Utilizing buprenorphine–naloxone to treat illicit and prescription-opioid dependence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
\nSofie Mauger,1 Ronald Fraser1,2 Kathryn Gill1,2 1Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; 2Addictions Unit, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada Objectives: To review current evidence on buprenorphine–naloxone (bup/nx) for the treatment of opioid-use disorders, with a focus on strategies for clinical management and office-based patient care. Quality of evidence: Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Consensus reports, guidelines published, and other authoritative sources were also included in this review. Apart from expert guidelines, data included in this review constitute level 1 evidence. Findings: Bup/nx is a partial µ-opioid agonist combined with the opioid antagonist naloxone in a 4:1 ratio. It has a lower abuse potential, carries less stigma, and allows for more flexibility than methadone. Bup/nx is indicated for both inpatient and ambulatory medically assisted withdrawal (acute detoxification) and long-term substitution treatment (maintenance) of patients who have a mild-to-moderate physical dependence. A stepwise long-term substitution treatment with regular monitoring and follow-up assessment is usually preferred, as it has better outcomes in reducing illicit opioid use, minimizing concomitant risks such as human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C transmission, retaining patients in treatment and improving global functioning. Conclusion: Bup/nx is safe and effective for opioid detoxification and substitution treatment. Its unique pharmaceutical properties make it particularly suitable for office-based maintenance treatment of opioid-use disorder. Keywords: Zubsolv, Suboxone, methadone, opiate detoxification, opiate substitution, clinical management
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".