Contribution of BDNF and DRD2 genetic polymorphisms to continued opioid use in patients receiving methadone treatment for opioid use disorder: an observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The heritability of opioid use disorder has been widely investigated; however, the influence of specific genes on methadone treatment outcomes is not well understood. The association between response to methadone treatment and genes that are involved in substance use behaviors and reward mechanisms is poorly understood, despite evidence suggesting their contribution to opioid use disorder. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and dopamine receptor D2 (DRD2) polymorphisms on continued opioid use among patients on methadone treatment for opioid use disorder. METHODS: BDNF 196G>A (rs6265) and DRD2-241A>G (rs1799978) genetic variants were examined in patients with opioid use disorder who were recruited from methadone treatment clinics across Southern Ontario, Canada. We collected demographic information, substance use history, blood for genetic analysis, and urine to measure opioid use. We used regression analysis to examine the association between continued opioid use and genetic variants, adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, methadone dose, duration in treatment, and number of urine screens. RESULTS: Among 240 patients treated with methadone for opioid use disorder, 36.3 percent (n = 87) and 11.3 percent (n = 27) had at least one risk allele for rs6265 and rs1799978, respectively. These genetic variants were not significantly associated with continued opioid use while on methadone maintenance treatment [rs6265: odds ratio (OR) = 1.37, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.792, 2.371, p = 0.264; rs1799978: OR 1.27, 95 % CI 0.511, 3.182, p = 0.603]. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an association of BDNF rs6265 and DRD2 rs1799978 with addictive behaviors, these variants were not associated with continued illicit opioid use in patients treated with methadone. Problematic use of opioids throughout treatment with methadone may be attributed to nongenetic factors or a polygenic effect requiring further exploration. Additional research should focus on investigating these findings in larger samples and different populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".