Original Article
Counseling plus Buprenorphine–Naloxone Maintenance Therapy for Opioid Dependence
N Engl J Med 2006; 355:365-374July 27, 2006
- Abstract
Background
The optimal level of counseling and frequency of attendance for medication distribution has not been established for the primary care, office-based buprenorphine–naloxone treatment of opioid dependence.
Methods
We conducted a 24-week randomized, controlled clinical trial with 166 patients assigned to one of three treatments: standard medical management and either once-weekly or thrice-weekly medication dispensing or enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing. Standard medical management was brief, manual-guided, medically focused counseling; enhanced management was similar, but each session was extended. The primary outcomes were the self-reported frequency of illicit opioid use, the percentage of opioid-negative urine specimens, and the maximum number of consecutive weeks of abstinence from illicit opioids.
Results
The three treatments had similar efficacies with respect to the mean percentage of opioid-negative urine specimens (standard medical management and once-weekly medication dispensing, 44 percent; standard medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing, 40 percent; and enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing, 40 percent; P=0.82) and the maximum number of consecutive weeks during which patients were abstinent from illicit opioids. All three treatments were associated with significant reductions from baseline in the frequency of illicit opioid use, but there were no significant differences among the treatments. The proportion of patients remaining in the study at 24 weeks did not differ significantly among the patients receiving standard medical management and once-weekly medication dispensing (48 percent) or thrice-weekly medication dispensing (43 percent) or enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing (39 percent) (P=0.64). Adherence to buprenorphine–naloxone treatment varied; increased adherence was associated with improved treatment outcomes.
Conclusions
Among patients receiving buprenorphine–naloxone in primary care for opioid dependence, the efficacy of brief weekly counseling and once-weekly medication dispensing did not differ significantly from that of extended weekly counseling and thrice-weekly dispensing. Strategies to improve buprenorphine–naloxone adherence are needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00023283.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Enrollment, Treatment, and Follow-up.Figure 2
Self-Reported Frequency of Illicit Opioid Use in Opioid-Dependent Patients Receiving Buprenorphine–Naloxone in Primary Care.Article Activity
- Article
Buprenorphine–naloxone treatment of patients dependent on heroin and prescription opioids is more efficacious than placebo and as efficacious as moderate doses of methadone.1-4 Because of its low risk of respiratory depression and abuse, buprenorphine–naloxone is a Schedule III controlled medication.5 Specially certified office-based physicians can provide this treatment.6 Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of transferring patients from opioid-treatment programs to treatment through physicians' offices.7,8 Buprenorphine–naloxone allows physicians to initiate and manage the treatment of opioid-dependent patients directly in the office.
The appropriate level of contact (e.g., the degree of counseling services and the frequency of prescriptions received) for patients who are receiving buprenorphine–naloxone has not been established. Early studies of buprenorphine involved obligatory counseling and daily or thrice-weekly medication dispensing.1-4,9-14 Physicians providing office-based treatment with buprenorphine–naloxone are required only to refer patients to counseling and may provide 30-day prescriptions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate two levels of counseling and medication dispensation for patients receiving buprenorphine–naloxone treatment in primary care.
Methods
Patients
All enrolled patients met the criteria for opioid dependence15 and for opioid-agonist maintenance treatment. Patients were excluded if they were dependent on alcohol, benzodiazepines, or sedatives; were dangerous to themselves or others; were psychotic or had major depression; were unable to comprehend English; or had life-threatening medical problems. Women of childbearing age agreed to use contraception and undergo monthly pregnancy monitoring. Enrollment began on August 11, 2000, and ended on February 11, 2004. Informed written consent was obtained from all patients. The study was approved by the Human Investigation Committee of the Yale University School of Medicine.
Dose of Buprenorphine–Naloxone
Patients were seen at the Primary Care Center of Yale–New Haven Hospital, which provides no specialty addiction treatment other than buprenorphine–naloxone. Buprenorphine was provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which played no role in the trial design, data accrual or interpretation, or manuscript preparation. We used the buprenorphine–naloxone combination tablet (Suboxone), which includes buprenorphine and naloxone in a 4:1 ratio. After a 2-week induction and stabilization period (mean, 14.5 days; 95 percent confidence interval, 14.2 to 14.8), during which patients were seen thrice weekly, 16 mg of buprenorphine daily was provided for 24 weeks. Successive increases to 20 mg and 24 mg were permitted depending on the patient's level of discomfort or evidence of ongoing (for three successive weeks) illicit drug use. Take-home medication was provided for the days on which the patients did not receive medication in the office. The mean (±SD) dose of buprenorphine during the maintenance phase was 17.5±2.5 mg and did not differ significantly across the three treatment groups (P=0.65).
Assignment of Treatment
After induction and stabilization, patients were randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: standard medical management and once-weekly medication dispensing, standard medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing, or enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing. An urn randomization procedure16 was used to ensure that the groups were similar with regard to sex ratio, employment status, presence of cocaine abuse, and presence of personality disorders.
