丁丙诺啡-纳洛酮与美沙酮治疗阿片类药物使用障碍:随机临床试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Anderson Matheus Pereira da Silva, Mariana Leticia de Bastos Maximiano, Lucas Silva Cabeça, Levi Leal Silva, Elizabeth Honorato de Faria, Matheus Nepomuceno Fernandes, Ariane Barros Mesquita Cunha, Gabrielle Silva Vieira, Thierry Duarte Ribeiro Sobral, Daniel Vicente de Siqueira Lima Júnior, Maria Bernadete de Sousa Maia, Eryvelton de Souza Franco
{"title":"丁丙诺啡-纳洛酮与美沙酮治疗阿片类药物使用障碍:随机临床试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Anderson Matheus Pereira da Silva, Mariana Leticia de Bastos Maximiano, Lucas Silva Cabeça, Levi Leal Silva, Elizabeth Honorato de Faria, Matheus Nepomuceno Fernandes, Ariane Barros Mesquita Cunha, Gabrielle Silva Vieira, Thierry Duarte Ribeiro Sobral, Daniel Vicente de Siqueira Lima Júnior, Maria Bernadete de Sousa Maia, Eryvelton de Souza Franco","doi":"10.1080/10550887.2025.2514308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of buprenorphine-naloxone compared to methadone in the treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD), with a focus on treatment retention, attrition rates, and serious adverse events. OUD remains a major public health concern, necessitating effective pharmacological interventions to improve adherence and minimize adverse outcomes.<b>Methods:</b> A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus identified randomized controlled trials comparing both treatments. The study adhered to PRISMA guidelines, and data were analyzed using a random-effects model with Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I<sup>2</sup> statistic.<b>Results:</b> Seven randomized controlled trials involving 3,622 patients were included. Methadone doses ranged from 5 to 397 mg/day and buprenorphine-naloxone from 2 to 32 mg/day. Methadone showed significantly higher treatment retention at six months compared to buprenorphine-naloxone (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.27-0.67; I<sup>2</sup> = 62.2%). Attrition was higher in the buprenorphine-naloxone group (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.42-4.30; I<sup>2</sup> = 68.4%). In contrast, serious adverse events occurred less frequently with buprenorphine-naloxone (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.48-1.09; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%).<b>Conclusion:</b> In conclusion, methadone is associated with superior retention, while buprenorphine-naloxone presents a more favorable safety profile. These findings highlight the need for individualized treatment decisions based on clinical context and patient-specific risks. Future large-scale, high-quality studies are recommended to guide optimal pharmacological strategies for managing OUD.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO protocol number: CRD 42025634919.</p>","PeriodicalId":47493,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Addictive Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Buprenorphine-naloxone vs methadone for opioid use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.\",\"authors\":\"Anderson Matheus Pereira da Silva, Mariana Leticia de Bastos Maximiano, Lucas Silva Cabeça, Levi Leal Silva, Elizabeth Honorato de Faria, Matheus Nepomuceno Fernandes, Ariane Barros Mesquita Cunha, Gabrielle Silva Vieira, Thierry Duarte Ribeiro Sobral, Daniel Vicente de Siqueira Lima Júnior, Maria Bernadete de Sousa Maia, Eryvelton de Souza Franco\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10550887.2025.2514308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of buprenorphine-naloxone compared to methadone in the treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD), with a focus on treatment retention, attrition rates, and serious adverse events. OUD remains a major public health concern, necessitating effective pharmacological interventions to improve adherence and minimize adverse outcomes.<b>Methods:</b> A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus identified randomized controlled trials comparing both treatments. The study adhered to PRISMA guidelines, and data were analyzed using a random-effects model with Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I<sup>2</sup> statistic.<b>Results:</b> Seven randomized controlled trials involving 3,622 patients were included. Methadone doses ranged from 5 to 397 mg/day and buprenorphine-naloxone from 2 to 32 mg/day. Methadone showed significantly higher treatment retention at six months compared to buprenorphine-naloxone (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.27-0.67; I<sup>2</sup> = 62.2%). Attrition was higher in the buprenorphine-naloxone group (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.42-4.30; I<sup>2</sup> = 68.4%). In contrast, serious adverse events occurred less frequently with buprenorphine-naloxone (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.48-1.09; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%).