with data from the death registry from Statistics Norway. Date and cause of death were crossed with dates for initiation and termination of OMT, and subjects' age and gender. A baseline was established from the waiting list mortality rate. Intention-to-treat was investigated by analysing mortality among the entire population that started OMT.Results Mortality in treatment was reduced to RR 0.5 (relative risk) compared with pre-treatment. In the "intention-to-treat" perspective, the mortality risk was reduced to RR 0.6 compared with pre-treatment. The patients who left the treatment programme showed a high-mortality rate, particularly males.Conclusions OMT significantly reduces risk of mortality also when examined in an intention-to-treat perspective. Studies that evaluate effects of OMT only in patients retained in treatment tend to overestimate benefits. Levels of overdose mortality will influence the risk reduction. Cross-registry studies as the current one are an important supplement to other observational designs in this field.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.11.003

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clausen, T., Anchersen, K., & Waal, H.
Affiliations
University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Clausen, Thomas
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-04
Volume
94
Issue
1-3
Pages
151-157
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032728846
Cited by
287
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 14
FWCI
14.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Keywords
opioid maintenance treatment, opioid use disorder, mortality reduction, drug overdose deaths, intention-to-treat analysis, treatment discontinuation
MeSH terms
Adult, Buprenorphine, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Methadone, Opioid-Related Disorders, Narcotics, Prospective Studies, Registries, Time Factors, Drug Overdose

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review