Medication Dispensing and Counseling
Buprenorphine–naloxone was dispensed by nurses either once weekly or thrice weekly (on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday), according to treatment group. Trained primary care nurses, with no previous experience treating addiction and limited concurrent responsibilities, provided weekly manual-guided standard or enhanced medical management to individual patients. Each session of standard medical management was scheduled to last 20 minutes and involved a counseling approach with demonstrated efficacy.10,13,17 The sessions covered recent drug use or efforts to achieve or maintain abstinence, attendance in self-help groups, support for efforts to reduce drug use or remain abstinent, advice for the achievement or maintenance of abstinence, and the results of analysis of weekly urine specimens. Each session of enhanced medical management was approximately 45 minutes long and covered similar issues but provided more in-depth drug counseling than did the standard approach.18 All patients also met with a physician monthly for approximately 20 minutes. The content of these sessions paralleled that of the standard-medical-management sessions, with the addition of an assessment of employment, legal, family or social, medical, and psychiatric problems related to addiction.
The nurses, a physician, and a psychologist met weekly to review the counseling. To assess counseling fidelity, all sessions were audiotaped, except when the patients did not consent or the equipment malfunctioned (<10 percent of sessions). Approximately 16 percent of the audiotapes (337 of 2139) were randomly selected, according to a block randomization scheme that ensured an equal likelihood of selecting a tape from each phase of treatment (i.e., early, middle, or late), from a session run by each nurse counselor, from each study year, and from each treatment group. The selected audiotapes were coded for session length and were rated by independent persons with regard to each nurse's adherence to the manual and competence as a counselor.19 The mean length of the sessions were 23±8 minutes for standard medical management and 43±12 minutes for enhanced medical management. Prescribed counseling components were provided in both standard medical management and enhanced medical management, with greater frequency in the latter. Competency ratings did not differ significantly between the two types of counseling.
Protective Transfer
Patients with unremitting illicit-drug use (three consecutive weeks of urine specimens positive for opioids, cocaine, or both after the buprenorphine–naloxone dose had been increased to 24 mg) met the criteria for protective transfer.11,20 Patients in whom marked psychiatric symptoms developed were evaluated by an independent psychiatrist, who weighed the safety and appropriateness of continued treatment as compared with protective transfer. Patients who were protectively transferred were removed from the study and were referred to alternative treatment.
Outcomes
The primary outcome measures, defined before the study began, were the self-reported frequency of illicit opioid use, the percentage of opioid-negative urine specimens, and the self-reported maximum number of consecutive weeks of abstinence from illicit opioids (verified by urinalysis). The secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients remaining in the study (the percentage of patients who did not meet the criteria for protective transfer, did not miss medication for more than seven days, or did not miss three or more counseling sessions), the number of days of the study that were completed, the percentage of cocaine-negative urine samples, patient satisfaction, and the use of health and social services. Because patients received buprenorphine–naloxone for unsupervised self-administration and medication adherence could be influenced by the treatment and could affect treatment outcome, the adherence to medication was assessed through a review of nurses' notes in the patient's clinical record and through the monitoring of the computerized caps of medication bottles (Medication Event Monitoring System, Aprex). These caps contain a microprocessor that records, but does not display, the date and time at which each bottle is opened. Patients were classified as adherent to buprenorphine–naloxone for a given day if adherence was documented by means of a nurse's note or a recording of a bottle's having been opened on that day.
Assessment of Outcomes
Illicit-drug use was measured weekly by means of the patient-reported frequency of drug use and the testing of urine samples. Urinalyses were conducted with the use of a semiquantitative homogeneous enzyme immunoassay for opioids and cocaine. Since the proportion of patients abusing prescription opioids increased during the course of the trial, we also tested all patients for oxycodone and methadone.
Patient satisfaction was measured at week 12 with the use of a questionnaire adapted from a previously published one.7 Nineteen items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with a higher score corresponding to greater satisfaction and a highest possible score of 95.
Statistical Analysis
On the basis of data from a pilot study and published data,10,20 we anticipated an absolute difference of 18.5 percent in the percentage of opioid-negative urine specimens, favoring enhanced medical management over standard medical management; no data were available to estimate the predicted difference between standard medical management and once-weekly versus thrice-weekly medication dispensing. The enrollment of 166 patients provided the study with a statistical power of more than 80 percent to detect an absolute difference of at least 18.5 percent among the three groups, with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.
The patients' characteristics at enrollment were compared among the three groups with the use of the chi-square test and analysis of variance, as appropriate. Analyses were planned in advance and were based on the intention-to-treat principle.
The proportion of patients remaining in the study was evaluated with the use of the chi-square test, and the number of study days completed was evaluated with the use of the Kaplan–Meier product-limit method and the log-rank test. A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to conduct a repeated-measures analysis of the frequency of illicit opioid use. Analysis of variance was used to evaluate differences among groups in the percentage of opioid-negative and cocaine-negative urine specimens, the maximum number of consecutive weeks of abstinence, patient satisfaction during treatment, the use of health and social services, and adherence to buprenorphine–naloxone. If significant differences were detected among the groups, Scheffé's adjusted pairwise comparisons were used to examine those differences. Correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the association of buprenorphine–naloxone adherence with the percentage of opioid-negative urine specimens and the mean maximum number of consecutive weeks of abstinence.
Given the association between treatment discontinuation and the relapse to illicit opioid use, we coded missing urine specimens as positive for opioids in our analysis. The pattern of results did not differ significantly in additional analyses that used other assumptions regarding missing urine specimens (e.g., coding them as missing, coding them as positive only when patients were still receiving treatment, or carrying the last result forward).
