A randomized trial of buprenorphine maintenance for heroin dependence in a primary care clinic for substance users versus a methadone clinic
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: Buprenorphine is an alternative to methadone for the maintenance treatment of heroine dependence and may be effective on a thrice weekly basis. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of thrice weekly buprenorphine maintenance for the treatment of heroin dependence in a primary care clinic on retention in treatment and illicit opioid use. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Opioid-dependent patients were randomly assigned to receive thrice weekly buprenorphine maintenance in a primary care clinic that was affiliated with a drug treatment program (n = 23) or in a traditional drug treatment program (n = 23) in a 12-week clinical trial. Primary outcomes were retention in treatment and urine toxicology for opioids; secondary outcomes were opioid withdrawal symptoms and toxicology for cocaine. RESULTS: Retention during the 12-week study was higher in the primary care setting (78%, 18 of 23) than in the drug treatment setting (52%, 12 of 23; P = 0.06). Patients admitted to primary care had lower rates of opioid use based on overall urine toxicology (63% versus 85%, P < 0.01) and were more likely to achieve 3 or more consecutive weeks of abstinence (43% versus 13%, P = 0.02). Cocaine use was similar in both settings. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine maintenance is an effective treatment for heroin dependence in a primary care setting.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment has demonstrated efficacy.
“This paucity of research is particularly noteworthy given the increasing availability and demonstrated efficacy of office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment.5–7”
From Patient Satisfaction with Primary Care Office-Based Buprenorphine/Naloxone Treatment (2007) · cites this paper as [7]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 174
- Authors
- O’Connor, P., Oliveto, A., Shi, J., Triffleman, E., Carroll, K., Kosten, T., Rounsaville, B., Pakes, J., & Schottenfeld, R.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Venue
- The American Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1998-08
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 100-105
- ISSN
- 0002-9343 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087280110
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 11.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The American Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r18da006963-05)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (5-R18-DA06963)
- 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
- buprenorphine maintenance, heroin addiction, opioid use disorder, primary care, methadone, treatment retention, opioid withdrawal symptoms, cocaine use, urine toxicology, opioid abstinence
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Buprenorphine, Cocaine, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Heroin Dependence, Humans, Male, Narcotic Antagonists, Patient Dropouts, Primary Health Care, United States, Chi-Square Distribution, Treatment Outcome, Statistics, Nonparametric, Substance-Related Disorders
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