美沙酮与丁丙诺啡:Caltanissetta SER检测数据。T

F. Venturella, G. Cancellieri, M. Giammanco, A. Liga, F. Mortillaro, A. Carlo
{"title":"美沙酮与丁丙诺啡:Caltanissetta SER检测数据。T","authors":"F. Venturella, G. Cancellieri, M. Giammanco, A. Liga, F. Mortillaro, A. Carlo","doi":"10.4081/JBR.2020.8345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In last years, heroin-addicted have exponentially increased: this has made it necessary to identify a pharmacological strategy as effective as possible. With this purpose, a statistical investigation was conducted in a sample of individuals, aged between 18 and 50. They were diagnosed and subjected to different treatments at Ser.T of Caltanissetta (Sicily-Italy) during the period 2013-2017. The analyzed patients were treated with three different pharmacological therapy: methadone 0.1%, methadone 0.5%, buprenorphine and suboxone. We obtained percentages of responders, low responders and non-responders patients from data processing, based on used therapy. Considering pharmacological responses of the sample examined, it is possible to observe that the treatment with buprenorphine has led to 71.98% of responders subjects, 23.52% of low responders and 4.5% of non-responders. Instead, the administration of methadone 0.1 % has produced 82.82% of responders subjects, 11.08% of low responders, 6.1% of nonresponders. The therapy with methadone 0.5% has resulted 88.98% of responders subjects, 7.8% of low responders, 3.22% of nonresponders. Finally, through the administration of suboxone, we obtained 86.34% of responders subjects, 9.84% of low responders and 3.82% of non responders. In conclusion, although it has emerged that treatment with methadone 0.5% is the most successful therapy, it is preferable to use suboxone (except in relapsing subjects) since it has also produced a high number of responders subjects and a good safety profile for heroin addicted patients.","PeriodicalId":9116,"journal":{"name":"Bollettino della Societa italiana di biologia sperimentale","volume":"176 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methadone versus buprenorphine: data detected from Caltanissetta SER.T\",\"authors\":\"F. Venturella, G. Cancellieri, M. Giammanco, A. Liga, F. Mortillaro, A. Carlo\",\"doi\":\"10.4081/JBR.2020.8345\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In last years, heroin-addicted have exponentially increased: this has made it necessary to identify a pharmacological strategy as effective as possible. With this purpose, a statistical investigation was conducted in a sample of individuals, aged between 18 and 50. They were diagnosed and subjected to different treatments at Ser.T of Caltanissetta (Sicily-Italy) during the period 2013-2017. The analyzed patients were treated with three different pharmacological therapy: methadone 0.1%, methadone 0.5%, buprenorphine and suboxone. We obtained percentages of responders, low responders and non-responders patients from data processing, based on used therapy. Considering pharmacological responses of the sample examined, it is possible to observe that the treatment with buprenorphine has led to 71.98% of responders subjects, 23.52% of low responders and 4.5% of non-responders. Instead, the administration of methadone 0.1 % has produced 82.82% of responders subjects, 11.08% of low responders, 6.1% of nonresponders. The therapy with methadone 0.5% has resulted 88.98% of responders subjects, 7.8% of low responders, 3.22% of nonresponders. Finally, through the administration of suboxone, we obtained 86.34% of responders subjects, 9.84% of low responders and 3.82% of non responders. In conclusion, although it has emerged that treatment with methadone 0.5% is the most successful therapy, it is preferable to use suboxone (except in relapsing subjects) since it has also produced a high number of responders subjects and a good safety profile for heroin addicted patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9116,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bollettino della Societa italiana di biologia sperimentale\",\"volume\":\"176 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bollettino della Societa italiana di biologia sperimentale\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4081/JBR.2020.8345\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bollettino della Societa italiana di biologia sperimentale","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/JBR.2020.8345","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在过去几年中,海洛因成瘾者呈指数增长:这使得有必要确定一种尽可能有效的药理学策略。为此目的,对年龄在18岁至50岁之间的个人样本进行了统计调查。他们被诊断并接受了不同的治疗。2013-2017年期间担任意大利西西里岛卡尔塔尼塞塔(Caltanissetta)首席执行官。患者采用0.1%美沙酮、0.5%美沙酮、丁丙诺啡和苏波松三种不同的药物治疗。我们根据使用的治疗方法,从数据处理中获得应答者、低应答者和无应答者的百分比。从所检查样本的药理学反应来看,丁丙诺啡治疗导致71.98%的应答者,23.52%的低应答者和4.5%的无应答者。相反,0.1%的美沙酮治疗产生了82.82%的应答者,11.08%的低应答者,6.1%的无应答者。0.5%美沙酮治疗有88.98%的应答者,7.8%的低应答者,3.22%的无应答者。最后,通过给药suboxone,我们获得了86.34%的应答者,9.84%的低应答者和3.82%的无应答者。综上所述,尽管0.5%的美沙酮是最成功的治疗方法,但更可取的是使用苏波松(除复发患者外),因为它也产生了大量的应答者,并且对海洛因成瘾患者具有良好的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Methadone versus buprenorphine: data detected from Caltanissetta SER.T
In last years, heroin-addicted have exponentially increased: this has made it necessary to identify a pharmacological strategy as effective as possible. With this purpose, a statistical investigation was conducted in a sample of individuals, aged between 18 and 50. They were diagnosed and subjected to different treatments at Ser.T of Caltanissetta (Sicily-Italy) during the period 2013-2017. The analyzed patients were treated with three different pharmacological therapy: methadone 0.1%, methadone 0.5%, buprenorphine and suboxone. We obtained percentages of responders, low responders and non-responders patients from data processing, based on used therapy. Considering pharmacological responses of the sample examined, it is possible to observe that the treatment with buprenorphine has led to 71.98% of responders subjects, 23.52% of low responders and 4.5% of non-responders. Instead, the administration of methadone 0.1 % has produced 82.82% of responders subjects, 11.08% of low responders, 6.1% of nonresponders. The therapy with methadone 0.5% has resulted 88.98% of responders subjects, 7.8% of low responders, 3.22% of nonresponders. Finally, through the administration of suboxone, we obtained 86.34% of responders subjects, 9.84% of low responders and 3.82% of non responders. In conclusion, although it has emerged that treatment with methadone 0.5% is the most successful therapy, it is preferable to use suboxone (except in relapsing subjects) since it has also produced a high number of responders subjects and a good safety profile for heroin addicted patients.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Biocontrol potential of inflorescence rot of date palm caused by Mauginiella scaettae in the Biskra region (Algeria) Wound healing and analgesic effects of Brocchia cinerea essential oil in experimental animals Iron metabolism and peripheral eosinophil count do not correlate in the general population Pesticidal effects of scent leaf (Ocimum gratissimum L.) on maize weevil: potency of scent leaf on Sitophilus zeamais Comparative effect of ginger (an anti-inflammatory medicinal herb) and aspirin (a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) on cytoprotection and body weight changes in male albino Wistar rats
×
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