The results regarding urinalyses are based on 2386 urine samples (60 percent of the 3984 total possible urine samples anticipated had all patients remained in treatment during the entire study and provided all planned samples). During the study, 12 percent of the scheduled urine samples (312 of 2698) were missed. The percentage of collected urine samples for the complete cohort did not differ significantly according to treatment (P=0.17): 802 of the 1296 possible urine samples (62 percent) were collected from the patients receiving standard medical management and once-weekly medication dispensing, 784 of the 1344 possible (58 percent) were collected from the patients receiving standard medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing, and 800 of the 1344 possible (60 percent) were collected from the patients receiving enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing.
The results regarding the self-reported frequency of illicit opioid use are based on 2930 assessments (65 percent of the 4482 total possible assessments, including baseline assessments and weekly assessments during induction, that were anticipated had all patients remained in treatment for the 24-week trial; and 92 percent of the 3196 assessments scheduled while patients remained in treatment). The percentage of completed self-reported assessments differed significantly among the treatment groups (P=0.001): 1018 of the 1512 possible assessments (67 percent) were provided by patients receiving standard medical management and once-weekly medication dispensing, 933 of the 1512 possible (62 percent) were provided by patients receiving standard medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing, and 979 of the 1458 possible (67 percent) were provided by patients receiving enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing.
There were no interim analyses. All analyses involved two-tailed tests of significance and were performed with the use of SPSS software, version 13.0. P values of less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance.
Results
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics
The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients enrolled (Figure 1Figure 1
Enrollment, Treatment, and Follow-up.) are given in Table 1Table 1
Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Opioid-Dependent Patients Receiving Buprenorphine–Naloxone in Primary Care.. None differed significantly among the three treatment groups.Opioid Use
All three treatments resulted in a reduction in the mean self-reported frequency of opioid use, from 5.3 days per week (95 percent confidence interval, 5.1 to 5.5) at baseline to 1.1 days (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 1.3) during induction to 0.4 day (95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.7) during maintenance (P<0.001 for the comparisons of induction and maintenance with baseline), but there were no significant differences among the three groups (P=0.73) or among the treatments over time (P=0.83) (Figure 2Figure 2
Self-Reported Frequency of Illicit Opioid Use in Opioid-Dependent Patients Receiving Buprenorphine–Naloxone in Primary Care.). The mean percentage of opioid-negative urine specimens did not differ significantly among the three groups (P=0.82), and there were no significant differences in the mean maximum number of consecutive weeks of abstinence among the groups (P=0.54) (Table 2Table 2
Outcomes for Opioid-Dependent Patients Receiving Buprenorphine–Naloxone in Primary Care.).Completion of the Study
The mean percentage of patients who had completed the study (did not meet the criteria for protective transfer, did not miss medication for more than 7 days, or did not miss three or more counseling sessions) at 24 weeks did not differ significantly among the three groups: 48 percent of the patients receiving standard medical management and once-weekly medication dispensing, 43 percent of the patients receiving standard medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing, and 39 percent of the patients receiving enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing (P=0.64) (Figure 3Figure 3
Study Completion among Opioid-Dependent Patients Receiving Buprenorphine–Naloxone in Primary Care.). The number of patients who were protectively transferred also did not differ significantly among the three treatment groups (P=0.32).Cocaine Use
The proportion of patients with at least one cocaine-positive urine specimen during the trial did not differ significantly among the three groups: 31 of 54 patients (57 percent) receiving standard medical management and once-weekly medication dispensing, 28 of 56 patients (50 percent) receiving standard medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing, and 31 of 56 patients (55 percent) receiving enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing (P=0.73). There were no significant differences in the mean percentage of cocaine-negative urine specimens among the groups during treatment (P=0.79) (Table 2).
Patient Satisfaction and Use of Services
Treatment satisfaction was significantly associated with the treatment group (P=0.049); patients reported greater satisfaction with standard medical management and once-weekly medication dispensing than with standard medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing (P=0.04) (Table 2). The groups did not differ significantly in their use of ancillary health and social services (data not shown).
Adherence to Buprenorphine–Naloxone
The overall mean percentage of days on which patients adhered to buprenorphine–naloxone was 71±22 percent (range, 7 to 100), and the mean percentage did not differ significantly among the groups (P=0.87) (Table 2). The percentage of days of adherence correlated significantly with the percentage of opioid-negative urine specimens and the mean number of consecutive weeks of abstinence from opioids (r=0.30 and r=0.35 across all groups, respectively; P<0.001).
Discussion
We investigated the use of counseling and different frequencies of medication dispensing in primary care treatment with buprenorphine–naloxone. Neither the primary outcomes (the frequency of illicit opioid use, the percentage of opioid-negative urine specimens, and the maximum number of consecutive weeks of abstinence from illicit opioids) nor the proportion of patients who completed the study differed significantly among the three groups. Specifically, outcomes among patients receiving brief counseling combined with once-weekly medication dispensing did not differ significantly from outcomes among patients receiving either extended counseling or thrice-weekly medication dispensing. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher with once-weekly than with thrice-weekly medication dispensing, although because of the large number of statistical tests conducted, this may represent a chance finding.
