4.7 Article

Disulfiram versus placebo for cocaine dependence in buprenorphine-maintained subjects: A preliminary trial

Journal

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 47, Issue 12, Pages 1080-1086

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00310-8

Keywords

disulfiram; buprenorphine; cocaine; opioids; clinical trial

Funding

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [P50-DA-04060, R01-DA-09413, K12-DA-00167] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We examined the effects of disulfiran versus placebo on cocaine dependence in buprenorphine-maintained subjects, Methods: Opioid and cocaine dependent subjects (n = 20) were induced onto buprenorphine maintenance, then randomized to disulfiram (250 mg q.d; n = II) or placebo (n = 9) treatment for 12 weeks. Results: Groups were comparable at baseline on demographic measures and on baseline measures of drug-use severity. Fifteen subjects completed the study, including 8 subjects randomized to disulfiram (72.7%) and 7 subjects randomized to placebo (77.8%). The total number of weeks abstinent from cocaine was significantly greater on disulfiran versus placebo (mean +/- SD: 7.8 +/- 2.6 vs. 3.5 +/- 0.5, p < .05) and the number of days to achieving 3 weeks (24.6 +/- 15.1 vs. 57.8 +/- 7.7, p < .01) of continuous cocaine abstinence was significantly lower in disulfiram compared with placebo, The number of cocaine-negative urine tests during the trial were also higher on disulfiram (14.7) than on placebo 18.6); furthermore, subjects in the disulfiran,group achieved consistently higher rates of cocaine-negative urine tests in each 3-week interval and the increase over time was faster in the disulfiram compared with placebo. Conclusions: This preliminary study suggests the potential efficancy of dissulfiram versus placebo for treatment of cocaine depoendence in buprenorphine-maintained patients. Biol Psychiatry 2000;47:1080-1086 (C) 2000 Society of Biological Psychiatry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available