Cited by 455Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPain Management and Opioid Use

Treatment retention among patients randomized to buprenorphine/naloxone compared to methadone in a multi-site trial

Open access
Hser, Yih‐Ing, Saxon, Andrew J., Huang, David, Hasson, Al, Thomas, Christie, Hillhouse, Maureen, Jacobs, Petra, Teruya, Cheryl +4 more·2014·Addiction

Abstract

Aims: To examine patient and medication characteristics associated with retention and continued illicit opioid use in methadone (MET) versus buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) treatment for opioid dependence. Design, settings and participants: This secondary analysis included 1267 opioid‐dependent individuals participating in nine opioid treatment programs between 2006 and 2009 and randomized to receive open‐label BUP or MET for 24 weeks. Measurements: The analyses included measures of patient characteristics at baseline (demographics; use of alcohol, cigarettes and illicit drugs; self‐rated mental and physical health), medication dose and urine drug screens during treatment, and treatment completion and days in treatment during the 24‐week trial. Findings: The treatment completion rate was 74% for MET versus 46% for BUP(P < 0.01); the rate among MET participants increased to 80% when the maximum MET dose reached or exceeded 60 mg/day. With BUP, the completion rate increased linearly with higher doses, reaching 60% with doses of 30–32 mg/day. Of those remaining in treatment, positive opioid urine results were significantly lower [odds ratio (OR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.52–0.76,P < 0.01] among BUP relative to MET participants during the first 9 weeks of treatment. Higher medication dose was related to lower opiate use, more so among BUP patients. A Cox proportional hazards model revealed factors associated with dropout: (i)BUP[versus MET, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.61,CI = 1.20–2.15], (ii) lower medication dose (<16 mg for BUP, <60 mg for MET;HR = 3.09,CI = 2.19–4.37), (iii) the interaction of dose and treatment condition (those with higher BUP dose were 1.04 times more likely to drop out than those with lower MET dose, and (iv) being younger, Hispanic and using heroin or other substances during treatment. Conclusions: Provision of methadone appears to be associated with better retention in treatment for opioid dependence than buprenorphine, as does use of provision of higher doses of both medications. Provision of buprenorphine is associated with lower continued use of illicit opioids.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.12333

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hser, Y., Saxon, A. J., Huang, D., Hasson, A., Thomas, C., Hillhouse, M., Jacobs, P., Teruya, C., McLaughlin, P., Wiest, K., Cohen, A., & Ling, W.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • VA Puget Sound Health Care System (US)
  • University of California Los Angeles CA USA
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (US)
  • Hartford Dispensary CT USA
  • CODA, Inc. OR USA
  • Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment CA USA
Corresponding author
Hser, Yih‐Ing
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-10-09
Volume
109
Issue
1
Pages
79-87
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2149717129
Cited by
455
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 3
FWCI
18.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p30da016383-10)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P30-DA016383, U10 U10DA13045, U10DA013045, K05DA017648)
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
treatment retention, opioid use disorder, buprenorphine/naloxone, methadone maintenance treatment, treatment discontinuation, illicit opioid use, medication dose, opioid treatment programs, heroin use, urine drug testing, patient characteristics, treatment completion, opioid substitution therapy, Hispanic patients, young patients, alcohol and tobacco use, physical and mental health
MeSH terms
Buprenorphine, Naloxone Drug Combination, Adolescent, Adult, Analgesics, Opioid, Buprenorphine, Female, Humans, Male, Methadone, Middle Aged, Naloxone, Narcotic Antagonists, Opioid-Related Disorders, Treatment Outcome, Drug Monitoring, Young Adult, Opiate Substitution Treatment

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