Consistent with the findings of previous research with buprenorphine,1-4 the frequency of illicit opioid use decreased significantly from baseline to induction and was lowest during maintenance for all three groups. The mean percentages of patients who completed the 24-week study, which ranged between 39 and 48 percent, were similar to those found in previous studies, including one conducted in an office-based setting.1-4 Therefore, the majority of patients who entered this study either left treatment or were considered appropriate for transfer to a more structured treatment setting with methadone. Nonetheless, although we did not demonstrate the superiority of extended counseling or thrice-weekly medication dispensing over the relatively limited nurse-administered counseling and once-weekly dispensing, our findings support the feasibility of buprenorphine–naloxone maintenance in primary care.10,13,21
Although previous studies establishing the effectiveness of buprenorphine involved weekly counseling, the available evidence suggests wide variability in the counseling provided in office-based practices in the United States, France, and other countries, where many patients receive little or no formal drug counseling. A study in France reported that 54 percent of physicians met with the patient once per week during induction and 47 percent met with the patient once per month during maintenance.22 In a previous study of methadone maintenance, weekly or more frequent drug counseling and ancillary services resulted in better outcomes than brief monthly counseling,20 and a recent systematic review concluded that the addition of psychosocial services to methadone maintenance leads to a reduction in the number of days on which a patient uses heroin but does not affect the time the patient remains in treatment.23 Our findings do not establish that extended weekly counseling is more effective than brief weekly counseling, but we did not include a control group receiving minimal or no counseling.
Our study provides data regarding patients' adherence to buprenorphine–naloxone and the association between adherence and abstinence. Problems with medication adherence are not unique to opioid-dependent patients; for some health conditions, adherence to less than the recommended amount of medication is sufficient to attain the goals of treatment.24 Nevertheless, low doses of buprenorphine have been found to be less efficacious than higher doses in studies in which overall adherence is quite high and is ensured by observed ingestion.14
Our study has limitations. The sample size was adequate to detect medium-sized differences in effect but did not account for loss to follow-up. Because the confidence intervals around the observed means are wide, we cannot conclude that there are no clinically significant differences among the three treatments. As in other studies, the loss to follow-up at 24 weeks was greater than 50 percent. The approaches we used to account for missing data only partially address this limitation. The eligibility criteria limit the generalizability of the findings to patients who do not have severe and untreated coexisting psychiatric conditions or a concomitant dependence on alcohol, benzodiazepines, or sedatives, although patients with personality disorders and cocaine abuse were included in our study. Most studies of buprenorphine–naloxone have been in patients similar to those in our study who have seemed well-suited to office-based settings when directly admitted for treatment with buprenorphine–naloxone10,13 or have been conducted in patients who have transferred to physicians' offices while receiving methadone.7
Our trial compared counseling interventions that differed primarily in duration, not content, and were not tailored to individual patients; the least intensive intervention in this study is likely to provide more counseling and other types of contact than some practices can. The study design did not include a group assigned to enhanced medical management and once-weekly buprenorphine–naloxone dispensing, and thus we cannot directly compare enhanced medical management and standard medical management for patients who were provided buprenorphine–naloxone once weekly.
Finally, our study was conducted in an urban, academically affiliated medical center. Other practices will need to consider the implications of this study with regard to resources, primarily for eligibility screening and nurse staffing.
Our study also has implications for clinical care and research. The fact that many patients can receive efficacious care in a primary care, office-based setting with weekly brief counseling and medication dispensing is important. The recent finding that the availability of buprenorphine–naloxone attracts new patients to treatment for addiction25 provides support for federal efforts to expand access to the treatment.6 Our findings also show that supervised nurses can provide appropriate counseling. The finding of ongoing cocaine use among patients treated for opioid dependence is consistent with findings among patients receiving methadone maintenance26,27 and supports efforts to monitor and address this coexisting disorder.28-30 Finally, the variability in buprenorphine–naloxone adherence highlights the need both to measure adherence in future research and to monitor and encourage adherence in practice in order to reduce the potential misuse of the medication and to improve the treatment outcomes.
Supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Physician Scientist Award K12 DA00167, to Drs. Fiellin and Sullivan; K24 DA000445-03, to Dr. Schottenfeld; and K23 DA15144, to Dr. Pantalon), from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Generalist Physician Faculty Scholar Award, to Dr. Fiellin), and from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA009803-07, to Dr. Schottenfeld).
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We are indebted to our patients and the staff and administration of the Primary Care Center of the Yale–New Haven Hospital; to Sandra L. Alfano, Pharm.D., F.A.S.H.P., C.I.P., Declan Barry, Ph.D., Marisol Morales, Carolyn Haller; and to our nurses — Suzanne Carlona, R.N., Kathleen Gargano-Thompson, R.N., Lynn Irons, R.N., Bonnie Lurie, R.N., and Patricia Maratea, R.N.
Source Information
From the Departments of Internal Medicine (D.A.F., L.E.S., P.G.O.) and Psychiatry (M.V.P., M.C.C., B.A.M., R.S.S.), Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Fiellin at Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St., P.O. Box 208025, New Haven, CT 06520, or at david.fiellin@yale.edu.
