Treatment with injectable hydromorphone: Comparing retention in double blind and open label treatment periods

In a double-blind, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial injectable hydromorphone, a licensed short acting opioid analgesic, was shown to be as effective as diacetylmorphine for the treatment of severe opioid use disorder. An appropriate question is whether hydromorphone offered open-label can...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of substance abuse treatment 2019-06, Vol.101, p.50-54
Hauptverfasser: Oviedo-Joekes, Eugenia, Palis, Heather, Guh, Daphne, Marchand, Kirsten, Brissette, Suzanne, Harrison, Scott, MacDonald, Scott, Lock, Kurt, Anis, Aslam H., Marsh, David C., Schechter, Martin T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In a double-blind, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial injectable hydromorphone, a licensed short acting opioid analgesic, was shown to be as effective as diacetylmorphine for the treatment of severe opioid use disorder. An appropriate question is whether hydromorphone offered open-label can attract and retain patients. This is a retrospective study, using daily prescription data from the Crosstown Clinic in Vancouver, Canada. Treatment retention among participants who had the opportunity to receive open-label injectable hydromorphone for at least 90 consecutive days (n = 108) before having the choice of receiving open-label diacetylmorphine, was compared to their retention outcomes with double-blind injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT). McNemar tests analyzed differences in proportions; a conditional logistic model estimated exact odds ratios; Pairwise t-tests analyzed differences in total number of treatment days; and Kaplan-Meier curves and clustered log-rank tests compared time to first 30 continuous days without injectable treatment. A total of 74 participants (68.5%) were retained in both open-label hydromorphone and double-blind iOAT. Open-label hydromorphone was not significantly associated with lower retention (OR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.2, 1.1; p = .10). Participants attended a mean of 84.4 (SD = 15.8) days of iOAT in the trial and 80.5 (SD = 22.0) days in open-label hydromorphone (mean difference of −3.9; 95% CI = −8.9, 1.1). Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were not statistically significant. As treatment with injectable hydromorphone expands across Canada, our study contributes in a unique manner by providing evidence that the high retention rates observed during the clinical trial were maintained when participants started open-label hydromorphone. •High retention rates observed in the clinical trial were maintained with open label.•Daily hydromorphone doses did not differ in open label vs. double blind treatment.•Hydromorphone offered open-label can retain patients into treatment.
ISSN:0740-5472
1873-6483
DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2019.03.012