Comparative Effectiveness of Buprenorphine/Naloxone and Methadone on Methamphetamine/Amphetamine Use Among People with Opioid Use Disorder in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It has been suggested that opioid agonist therapy (OAT) may have a secondary benefit of reducing methamphetamine/amphetamine use. However, current evidence is limited and conflicting, and little is known on the impacts of different OATs on methamphetamine/amphetamine use. The aim of this study was to examine the comparative effectiveness of buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone on methamphetamine/amphetamine use among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) initiating OAT in Canada. Methods: Data for this study were derived from a 24-week pan-Canadian pragmatic trial conducted between 2017 and 2020 comparing supervised methadone versus flexible take-home dosing buprenorphine/naloxone models of care among OUD. Generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate the independent effect of treatment (ie, methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone) and time in treatment (ie, week 2 through 24, continuous) on methamphetamine/amphetamine use (measured by urine drug test and self-report using Timeline Follow-Back). Results: The sample included 210 participants that initiated OAT, of which 130 (61.9%) were using methamphetamine/amphetamine at baseline. In multivariable analysis, neither treatment nor time in treatment were significantly associated with the odds of methamphetamine/amphetamine use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34-1.08, P = .092; and AOR = 0.73, CI = 0.40-1.28, P = .283, respectively). No interaction between treatment and time in treatment was observed for methamphetamine/amphetamine use ( P = .367). Conclusion: Methamphetamine/amphetamine use was common among this sample of people with OUD initiating OAT in Canada. Over the 24-week study period, buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone were not associated with a quantifiable change in methamphetamine/amphetamine use among this sample population. The observation of less methamphetamine/amphetamine use in the buprenorphine/naloxone arm warrants further research.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".