<b>Conclusion:</b> In conclusion, methadone is associated with superior retention, while buprenorphine-naloxone presents a more favorable safety profile. These findings highlight the need for individualized treatment decisions based on clinical context and patient-specific risks. Future large-scale, high-quality studies are recommended to guide optimal pharmacological strategies for managing OUD.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO protocol number: CRD 42025634919.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47493,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Addictive Diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Addictive Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10550887.2025.2514308\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Addictive Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10550887.2025.2514308","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本荟萃分析评估了丁丙诺啡-纳洛酮与美沙酮治疗阿片类药物使用障碍(OUD)的疗效和安全性,重点关注治疗保留率、损耗率和严重不良事件。OUD仍然是一个主要的公共卫生问题,需要有效的药物干预来改善依从性并尽量减少不良后果。方法:系统检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane CENTRAL、Web of Science和Scopus,确定比较两种治疗方法的随机对照试验。该研究遵循PRISMA指南,数据分析采用随机效应模型,采用优势比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI)。采用I2统计量评估异质性。结果:纳入7项随机对照试验,涉及3622例患者。美沙酮的剂量为5至397毫克/天,丁丙诺啡-纳洛酮的剂量为2至32毫克/天。与丁丙诺啡-纳洛酮相比,美沙酮在6个月时的治疗保留率显著更高(OR 0.43;95% ci 0.27-0.67;I2 = 62.2%)。丁丙诺啡-纳洛酮组磨损率较高(OR 2.47;95% ci 1.42-4.30;I2 = 68.4%)。相比之下,丁丙诺啡-纳洛酮组的严重不良事件发生率较低(OR 0.72;95% ci 0.48-1.09;I2 = 0.0%)。结论:美沙酮具有较好的保留率,而丁丙诺啡-纳洛酮具有较好的安全性。这些发现强调了根据临床情况和患者特定风险做出个性化治疗决定的必要性。建议未来进行大规模、高质量的研究,以指导治疗OUD的最佳药理策略。报名:普洛斯彼罗协议号:CRD 42025634919。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Buprenorphine-naloxone vs methadone for opioid use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Background: This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of buprenorphine-naloxone compared to methadone in the treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD), with a focus on treatment retention, attrition rates, and serious adverse events. OUD remains a major public health concern, necessitating effective pharmacological interventions to improve adherence and minimize adverse outcomes.Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus identified randomized controlled trials comparing both treatments. The study adhered to PRISMA guidelines, and data were analyzed using a random-effects model with Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.Results: Seven randomized controlled trials involving 3,622 patients were included. Methadone doses ranged from 5 to 397 mg/day and buprenorphine-naloxone from 2 to 32 mg/day. Methadone showed significantly higher treatment retention at six months compared to buprenorphine-naloxone (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.27-0.67; I2 = 62.2%). Attrition was higher in the buprenorphine-naloxone group (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.42-4.30; I2 = 68.4%). In contrast, serious adverse events occurred less frequently with buprenorphine-naloxone (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.48-1.09; I2 = 0.0%).Conclusion: In conclusion, methadone is associated with superior retention, while buprenorphine-naloxone presents a more favorable safety profile. These findings highlight the need for individualized treatment decisions based on clinical context and patient-specific risks. Future large-scale, high-quality studies are recommended to guide optimal pharmacological strategies for managing OUD.

Registration: PROSPERO protocol number: CRD 42025634919.

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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: The Journal of Addictive Diseases is an essential, comprehensive resource covering the full range of addictions for today"s addiction professional. This in-depth, practical journal helps you stay on top of the vital issues and the clinical skills necessary to ensure effective practice. The latest research, treatments, and public policy issues in addiction medicine are presented in a fully integrated, multi-specialty perspective. Top researchers and respected leaders in addiction issues share their knowledge and insights to keep you up-to-date on the most important research and practical applications.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信