Cited by 55Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPain Management and Opioid Use

Slow tapering from methadone maintenance in a program encouraging indefinite maintenance

Calsyn, Donald A., Malcy, Jason A., Saxon, Andrew J.·2006·Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

Abstract

Longitudinal studies have indicated that most opioid agonist-using patients are not able to successfully complete tapering attempts. Little is known, however, about tapering within a treatment environment that is supportive of indefinite agonist treatment and medication tapering. In this study, all records of patients beginning a slow methadone taper were reviewed (N = 30). No patient successfully completed methadone tapering. Four patients (13.3%) successfully switched to buprenorphine/naloxone, one of whom tapered off buprenorphine/naloxone. Three patients (10%) were continuing their taper at the study's end. One patient transferred to another program, one was administratively discharged, and one had his taper stopped for mishandling doses. The remaining patients (n = 20, 66.7%) stopped their tapers for the following reasons: feeling unstable/withdrawal symptoms (n = 4, 13.3%), drug use/positive urinalysis results (n = 12, 40%), psychiatric instability (n = 3, 10%), and pain management (n = 1, 3.3%). Only one patient prematurely left treatment secondary to a failed taper attempt. Patients attempting tapers should be informed about the difficulty involved and be monitored closely for signs of instability. For a few patients, a taper to a lower methadone dose and a switch to buprenorphine/naloxone are obtainable. Program policies that support both tapering attempts and indefinite maintenance are described in this article.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jsat.2005.11.007

Cites

12 of 12 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Calsyn, D. A., Malcy, J. A., & Saxon, A. J.
Affiliations
  • VA Puget Sound Health Care System (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-03
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
159-163
ISSN
0740-5472 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031007413
Cited by
55
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington
  • Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
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 › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
opioid use disorder, opioid substitution therapy, buprenorphine/naloxone, treatment retention, withdrawal symptoms, relapse, medication-assisted treatment
MeSH terms
Adult, Buprenorphine, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Heroin Dependence, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Methadone, Middle Aged, Naloxone, Narcotic Antagonists, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Program Development

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