- References
References
1
Fudala PJ ,Bridge TP ,Herbert S , et al. Office-based treatment of opiate addiction with a sublingual-tablet formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone. N Engl J Med 2003;349:949-958
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline2
Johnson RE ,Eissenberg T ,Stitzer ML ,Strain EC ,Liebson IA ,Bigelow GE . A placebo controlled clinical trial of buprenorphine as a treatment for opioid dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend 1995;40:17-25
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Kosten TR ,Schottenfeld R ,Ziedonis D ,Falcioni J . Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. J Nerv Ment Dis 1993;181:358-364
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Ling W ,Wesson DR ,Charuvastra C ,Klett CJ . A controlled trial comparing buprenorphine and methadone maintenance in opioid dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1996;53:401-407
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Walsh SL ,Preston KL ,Stitzer ML ,Cone EJ ,Bigelow GE . Clinical pharmacology of buprenorphine: ceiling effects at high doses. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994;55:569-580
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Fiellin DA ,O'Connor PG . New federal initiatives to enhance the medical treatment of opioid dependence. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:688-692
Web of Science | Medline7
Fiellin DA ,O'Connor PG ,Chawarski M ,Pakes JP ,Pantalon MV ,Schottenfeld RS . Methadone maintenance in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;286:1724-1731
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Fiellin DA ,O'Connor PG ,Chawarski M ,Schottenfeld RS . Processes of care during a randomized trial of office-based treatment of opioid dependence in primary care. Am J Addict 2004;13:Suppl 1:S67-S78
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Amass L ,Bickel WK ,Higgins ST ,Badger GJ . Alternate-day dosing during buprenorphine treatment of opioid dependence. Life Sci 1994;54:1215-1228
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Fiellin DA ,Pantalon MV ,Pakes JP ,O'Connor PG ,Chawarski MC ,Schottenfeld RS . Treatment of heroin dependence with buprenorphine in primary care. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2002;28:231-241
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Johnson RE ,Chutuape MA ,Strain EC ,Walsh SL ,Stitzer ML ,Bigelow GE . A comparison of levomethadyl acetate, buprenorphine, and methadone for opioid dependence. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1290-1297
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline12
Ling W ,Charuvastra C ,Collins JF , et al. Buprenorphine maintenance treatment of opiate dependence: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Addiction 1998;93:475-486
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
O'Connor PG ,Oliveto AH ,Shi JM , et al. A randomized trial of buprenorphine maintenance for heroin dependence in a primary care clinic for substance users versus a methadone clinc. Am J Med 1998;105:100-105
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Schottenfeld RS ,Pakes JR ,Oliveto A ,Ziedonis D ,Kosten TR . Buprenorphine vs methadone maintenance treatment for concurrent opioid dependence and cocaine abuse. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997;54:713-720
Web of Science | Medline15
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th ed.: DSM-IV. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, 1994.
16
Stout RL ,Wirtz PW ,Carbonari JP ,Del Boca FK . Ensuring balanced distribution of prognostic factors in treatment outcome research. J Stud Alcohol 1994;12:70-7517
Pantalon MV ,Fiellin DA ,O'Connor PG ,Chawarski M ,Pakes JR ,Schottenfeld RS . Counseling requirements for buprenorphine maintenance in primary care: lessons learned from a preliminary study in a methadone maintenance program. Addict Disord Treat 2004;3:71-76
CrossRef18
Mercer D, Carpenter G, Daley D, Petterson C, Volpicelli J. Group drug counseling manual. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1992.
19
Carroll KM ,Nich C ,Sifry RL , et al. A general system for evaluating therapist adherence and competence in psychotherapy research in the addictions. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000;57:225-238
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
McLellan AT ,Arndt IO ,Metzger DS ,Woody GE ,O'Brien CP . The effects of psychosocial services in substance abuse treatment. JAMA 1993;269:1953-1959
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
O'Connor PG ,Oliveto AH ,Shi JM , et al. A pilot study of primary-care-based buprenorphine maintenance for heroin dependence. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1996;22:523-531
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Bouchez J ,Vignau J . The French experience -- the pharmacist, general practitioner and patient perspective. Eur Addict Res 1998;4:Suppl 1:19-23
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Amato L ,Minozzi S ,Davoli M ,Vecchi S ,Ferri M ,Mayet S . Psychosocial and pharmacological treatments versus pharmacological treatments for opioid detoxification. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;4:CD005031-CD005031
Medline24
Steiner JF ,Earnest MA . The language of medication-taking. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:926-930
Web of Science | Medline25
Sullivan LE ,Chawarski MC ,O'Connor PG ,Schottenfeld RS ,Fiellin DA . The practice of office-based buprenorphine treatment of opioid dependence: is it associated with new patients entering treatment? Drug Alcohol Depend 2005;79:113-116
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Hartel DM ,Schoenbaum EE ,Selwyn PA , et al. Heroin use during methadone maintenance treatment: the importance of methadone dose and cocaine use. Am J Public Health 1995;85:83-88
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Sees KL ,Delucchi KL ,Masson C , et al. Methadone maintenance vs 180-day psychosocially enriched detoxification for treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2000;283:1303-1310
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Carroll KM ,Rounsaville BJ ,Gordon LT , et al. Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for ambulatory cocaine abusers. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994;51:177-187
Web of Science | Medline29
Crits-Christoph P ,Siqueland L ,Blaine J , et al. Psychosocial treatments for cocaine dependence: National Institute on Drug Abuse Collaborative Cocaine Treatment Study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999;56:493-502
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline30
George TP ,Chawarski MC ,Pakes J ,Carroll KM ,Kosten TR ,Schottenfeld RS . Disulfiram versus placebo for cocaine dependence in buprenorphine-maintained subjects: a preliminary trial. Biol Psychiatry 2000;47:1080-1086
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (58)
