4.2 Review

An overview of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of opiate maintenance therapies: available evidence to inform clinical practice and research

期刊

JOURNAL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 321-329

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2005.02.007

关键词

methadone maintenance; buprenorphine; heroin; LAAM; Cochrane review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To summarize the major findings Of the five Cochrane reviews on substitution maintenance treatments for opioid dependence. Methods: We conducted a narrative and quantitative summary of systematic review findings. There were 52 studies included in the original reviews (12,075 participants, range 577-5894): methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) was compared with methadone detoxification treatment (MDT), no treatment, different dosages of MMT, buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT), heroin maintenance treatment (HMT), and L-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM) maintenance treatment (LMT). Measurements: Outcomes considered were retention in treatment, use of heroin and other drugs during treatment, mortality, criminal activity, and quality of life. Findings: Retention in treatment: MMT is more effective than MDT, no treatment, BMT, LMT, and heroin plus methadone. MMT proved to be less effective than injected heroin alone. High doses of methadone are more effective than medium and low doses. Use of heroin: MMT is more effective than waiting list, less effective than LAAM, and not different from injected heroin. No significant results were available for mortality and criminal activity. Conclusions: These findings confirm that MMT at appropriate doses is the most effective in retaining patients in treatment and suppressing heroin use but show weak evidence of effectiveness toward other relevant outcomes. Future clinical trials should collect data on a broad range of health outcomes and recruit participants from heterogeneous practice settings and social contexts to increase generalizability of results. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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