Buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone effectiveness for reducing craving in individuals with prescription opioid use disorder: Exploratory results from an open-label, pragmatic randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Craving reduction is an important target in the treatment of prescription-type opioid use disorder (POUD). In this exploratory analysis, we compared the effectiveness of BUP/NX flexible model of care relative to methadone for craving reduction in individuals with POUD. METHODS: We analyzed data from a multicentric, pragmatic, 24-week open-label randomized controlled trial conducted in participants with POUD (N = 272) who were randomly assigned to BUP/NX model of care with flexible take-home dosing (n = 138) or the standard model of care with closely supervised methadone (n = 134). Treatments were prescribed and administered according to local guidelines, in diverse clinical settings. Craving was measured using the Brief Substance Craving Scale at baseline, week 2, 6, 10, 14, 18 and 22. RESULTS: Cravings decreased in both treatment groups over 22 weeks (BUP/NX adjusted mean difference = -5.52, 95% CI = -6.91 to -4.13; methadone adjusted mean difference = -3.95, 95% CI = -5.28 to -2.63; p < 0.001), and were overall lower in the BUP/NX group (adjusted mean = 4.04, 95% CI = 3.43-4.64) than the methadone group (adjusted mean = 5.13, 95% CI = 4.51-5.74; p < 0.001). The time by treatment group interaction (favoring BUP/NX) was statistically significant at week 2 (adjusted mean difference = -1.58, 95% CI = -3.13 to -0.03; p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the standard methadone model of care, flexible take-home dosing of BUP/NX was associated with lower craving in individuals with POUD. These findings can contribute to guiding shared decision-making regarding OAT treatment in this population.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".