Citing Articles
1
2012. Heroin and the Opium Poppy Plant (Papaver somniferum L.). , 546-578.
CrossRef2
Bruce R. Schackman, Jared A. Leff, Daniel Polsky, Brent A. Moore, David A. Fiellin. (2012) Cost-Effectiveness of Long-Term Outpatient Buprenorphine-Naloxone Treatment for Opioid Dependence in Primary Care. Journal of General Internal Medicine
CrossRef3
Geetha A. Subramaniam, Diane Warden, Abu Minhajuddin, Marc J. Fishman, Maxine L. Stitzer, Bryon Adinoff, Madhukar Trivedi, Roger Weiss, Jennifer Potter, Sabrina A. Poole, George E. Woody. (2011) Predictors of Abstinence: National Institute of Drug Abuse Multisite Buprenorphine/Naloxone Treatment Trial in Opioid-Dependent Youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 50:11, 1120-1128
CrossRef4
Elizabeth M. Oliva, Alex H.S. Harris, Jodie A. Trafton, Adam J. Gordon. (2011) Receipt of opioid agonist treatment in the Veterans Health Administration: Facility and patient factors. Drug and Alcohol Dependence
CrossRef5
Laura Amato, Silvia Minozzi, Marina Davoli, Simona Vecchi, Laura Amato. 2011. Psychosocial combined with agonist maintenance treatments versus agonist maintenance treatments alone for treatment of opioid dependence. .
CrossRef6
Erik W. Gunderson, Frances R. Levin, Margaret M. Rombone, Suzanne K. Vosburg, Herbert D. Kleber. (2011) Improving Temporal Efficiency of Outpatient Buprenorphine Induction. The American Journal on Addictions 20:5, 397-404
CrossRef7
Linda Gowing, Michael F Farrell, Reinhard Bornemann, Lynn E Sullivan, Robert Ali, Linda Gowing. 2011. Oral substitution treatment of injecting opioid users for prevention of HIV infection. .
CrossRef8
Chris-Ellyn Johanson, Cynthia L. Arfken, Salvatore di Menza, Charles Roberts Schuster. (2011) Diversion and abuse of buprenorphine: Findings from national surveys of treatment patients and physicians. Drug and Alcohol Dependence
CrossRef9
G. R. Tanner, N. Bordon, S. Conroy, D. Best. (2011) Comparing methadone and Suboxone in applied treatment settings: the experiences of maintenance patients in Lanarkshire. Journal of Substance Use 16:3, 171-178
CrossRef10
Paul M. Roman, Amanda J. Abraham, Hannah K. Knudsen. (2011) Using medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorders: Evidence of barriers and facilitators of implementation. Addictive Behaviors 36:6, 584-589
CrossRef11
P Todd Korthuis, David A Fiellin, Rongwei Fu, Paula J Lum, Frederick L Altice, Nancy Sohler, Mary J Tozzi, Steven M Asch, Michael Botsko, Margaret Fishl, Timothy P Flanigan, Joshua Boverman, Dennis McCarty. (2011) Improving Adherence to HIV Quality of Care Indicators in Persons With Opioid Dependence: The Role of Buprenorphine. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 56, S83-S90
CrossRef12
Lynn E Sullivan, Michael Botsko, Chinazo O Cunningham, Patrick G OʼConnor, David Hersh, Jennifer Mitty, Paula J Lum, Richard S Schottenfeld, David A Fiellin. (2011) The Impact of Cocaine Use on Outcomes in HIV-Infected Patients Receiving Buprenorphine/Naloxone. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 56, S54-S61
CrossRef13
David A Fiellin, Linda Weiss, Michael Botsko, James E Egan, Frederick L Altice, Lauri B Bazerman, Amina Chaudhry, Chinazo O Cunningham, Marc N Gourevitch, Paula J Lum, Lynn E Sullivan, Richard S Schottenfeld, Patrick G OʼConnor. (2011) Drug Treatment Outcomes Among HIV-Infected Opioid-Dependent Patients Receiving Buprenorphine/Naloxone. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 56, S33-S38
CrossRef14
Eve S. Puffer, Linda M. Skalski, Christina S. Meade. (2010) Changes in Religious Coping and Relapse to Drug Use Among Opioid-Dependent Patients Following Inpatient Detoxification. Journal of Religion and Health
CrossRef15
Peter A. DeMaria, Robert C. Sterling, Robin Risler, Jeremy Frank. (2010) Using Buprenorphine to Treat Opioid-Dependent University Students. Journal of Addiction Medicine 4:4, 236-242
CrossRef16
David S Metzger, George E Woody, Charles P OʼBrien. (2010) Drug Treatment as HIV Prevention: A Research Update. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 55, S32-S36
CrossRef17
David S. Metzger, Yan Zhang. (2010) Drug Treatment as HIV Prevention: Expanding Treatment Options. Current HIV/AIDS Reports 7:4, 220-225
CrossRef18
Icro Maremmani, Gilberto Gerra. (2010) Buprenorphine-Based Regimens and Methadone for the Medical Management of Opioid Dependence: Selecting the Appropriate Drug for Treatment. The American Journal on Addictions 19:6, 557-568
CrossRef19
Jeanette M. Tetrault, David A. Fiellin, Linda M. Niccolai, Lynn E. Sullivan. (2010) Substance Use in Patients with Sexually Transmitted Infections: Results from a National U.S. Survey. The American Journal on Addictions 19:6, 504-509
CrossRef20
Michael D. Stein, Debra S. Herman, Malyna Kettavong, Patricia A. Cioe, Peter D. Friedmann, Tahir Tellioglu, Bradley J. Anderson. (2010) Antidepressant treatment does not improve buprenorphine retention among opioid-dependent persons. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 39:2, 157-166
CrossRef21
Cynthia L. Arfken, Chris-Ellyn Johanson, Salvatore di Menza, Charles Roberts Schuster. (2010) Expanding treatment capacity for opioid dependence with office-based treatment with buprenorphine: National surveys of physicians. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 39:2, 96-104
