Buprenorphine/Naloxone vs Methadone for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Previous studies on the comparative effectiveness between buprenorphine and methadone provided limited evidence on differences in treatment effects across key subgroups and were drawn from populations who use primarily heroin or prescription opioids, although fentanyl use is increasing across North America. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of treatment discontinuation and mortality among individuals receiving buprenorphine/naloxone vs methadone for the treatment of opioid use disorder. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based retrospective cohort study using linked health administrative databases in British Columbia, Canada. The study included treatment recipients between January 1, 2010, and March 17, 2020, who were 18 years or older and not incarcerated, pregnant, or receiving palliative cancer care at initiation. EXPOSURES: Receipt of buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone among incident (first-time) users and prevalent new users (including first and subsequent treatment attempts). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% compatibility (confidence) intervals were estimated for treatment discontinuation (lasting ≥5 days for methadone and ≥6 days for buprenorphine/naloxone) and all-cause mortality within 24 months using discrete-time survival models for comparisons of medications as assigned at initiation regardless of treatment adherence ("initiator") and received according to dosing guidelines (approximating per-protocol analysis). RESULTS: A total of 30 891 incident users (39% receiving buprenorphine/naloxone; 66% male; median age, 33 [25th-75th, 26-43] years) were included in the initiator analysis and 25 614 in the per-protocol analysis. Incident users of buprenorphine/naloxone had a higher risk of treatment discontinuation compared with methadone in initiator analyses (88.8% vs 81.5% discontinued at 24 months; adjusted HR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.53-1.63]), with limited change in estimates when evaluated at optimal dose in per-protocol analysis (42.1% vs 30.7%; adjusted HR, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.58-1.76]). Per-protocol analyses of mortality while receiving treatment exhibited ambiguous results among incident users (0.08% vs 0.13% mortality at 24 months; adjusted HR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.24-1.35]) and among prevalent users (0.08% vs 0.09%; adjusted HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.54-1.73]). Results were consistent after the introduction of fentanyl and across patient subgroups and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Receipt of methadone was associated with a lower risk of treatment discontinuation compared with buprenorphine/naloxone. The risk of mortality while receiving treatment was similar for buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone, although the CI estimate for the hazard ratio was wide.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".