Methadone Versus Buprenorphine/Naloxone: Treatment Outcome Differences Among Individuals Receiving Medications for Opioid Use Disorders in Rural Treatment Settings—A 1-Year Retrospective Cohort Study
Anna MacCamy, Lisa Khairy, Tara Wasser, Gurkanwal Gill, Leslie Kenefick, Alex Schmidt, Nicole Akana, Luke Hall, Kibeom Kwon, Nicole Limberg, Kirsi Kirk-Lewis, Megan Lewis, Matt Owen, Sterling M. McPherson, André Q. Miguel
{"title":"Methadone Versus Buprenorphine/Naloxone: Treatment Outcome Differences Among Individuals Receiving Medications for Opioid Use Disorders in Rural Treatment Settings—A 1-Year Retrospective Cohort Study","authors":"Anna MacCamy, Lisa Khairy, Tara Wasser, Gurkanwal Gill, Leslie Kenefick, Alex Schmidt, Nicole Akana, Luke Hall, Kibeom Kwon, Nicole Limberg, Kirsi Kirk-Lewis, Megan Lewis, Matt Owen, Sterling M. McPherson, André Q. Miguel","doi":"10.1111/jrh.70219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is the gold standard of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Methadone and buprenorphine have shown to be the most effective MOUD, yet little is known about the compared efficacy when treating OUD in community-based rural treatment settings. This study aims to explore treatment outcome differences among patients initiating methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone in community-based rural treatment programs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Data for this 1-year retrospective cohort study were extracted from electronic medical records of 561 individuals initiating treatment between January 2019 and December 2019 at four MOUD clinics located in rural Oregon. Between-group comparisons were conducted using chi-square for dichotomous variables and ANOVA for continuous variables. Kaplan Meier and generalized estimating equations were used to determine treatment retention and opioid use over time.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of the 561 patients, 74.5% were dispensed methadone while 25.5% were prescribed buprenorphine/naloxone. Those dispensed methadone were more likely to be unemployed (57.7% vs. 44.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.01) and diagnosed with severe OUD (93.5% vs. 83.9%, <i>p</i> = 0.04). There were no significant group differences on other treatment intake demographics nor opioid use or treatment retention over a 12-month period. Clinic site was a significant predictor of proportion of negative urine tests.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Both methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone performed comparably well in reducing opioid use and retaining patients in treatment. In comparison to medication type, clinical site and time in treatment had a larger impact on participant outcomes. These findings suggest that the use of both methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone should be encouraged in the context of rural MOUD treatment programs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":"42 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13620437/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.70219","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is the gold standard of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Methadone and buprenorphine have shown to be the most effective MOUD, yet little is known about the compared efficacy when treating OUD in community-based rural treatment settings. This study aims to explore treatment outcome differences among patients initiating methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone in community-based rural treatment programs.
Methods
Data for this 1-year retrospective cohort study were extracted from electronic medical records of 561 individuals initiating treatment between January 2019 and December 2019 at four MOUD clinics located in rural Oregon. Between-group comparisons were conducted using chi-square for dichotomous variables and ANOVA for continuous variables. Kaplan Meier and generalized estimating equations were used to determine treatment retention and opioid use over time.
Results
Of the 561 patients, 74.5% were dispensed methadone while 25.5% were prescribed buprenorphine/naloxone. Those dispensed methadone were more likely to be unemployed (57.7% vs. 44.8%, p = 0.01) and diagnosed with severe OUD (93.5% vs. 83.9%, p = 0.04). There were no significant group differences on other treatment intake demographics nor opioid use or treatment retention over a 12-month period. Clinic site was a significant predictor of proportion of negative urine tests.
Conclusion
Both methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone performed comparably well in reducing opioid use and retaining patients in treatment. In comparison to medication type, clinical site and time in treatment had a larger impact on participant outcomes. These findings suggest that the use of both methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone should be encouraged in the context of rural MOUD treatment programs.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.