Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2012

Health-related quality of life changes associated with buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence

Auteurs: Dennis W. Raisch, Heather M. Campbell, David A. Garnand, Mark A. Jones, Mike R. Sather, Rupali Naik, Walter Ling

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2012

Abstract

Background

Few studies have described improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) associated with opioid dependence treatment with buprenorphine (ODT-B).

Objective

To evaluate HRQOL changes in domain scores, physical and mental component summaries, and health utilities (HUs) associated with ODT-B using the Short Form 36 (SF-36).

Methods

We assessed HRQOL changes in a substudy of a pharmacokinetic study that compared buprenorphine oral tablet and liquid dosage formulations over 16 weeks. Individuals, aged 18–65 years, were screened for opioid dependence. They were excluded if they would not agree to birth control or had a serious medical condition. Subjects received psychosocial counseling and weekly group therapy. The SF-36 was administered upon enrollment and at 4-week intervals. We used the SF-6D to estimate HUs. We performed intention to treat (ITT) analyses based on the last observation available for each subject. Paired t tests of each domain and HU, limited to remaining patients at each 4-week interval, were also conducted.

Results

Of 96 subjects enrolled, cumulative dropouts over time resulted in 80, 69, 59, and 44 subjects remaining at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks. There were no significant differences in opioid-positive urines, dropout rates, or dosage changes between formulations. In the ITT analyses, HRQOL improvements over time were bodily pain (62.1 vs. 69.1, P = 0.017), vitality (49.8 vs. 56.5, P = 0.001), mental health (59.9 vs. 66.0, P = 0.001), social function (66.4 vs. 74.7, P = 0.001), role emotional (59.4 vs. 71.9, P = 0.003), role physical (60.9 vs. 70.6, P = 0.005), and mental component summary (41.9 vs. 45.4, P<0.001). HU scores also improved (0.674 vs. 0.715, P = 0.001). Results from paired t tests, with only concurrently enrolled patients, showed similar improvements from baseline to 4, 8, 12, or 16 weeks.

Conclusion

Buprenorphine, accompanied with psychosocial counseling, was associated with improved HRQOL and HUs.

vorige artikel Impact of diabetes mellitus on quality of life in patients with congestive heart failure

volgende artikel The associations among economic hardship, caregiver psychological distress, disease activity, and health-related quality of life in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Ling, W., & Wesson, D. R. (2003). Clinical efficacy of buprenorphine comparisons to methadone and placebo. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 70(2), S49–S57.PubMedCrossRef

Fudala, P. J., Bridge, T. P., Herbert, S., et al. (2003). Office-based treatment of opiate addiction with a sublingual-tablet formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone. New England Journal of Medicine, 349(10), 949–958.PubMedCrossRef

Clark, H. W. (2001). A new era in opioid dependency treatment. Recent law allows qualified physicians to provide care in office setting. Postgrad Med, 109(6), 15–16, 25.

Raisch, D. W., Fye, C. L., Boardman, K. D., & Sather, M. R. (2002). Opioid dependence treatment, including buprenorphine/naloxone. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 36, 312–321.PubMedCrossRef

Connock, M., Juarez-Garcia, A., Jowett, S., et al. (2007). Methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 11(9), 1–190.PubMed

Donaher, P. A., & Welsh, C. (2006). Managing opioid addiction with buprenorphine. American Family Physician, 73(9), 1573–1578.PubMed

Ling, W., & Smith, D. (2002). Buprenorphine: blending practice and research. J Subst Abuse Treat, 23(2), 87–92.PubMedCrossRef

Torrington, M., Domier, C. P., Hillhouse, M., & Ling, W. (2007). Buprenorphine 101: treating opioid dependence with buprenorphine in an office-based setting. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 26(3), 93–99.PubMedCrossRef