CrossRef22
Christina S Meade, Roger D Weiss, Garrett M Fitzmaurice, Sabrina A Poole, Geetha A Subramaniam, Ashwin A Patkar, Hilary S Connery, George E Woody. (2010) HIV Risk Behavior in Treatment-Seeking Opioid-Dependent Youth: Results From a NIDA Clinical Trials Network Multisite Study. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 55:1, 65-72
CrossRef23
Emily A. Wang, Brent A. Moore, Lynn E. Sullivan, David A. Fiellin. (2010) Effect of Incarceration History on Outcomes of Primary Care Office-based Buprenorphine/Naloxone. Journal of General Internal Medicine 25:7, 670-674
CrossRef24
Zev Schuman-Olivier, Mark Albanese, Sarah E. Nelson, Lolita Roland, Francyne Puopolo, Lauren Klinker, Howard J. Shaffer. (2010) Self-treatment: Illicit buprenorphine use by opioid-dependent treatment seekers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 39:1, 41-50
CrossRef25
Erik W. Gunderson, Xin-Qun Wang, David A. Fiellin, Benjamin Bryan, Frances R. Levin. (2010) Unobserved versus observed office buprenorphine/naloxone induction: A pilot randomized clinical trial. Addictive Behaviors 35:5, 537-540
CrossRef26
Sandra D. Comer, Maria A. Sullivan, Suzanne K. Vosburg, Jeanne Manubay, Leslie Amass, Ziva D. Cooper, Phillip Saccone, Herbert D. Kleber. (2010) Abuse liability of intravenous buprenorphine/naloxone and buprenorphine alone in buprenorphine-maintained intravenous heroin abusers. Addiction 105:4, 709-718
CrossRef27
Patrizia Amato. (2010) Clinical Experience with Fortnightly Buprenorphine/Naloxone versus Buprenorphine in Italy. Clinical Drug Investigation 30, 33-39
CrossRef28
Franco Montesano, Domenico Zaccone, Egidio Battaglia, Felice Genco, Vincenzo Mellace. (2010) Therapeutic Switch to Buprenorphine/Naloxone from Buprenorphine Alone. Clinical Drug Investigation 30, 13-19
CrossRef29
Roger D. Weiss, Jennifer Sharpe Potter, Scott E. Provost, Zhen Huang, Petra Jacobs, Albert Hasson, Robert Lindblad, Hilary Smith Connery, Kristi Prather, Walter Ling. (2010) A multi-site, two-phase, Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study (POATS): Rationale, design, and methodology. Contemporary Clinical Trials 31:2, 189-199
CrossRef30
Jean-Pierre Daulouède, Yves Caer, Pascal Galland, Pierre Villeger, Emmanuel Brunelle, Jérôme Bachellier, Jean-Michel Piquet, Jean Harbonnier, Yves Leglise, Pascal Courty. (2010) Preference for buprenorphine/naloxone and buprenorphine among patients receiving buprenorphine maintenance therapy in France: A prospective, multicenter study. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 38:1, 83-89
CrossRef31
T.V. Parran, C.A. Adelman, B. Merkin, M.E. Pagano, R. Defranco, R.A. Ionescu, A.G. Mace. (2010) Long-term outcomes of office-based buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance therapy. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 106:1, 56-60
CrossRef32
EUGENIA OVIEDO-JOEKES, JOAN C. MARCH, MANUEL ROMERO, EMILIO PEREA-MILLA. (2010) The Andalusian trial on heroin-assisted treatment: A 2 year follow-up. Drug and Alcohol Review 29:1, 75-80
CrossRef33
Lynn E. Sullivan, Brent A. Moore, Patrick G. O'Connor, Declan T. Barry, Marek C. Chawarski, Richard S. Schottenfeld, David A. Fiellin. (2010) The Association between Cocaine Use and Treatment Outcomes in Patients Receiving Office-Based Buprenorphine/Naloxone for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence. American Journal on Addictions 19:1, 53-58
CrossRef34
Janet M. Soeffing, L. David Martin, Michael I. Fingerhood, Donald R. Jasinski, Darius A. Rastegar. (2009) Buprenorphine maintenance treatment in a primary care setting: Outcomes at 1 year. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 37:4, 426-430
CrossRef35
Jennifer S. Orman, Gillian M. Keating. (2009) Spotlight on Buprenorphine/Naloxone in the Treatment of Opioid Dependence†. CNS Drugs 23:10, 899-902
CrossRef36
Joshua D. Lee, Ellie Grossman, Danae DiRocco, Marc N. Gourevitch. (2009) Home Buprenorphine/Naloxone Induction in Primary Care. Journal of General Internal Medicine 24:2, 226-232
CrossRef37
Declan T. Barry, Kevin S. Irwin, Emlyn S. Jones, William C. Becker, Jeanette M. Tetrault, Lynn E. Sullivan, Helena Hansen, Patrick G. O’Connor, Richard S. Schottenfeld, David A. Fiellin. (2009) Integrating Buprenorphine Treatment into Office-based Practice: a Qualitative Study. Journal of General Internal Medicine 24:2, 218-225
CrossRef38
Emlyn S. Jones, Brent A. Moore, Jody L. Sindelar, Patrick G. O’Connor, Richard S. Schottenfeld, David A. Fiellin. (2009) Cost analysis of clinic and office-based treatment of opioid dependence: Results with methadone and buprenorphine in clinically stable patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 99:1-3, 132-140
CrossRef39
Jennifer S. Orman, Gillian M. Keating. (2009) Buprenorphine/Naloxone. Drugs 69:5, 577-607
CrossRef40
Laura Amato, Silvia Minozzi, Marina Davoli, Simona Vecchi, Marica Ferri, Soraya Mayet, Laura Amato. 2008. Psychosocial combined with agonist maintenance treatments versus agonist maintenance treatments alone for treatment of opioid dependence. .
