4.1 Article

Efficacy of Opiate Maintenance Therapy and Adjunctive Interventions for Opioid Dependence with Comorbid Cocaine Use Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 339-349

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00952990903108215

关键词

Buprenorphine; cocaine; heroin; meta-analysis; methadone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To determine the efficacy of Opiate Maintenance Therapy (OMT) and adjunctive interventions for dual heroin and cocaine dependence by means of a meta-analysis. Method: We searched for and retrieved randomized controlled clinical trials. We used RevMan 5.0 with random effects modeling for statistical analysis and for comparisons of relative risk, effect sizes, and confidence intervals. Subsequent moderator variables and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Thirty-seven studies, which have enrolled 3,029 patients, have been included in this meta-analysis. High doses of OMT were more efficacious than lower ones in the achievement of sustained heroin abstinence (RR = 2.24 [1.54, 3.24], p < .0001) but had no effect on cocaine abstinence. At equivalent doses, methadone was more efficacious than buprenorphine on cocaine abstinence (RR = 1.63 [1.20, 2.22], p = .002) and also appeared to be superior on heroin abstinence (RR = 1.39 [1.00, 1.93], p = .05). Several pharmacological and psychological potentiation strategies have been investigated. An improvement on sustained cocaine abstinence was achieved with indirect dopaminergic agonists RR = 1.44 [1.05, 1.98], p = .03) and with contingency management (CM) focusing on cocaine abstinence (RR = 3.11 [1.80, 5.35], p < .0001). Conclusions: Dual opioid and cocaine dependence can be effectively treated with OMT in combination with adjunctive interventions. Higher OMT doses are preferable to lower ones and methadone to buprenorphine. OMT can be enhanced with indirect dopaminergic drugs and with CM focusing on cocaine abstinence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据