Bell, J., Shanahan, M., Mutch, C., et al. (2007). A randomized trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of observed versus unobserved administration of buprenorphine-naloxone for heroin dependence. Addiction, 102(12), 1899–1907.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Barnett, P. G., Rodgers, J. H., & Bloch, D. A. (2001). A meta-analysis comparing buprenorphine to methadone for treatment of opiate dependence. Addiction, 96(5), 683–690.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Harris, A. H., Gospodarevskaya, E., & Ritter, A. J. (2005). A randomised trial of the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence in a primary care setting. Pharmacoeconomics, 23(1), 77–91.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Doran, C. M., Shanahan, M., Mattick, R. P., Ali, R., White, J., & Bell, J. (2003). Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance a cost-effectiveness analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 71(3), 295–302.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Giacomuzzi, S. M., Riemer, Y., Ertl, M., et al. (2003). Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance treatment in an ambulant setting a health-related quality of life assessment. Addiction, 98(5), 693–702.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Maremmani, I., Pani, P. P., Pacini, M., & Perugi, G. (2007). Substance use and quality of life over 12 months among buprenorphine maintenance-treated and methadone maintenance-treated heroin-addicted patients. J Subst Abuse Treat, 33(1), 91–98.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Smith, K. W., & Larson, M. J. (2003). Quality of life assessments by adult substance abusers receiving publicly funded treatment in Massachusetts. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 29(2), 323–335.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Vanagas, G., Padaiga, Z., & Subata, E. (2004). Drug addiction maintenance treatment and quality of life measurements. Medicina (Kaunas), 40(9), 833–841.

17.

Torrens, M., San, L., Martinez, A., Castillo, C., Domingo-Salvany, A., & Alonso, J. (1997). Use of the Nottingham health profile for measuring health status of patients in methadone maintenance treatment. Addiction, 92(6), 707–716.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Eklund, C., Melin, L., Hiltunen, A., & Borg, S. (1994). Detoxification from methadone maintenance treatment in Sweden: long-term outcome and effects on quality of life and life situation. Int J Addict, 29(5), 627–645.PubMed

19.

Reno, R. R., & Aiken, L. S. (1993). Life activities and life quality of heroin addicts in and out of methadone treatment. Int J Addict, 28(3), 211–232.PubMed

20.

Millson, P. E., Challacombe, L., Villeneuve, P. J., et al. (2004). Self-perceived health among Canadian opiate users: a comparison to the general population and to other chronic disease populations. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 95(2), 99–103.

21.

Calsyn, D. A., Saxon, A. J., Bush, K. R., et al. (2004). The addiction severity index medical and psychiatric composite scores measure similar domains as the SF-36 in substance-dependent veterans: concurrent and discriminant validity. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 76, 165–171.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1115–1128.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ, 21(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1(1), 4–5.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Kaplan, R. M., Ganiats, T. G., Sieber, W. J., & Anderson, J. P. (1998). The quality of well-being scale: Critical similarities and differences with SF-36. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 10(6), 509–520.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Compton, P., Ling, W., Moody, D., & Chiang, N. (2006). Pharmacokinetics, bioavailability and opioid effects of liquid versus tablet buprenorphine. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 82(1), 25–31.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Ware, J. E., Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRef

30.

McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Jr., Lu, J. F., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care, 32(1), 40–66.PubMedCrossRef

31.

McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Jr., & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31(3), 247–263.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinksi M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. The Health Institute New England Medical Journal, Boston, 1993).

33.

Hollingworth, W., Sullivan, S. D., Emerson, S. S., Gray, D. T., & Jarvik, J. G. (2002). The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain. Health Economics, 11, 71–85.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Sherbourne, C. D., Unützer, J., Schoenbaum, M., Duan, N., Lenert, L. A., Sturm, R., et al. (2001). Can utility-weighted health-related quality-of-life estimates capture health effects of quality improvement for depression? Medical Care, 39(11), 1246–1259.

35.

