Opium tincture versus methadone for opioid agonist treatment: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To test if opium tincture (OT) was non-inferior to methadone in retaining participants in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). DESIGN: A Phase III, multi-centre, parallel-group, non-inferiority, double-blind randomized controlled trial with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Participants were provided treatment and followed for a period of 85 days. SETTING: Four OAT clinics in Iran. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and four participants with opioid use disorder [mean age (standard deviation) = 37.4 (9.3); female 11.3%] recruited between July 2017 and January 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were assigned to either OT (102) or methadone (102) using a patient-centred flexible dosing strategy. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment retention over 85 days was the primary outcome. Self-reported opioid use outside treatment and occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were the secondary outcomes. FINDINGS: Remaining in treatment at the end of the follow-up were 68.6% in the methadone arm and 59.8% in the OT arm. The relative retention rate of methadone to OT was 1.15 (0.97, 1.36) in both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses; non-inferiority was not supported statistically, as the upper bound of the confidence interval exceeded our pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.25). Opioid use outside treatment was reported by 30.3% of OT (n = 152) and 49.4% of methadone (n = 168) patients, a difference in proportions of -19%: 90% confidence interval (-28%, -10%). The total count of AEs in the OT arm (22 among nine individuals) was significantly higher (P = 0.04) than that in the methadone arm (three among two individuals). Nausea was the most common side effect. CONCLUSION: While this study could not conclude the non-inferiority of opium tincture (OT) to methadone for retaining patients in opioid agonist treatment, OT retained 60% of participants to end of follow-up (85 days) and was superior to methadone in reducing self-reported opioid use outside treatment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".