Harry Jin1, Brandon D L Marshall2, Louisa Degenhardt3, John Strang4, Matt Hickman5, David A Fiellin6, Robert Ali7, Julie Bruneau8, Sarah Larney9. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA. 2. NDARC, University of NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, UK. 4. South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Maudsley Hospital, London, UK. 5. Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK. 6. Yale Schools of Medicine and Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA. 7. School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 8. Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada. 9. Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal Research Center, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
AIMS: We assessed how opioid agonist treatment (OAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD), specifically methadone and buprenorphine, including buprenorphine-naloxone, is delivered in routine clinical practice, with a focus on factors that affect access to and delivery of these services. The aims of this review were to summarize eligibility criteria for entry to OAT, doses in routine clinical practice, access to and eligibility for unsupervised dosing and urine drug screening practices in OAT programs globally. METHODS: We completed searches of PubMed, Embase, and grey literature databases for cross-sectional or observational cohort studies of OAT using either methadone or buprenorphine. Dose data extracted from eligible studies were compared with guidelines provided by WHO. RESULTS: We found 140 reports from 41 countries that contained data for at least one of the relevant indicators. A diagnosis of opioid dependence or opioid use disorder was the most common eligibility requirement for OAT (13 or 17 countries). Reported mean or median doses for methadone ranged from 16-131 mg whereas range for buprenorphine was 2.5-19 mg. Access to unsupervised dosing under some conditions was reported in 18 of 27 countries. Frequency of regular urine drug screenings (UDS) ranged from several times a week to eight times per year (methadone) or as clinically indicated. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid agonist treatment practices, including doses prescribed, vary greatly both within and across countries. Of particular concern is the persistence of lower dose prescribing practices, in which patients may be prescribed doses below those proven to yield significant clinical benefits.
AIMS: We assessed how opioid agonist treatment (OAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD), specifically methadone and buprenorphine, including buprenorphine-naloxone, is delivered in routine clinical practice, with a focus on factors that affect access to and delivery of these services. The aims of this review were to summarize eligibility criteria for entry to OAT, doses in routine clinical practice, access to and eligibility for unsupervised dosing and urine drug screening practices in OAT programs globally. METHODS: We completed searches of PubMed, Embase, and grey literature databases for cross-sectional or observational cohort studies of OAT using either methadone or buprenorphine. Dose data extracted from eligible studies were compared with guidelines provided by WHO. RESULTS: We found 140 reports from 41 countries that contained data for at least one of the relevant indicators. A diagnosis of opioid dependence or opioid use disorder was the most common eligibility requirement for OAT (13 or 17 countries). Reported mean or median doses for methadone ranged from 16-131 mg whereas range for buprenorphine was 2.5-19 mg. Access to unsupervised dosing under some conditions was reported in 18 of 27 countries. Frequency of regular urine drug screenings (UDS) ranged from several times a week to eight times per year (methadone) or as clinically indicated. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid agonist treatment practices, including doses prescribed, vary greatly both within and across countries. Of particular concern is the persistence of lower dose prescribing practices, in which patients may be prescribed doses below those proven to yield significant clinical benefits.
Authors: G Fischer; W Gombas; H Eder; R Jagsch; A Peternell; G Stühlinger; L Pezawas; H N Aschauer; S Kasper Journal: Addiction Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Frederick L Altice; Lyuba Azbel; Jack Stone; Ellen Brooks-Pollock; Pavlo Smyrnov; Sergii Dvoriak; Faye S Taxman; Nabila El-Bassel; Natasha K Martin; Robert Booth; Heino Stöver; Kate Dolan; Peter Vickerman Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sarah Larney; Amy Peacock; Janni Leung; Samantha Colledge; Matthew Hickman; Peter Vickerman; Jason Grebely; Kostyantyn V Dumchev; Paul Griffiths; Lindsey Hines; Evan B Cunningham; Richard P Mattick; Michael Lynskey; John Marsden; John Strang; Louisa Degenhardt Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Nicholas Lintzeris; Adrian J Dunlop; Paul S Haber; Dan I Lubman; Robert Graham; Sarah Hutchinson; Shalini Arunogiri; Victoria Hayes; Peter Hjelmström; Agneta Svedberg; Stefan Peterson; Fredrik Tiberg Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-05-03
Authors: Paul J Joudrey; Gavin Bart; Robert K Brooner; Lawrence Brown; Julie Dickson-Gomez; Adam Gordon; Sarah S Kawasaki; Jane M Liebschutz; Edward Nunes; Dennis McCarty; Robert P Schwartz; José Szapocnik; Madhukar Trivedi; Judith I Tsui; Arthur Williams; Li-Tzy Wu; David A Fiellin Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2021 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Kim Corace; Kelly Suschinsky; Jennifer Wyman; Pamela Leece; Sue Cragg; Sarah Konefal; Priscille Pana; Susan Barrass; Amy Porath; Brian Hutton Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2021-12-23
Authors: Dennis McCarty; Christina Bougatsos; Brian Chan; Kim A Hoffman; Kelsey C Priest; Sara Grusing; Roger Chou Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 19.242
Authors: Antoine Chaillon; Chrianna Bharat; Jack Stone; Nicola Jones; Louisa Degenhardt; Sarah Larney; Michael Farrell; Peter Vickerman; Matthew Hickman; Natasha K Martin; Annick Bórquez Journal: Addiction Date: 2021-12-04 Impact factor: 7.256
Authors: Caroline Schmitt-Koopmann; Carole-Anne Baud; Valérie Junod; Olivier Simon Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 3.390