A prospective cohort study on orally administered heroin substitution for severely addicted opioid users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of orally administered heroin [diacetylmorphine (DAM)] tablets in substitution treatment of severely addicted opioid users. DESIGN: An open-label, prospective cohort study with two non-randomly assigned treatment arms and historical controls: DAM tablets only versus DAM tablets combined with injected DAM and/or other opioids, with an observation period of 1 year. SETTING: Twenty-one out-patient treatment centres of the Swiss heroin-assisted treatment programme. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 128 patients received DAM tablets only, and 237 patients received a combination of orally and intravenously applied DAM and other opioids. MEASUREMENTS: Retention rate after 1 year; number of serious adverse events; dosage of DAM over time; subjective tolerance of study medication. FINDINGS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, 1-year retention rates after 1 year in the DAM tablets-only group [0.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.735-0.873] as well as in the subgroup combining oral application of DAM with intravenous application or other opioids (0.843, 95% CI = 0.797-0.889) were higher compared to historical controls (Swiss cohort of patients who had been substituted intravenously with DAM; 1-year retention rate = 0.70). Rates of serious adverse events under study medication (tablets only = 0.038 per application year; tablets in combination = 0.028 per application year) were comparable to the historical rate of the Swiss heroin-assisted treatment (0.043). CONCLUSIONS: DAM tablets seem to be an effective and safe application mode of heroin-assisted substitution treatment. Randomized clinical trials to compare its relative efficacy to other substances are necessary.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".