Cited by 174Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPain Management and Opioid Use

A randomized trial of buprenorphine maintenance for heroin dependence in a primary care clinic for substance users versus a methadone clinic

Open access
O’Connor, PatrickG, Oliveto, AlisonH, Shi, JuliaM, Triffleman, ElisaG, Carroll, KathleenM, Kosten, ThomasR, Rounsaville, BruceJ, Pakes, JulianaA +1 more·1998·The American Journal of Medicine

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/s0002-9343(98)00194-6

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

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
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