Prevalence of stimulant use and the role of opioid agonist treatment among people who inject drugs in France: Results from the <scp>COSINUS</scp> cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The co-use of stimulants and opioids, including opioid agonist treatment (OAT), is very prevalent worldwide. A large body of data exists on the association between stimulant use and its health complications, and on OAT effectiveness among people with opioid use disorder. However, few data exist on stimulant-opioid co-use among people receiving OAT. Using data from the COSINUS cohort study, we investigated the association between the type of OAT and problematic stimulant use among persons who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS: COSINUS is a 12-month French cohort study of 665 PWID. Data were collected in face-to-face interviews at enrolment, at 6 and 12 months. We defined problematic stimulant use as daily use of and/or injecting stimulants. We used Bayesian model averaging (BMA) to identify factors associated with problematic stimulant use. RESULTS: At baseline, 76% (n = 505) of the participants reported problematic stimulant use. The optimal model from the BMA estimation showed that, after adjusting on social precarity and daily injection, participants on prescribed morphine sulfate as an OAT (compared with methadone) and those who use daily unprescribed buprenorphine were less likely to report problematic stimulant use. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our work highlights the high prevalence of problematic stimulant use among PWID in France but also the potential association between the type of OAT taken and stimulant use, by suggesting a protective effect of morphine sulfate on stimulant use. Since it has a higher intrinsic activity than other opioids, PWID on this OAT may be less interested in stimulants. Our findings warrant further investigation in clinical studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".