Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone and sublingual buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder among Medicaid patients

IF 5.2 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Addiction Pub Date : 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1111/add.16630
Rachael K. Ross, Edward V. Nunes, Mark Olfson, Matisyahu Shulman, Noa Krawczyk, Elizabeth A. Stuart, Kara E. Rudolph
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone and sublingual buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder among Medicaid patients","authors":"Rachael K. Ross,&nbsp;Edward V. Nunes,&nbsp;Mark Olfson,&nbsp;Matisyahu Shulman,&nbsp;Noa Krawczyk,&nbsp;Elizabeth A. Stuart,&nbsp;Kara E. Rudolph","doi":"10.1111/add.16630","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background and aims</h3>\n \n <p>Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BUP) are both approved for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment in any medical setting. We aimed to compare the real-world effectiveness of XR-NTX and SL-BUP.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design and setting</h3>\n \n <p>This was an observational active comparator, new user cohort study of Medicaid claims records for patients in New Jersey and California, USA, 2016–19.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Participants/cases</h3>\n \n <p>The participants were adult Medicaid patients aged 18–64 years who initiated XR-NTX or SL-BUP for maintenance treatment of OUD and did not use medications for OUD in the 90 days before initiation. Our cohort included 1755 XR-NTX and 9886 SL-BUP patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Measurements</h3>\n \n <p>We examined two outcomes up to 180 days after medication initiation: (1) composite of medication discontinuation and death and (2) composite of overdose and death.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>In adjusted analyses, treatment with XR-NTX was more likely to result in discontinuation or death by the end of follow-up than treatment with SL-BUP: cumulative risk 75.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 73.9%, 77.9%] versus 62.2% (95% CI = 61.2%, 63.2%), respectively (risk difference = 13.7 percentage points, 95% CI = 11.4, 16.0). There was minimal difference in the cumulative risk of overdose or death by the end of follow-up: XR-NTX 3.9% (95% CI = 3.0%, 4.8%) versus SL-BUP 3.3% (95% CI = 2.9%, 3.7%); risk difference = 0.5 percentage points, 95% CI = –0.4, 1.5. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Medicaid patients in California and New Jersey, USA, receiving treatment for opioid use disorder stayed in treatment longer on sublingual buprenorphine than on extended-release naltrexone, but the risk of overdose was similar. Most patients in this study discontinued medication within 6 months, regardless of which medication was initiated.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":"119 11","pages":"1975-1986"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16630","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims

Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BUP) are both approved for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment in any medical setting. We aimed to compare the real-world effectiveness of XR-NTX and SL-BUP.

Design and setting

This was an observational active comparator, new user cohort study of Medicaid claims records for patients in New Jersey and California, USA, 2016–19.

Participants/cases

The participants were adult Medicaid patients aged 18–64 years who initiated XR-NTX or SL-BUP for maintenance treatment of OUD and did not use medications for OUD in the 90 days before initiation. Our cohort included 1755 XR-NTX and 9886 SL-BUP patients.

Measurements

We examined two outcomes up to 180 days after medication initiation: (1) composite of medication discontinuation and death and (2) composite of overdose and death.

Findings

In adjusted analyses, treatment with XR-NTX was more likely to result in discontinuation or death by the end of follow-up than treatment with SL-BUP: cumulative risk 75.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 73.9%, 77.9%] versus 62.2% (95% CI = 61.2%, 63.2%), respectively (risk difference = 13.7 percentage points, 95% CI = 11.4, 16.0). There was minimal difference in the cumulative risk of overdose or death by the end of follow-up: XR-NTX 3.9% (95% CI = 3.0%, 4.8%) versus SL-BUP 3.3% (95% CI = 2.9%, 3.7%); risk difference = 0.5 percentage points, 95% CI = –0.4, 1.5. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Medicaid patients in California and New Jersey, USA, receiving treatment for opioid use disorder stayed in treatment longer on sublingual buprenorphine than on extended-release naltrexone, but the risk of overdose was similar. Most patients in this study discontinued medication within 6 months, regardless of which medication was initiated.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
缓释纳曲酮和丁丙诺啡舌下含服治疗医疗补助患者阿片类药物使用障碍的疗效比较。
背景和目的:缓释纳曲酮(XR-NTX)和舌下丁丙诺啡(SL-BUP)均被批准用于在任何医疗环境中治疗阿片类药物使用障碍(OUD)。我们旨在比较 XR-NTX 和 SL-BUP 的实际疗效:这是一项观察性主动比较研究,是对美国新泽西州和加利福尼亚州 2016-19 年医疗补助患者报销记录的新用户队列研究:参与者为 18-64 岁的成年医疗补助患者,他们开始使用 XR-NTX 或 SL-BUP 维持治疗 OUD,且在开始治疗前 90 天内未使用过治疗 OUD 的药物。我们的队列包括 1755 名 XR-NTX 和 9886 名 SL-BUP 患者:我们研究了用药后 180 天内的两种结果:(1)停药和死亡的综合结果;(2)用药过量和死亡的综合结果:在调整后的分析中,与 SL-BUP 相比,XR-NTX 治疗更有可能在随访结束时导致停药或死亡:累积风险分别为 75.9% [95% 置信区间 (CI) = 73.9%, 77.9%] 与 62.2% (95% CI = 61.2%, 63.2%)(风险差异 = 13.7 个百分点,95% CI = 11.4, 16.0)。随访结束时用药过量或死亡的累积风险差异很小:XR-NTX 3.9% (95% CI = 3.0%, 4.8%) 与 SL-BUP 3.3% (95% CI = 2.9%, 3.7%);风险差异 = 0.5 个百分点,95% CI = -0.4, 1.5。各种敏感性分析的结果一致:结论:美国加利福尼亚州和新泽西州接受阿片类药物使用障碍治疗的医疗补助患者使用丁丙诺啡舌下片的治疗时间比使用纳曲酮缓释片的治疗时间长,但用药过量的风险相似。这项研究中的大多数患者都在 6 个月内停止了用药,无论开始使用哪种药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Addiction
Addiction 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Addiction publishes peer-reviewed research reports on pharmacological and behavioural addictions, bringing together research conducted within many different disciplines. Its goal is to serve international and interdisciplinary scientific and clinical communication, to strengthen links between science and policy, and to stimulate and enhance the quality of debate. We seek submissions that are not only technically competent but are also original and contain information or ideas of fresh interest to our international readership. We seek to serve low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries as well as more economically developed countries. Addiction’s scope spans human experimental, epidemiological, social science, historical, clinical and policy research relating to addiction, primarily but not exclusively in the areas of psychoactive substance use and/or gambling. In addition to original research, the journal features editorials, commentaries, reviews, letters, and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Effect of a peer-led emergency department behavioral intervention on non-fatal opioid overdose: 18-month outcome in the Navigator randomized controlled trial. Client preferences for the design and delivery of injectable opioid agonist treatment services: Results from a best-worst scaling task. School-based interventions targeting substance use among young people in low-and-middle-income countries: A scoping review. The relationship between cannabis and nicotine use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. What is the prevalence of anabolic-androgenic steroid use among women? A systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1