CrossRef41
Lynn E. Sullivan, Brent A. Moore, Marek C. Chawarski, Michael V. Pantalon, Declan Barry, Patrick G. O'Connor, Richard S. Schottenfeld, David A. Fiellin. (2008) Buprenorphine/naloxone treatment in primary care is associated with decreased human immunodeficiency virus risk behaviors. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 35:1, 87-92
CrossRef42
M.C. Chawarski, M. Mazlan, R.S. Schottenfeld. (2008) Behavioral drug and HIV risk reduction counseling (BDRC) with abstinence-contingent take-home buprenorphine: A pilot randomized clinical trial. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 94:1-3, 281-284
CrossRef43
William C. Becker, David A. Fiellin, Joseph O. Merrill, Beryl Schulman, Ruth Finkelstein, Yngvild Olsen, Susan H. Busch. (2008) Opioid use disorder in the United States: Insurance status and treatment access. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 94:1-3, 207-213
CrossRef44
Erik W Gunderson, David A Fiellin. (2008) Office-Based Maintenance Treatment of Opioid Dependence. CNS Drugs 22:2, 99-111
CrossRef45
Marek C. Chawarski, David A. Fiellin, Patrick G. O'Connor, Mathew Bernard, Richard S. Schottenfeld. (2007) Utility of sweat patch testing for drug use monitoring in outpatient treatment for opiate dependence. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 33:4, 411-415
CrossRef46
Richard J. Bodnar. (2007) Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2006. Peptides 28:12, 2435-2513
CrossRef47
James Bell, Marian Shanahan, Carolyn Mutch, Felicity Rea, Anni Ryan, Robert Batey, Adrian Dunlop, Adam Winstock. (2007) A randomized trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of observed versus unobserved administration of buprenorphine-naloxone for heroin dependence. Addiction 102:12, 1899-1907
CrossRef48
Adam J. Gordon, Jodie A. Trafton, Andrew J. Saxon, Allen L. Gifford, Francine Goodman, Vincent S. Calabrese, Laura McNicholas, Joseph Liberto. (2007) Implementation of buprenorphine in the Veterans Health Administration: Results of the first 3 years. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 90:2-3, 292-296
CrossRef49
Matthew Torrington, Catherine P. Domier, Maureen Hillhouse, Walter Ling. (2007) Buprenorphine 101. Journal of Addictive Diseases 26:3, 93-99
CrossRef50
Susan D. Whitley, Hillary V. Kunins, Julia H. Arnsten, Marc N. Gourevitch. (2007) Colocating buprenorphine with methadone maintenance and outpatient chemical dependency services. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 33:1, 85-90
CrossRef51
James W. Finch, Jonathan B. Kamien, Leslie Amass. (2007) Two-year Experience with Buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone) for Maintenance Treatment of Opioid Dependence Within a Private Practice Setting. Journal of Addiction Medicine 1:2, 104-110
CrossRef52
Brent A. Moore, David A. Fiellin, Declan T. Barry, Lynn E. Sullivan, Marek C. Chawarski, Patrick G. O’Connor, Richard S. Schottenfeld. (2007) Primary Care Office-based Buprenorphine Treatment: Comparison of Heroin and Prescription Opioid Dependent Patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine 22:4, 527-530
CrossRef53
Eveline LA van Dorp, Ashraf Yassen, Albert Dahan. (2007) Naloxone treatment in opioid addiction: the risks and benefits. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety 6:2, 125-132
CrossRef54
Declan T. Barry, Brent A. Moore, Michael V. Pantalon, Marek C. Chawarski, Lynn E. Sullivan, Patrick G. O’Connor, Richard S. Schottenfeld, David A. Fiellin. (2007) Patient Satisfaction with Primary Care Office-Based Buprenorphine/Naloxone Treatment. Journal of General Internal Medicine 22:2, 242-245
CrossRef55
B. E. Smink Gouda. (2007) Onderhoudstherapie bij opiaatafhankelijkheid: buprenorfine, naloxon en consult. Medisch-Farmaceutische Mededelingen 45:1, 10-11
CrossRef56
L. E. Sullivan, D. Barry, B. A. Moore, M. C. Chawarski, J. M. Tetrault, M. V. Pantalon, P. G. O'Connor, R. S. Schottenfeld, D. A. Fiellin. (2006) A Trial of Integrated Buprenorphine/Naloxone and HIV Clinical Care. Clinical Infectious Diseases 43:Supplement 4, S184-S190
CrossRef57
Paula J. Lum, Jacqueline Peterson Tulsky. (2006) The medical management of opioid dependence in HIV primary care settings. Current HIV/AIDS Reports 3:4, 195-204
CrossRef58
(2006) Counseling plus Buprenorphine–Naloxone for Opioid Dependence. New England Journal of Medicine 355:16, 1736-1737
Full Text
- Letters