Pyne, J. M., Rost, K. M., Zhang, M., Williams, D. K., Smith, J., & Fortney, J. (2003). Cost-effectiveness of a primary care depression intervention. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 432–441.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Lobo, F. S., Gross, C. R., & Matthees, B. J. (2004). Estimation and comparison of derived preference scores from the SF-36 in lung transplant patients. Quality of Life Research, 13, 377–388.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Green, C., Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (2000). Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics, 17(2), 151–165.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Raisch, D. W. (2000). Understanding quality-adjusted life years and their application to pharmacoeconomic research. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 34(7–8), 906–914.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Mattick, R. P., Ali, R., White, J. M., O’Brien, S., Wolk, S., & Danz, C. (2003). Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance therapy: a randomized double-blind trial with 405 opioid-dependent patients. Addiction, 98(4), 441–452.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Lintzeris, N., Bell, J., Bammer, G., Jolley, D. J., & Rushworth, L. (2002). A randomized controlled trial of buprenorphine in the management of short-term ambulatory heroin withdrawal. Addiction, 97(11), 1395–1404.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Ling, W., Charuvastra, C., Collins, J. F., et al. (1998). Buprenorphine maintenance treatment of opiate dependence: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Addiction, 93(4), 475–486.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Ponizovsky, A. M., & Grinshpoon, A. (2007). Quality of life among heroin users on buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 33(5), 631–642.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Ballantyne, J. C., & LaForge, K. S. (2007). Opioid dependence and addiction during opioid treatment of chronic pain. Pain, 129(3), 235–255.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Miotto, K., Compton, P., Ling, W., & Conolly, M. (1996). Diagnosing addictive disease in chronic pain patients. Psychosomatics, 37(3), 223–235.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Wu, S. M., Compton, P., Bolus, R., et al. (2006). The addiction behaviors checklist: validation of a new clinician-based measure of inappropriate opioid use in chronic pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 32(4), 342–351.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Hatoum, H. T., Brazier, J. E., & Akhras, K. S. (2004). Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health, 7(5), 602–609.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Harrison, M. J., Davies, L. M., Bansback, N. J., et al. (2009). The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Quality of Life Research, 18(9), 1195–1205.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Khanna, D., Furst, D. E., Wong, W. K., et al. (2007). Reliability, validity, and minimally important differences of the SF-6D in systemic sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 16(6), 1083–1092.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Lee, B. B., King, M. T., Simpson, J. M., et al. (2008). Validity, responsiveness, and minimal important difference for the SF-6D health utility scale in a spinal cord injured population. Value Health, 11(4), 680–688.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Broz, D., & Ouellet, L. J. (2008). Racial and ethnic changes in heroin injection in the United States: implications for the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 94(1–3), 221–233.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Badia, X., Roset, M., Herdman, M., & Kind, P. (2001). A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making, 21(1), 7–16.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Gabriel, S. E., Kneeland, T. S., Melton, L. J., 3rd, Moncur, M. M., Ettinger, B., & Tosteson, A. N. (1999). Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: Whose values should we use? Med Decis Making, 19(2), 141–148.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Huang, I. C., Willke, R. J., Atkinson, M. J., Lenderking, W. R., Frangakis, C., & Wu, A. W. (2007). US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: does choice of preference weights make a difference? Quality of Life Research, 16(6), 1065–1072.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Health-related quality of life changes associated with buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence
Auteurs: Dennis W. Raisch
Heather M. Campbell
David A. Garnand
Mark A. Jones
Mike R. Sather
Rupali Naik
Walter Ling
Publicatiedatum: 01-09-2012
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2012
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0027-0

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2012

Validation of the Japanese translation of the Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire in Parkinson’s disease patients

Brief Communication

The prevalence of hearing impairment and its burden on the quality of life among adults with Medicare Supplement Insurance

Impact of diabetes mellitus on quality of life in patients with congestive heart failure

PROMIS® Parent Proxy Report Scales: an item response theory analysis of the parent proxy report item banks

The associations among economic hardship, caregiver psychological distress, disease activity, and health-related quality of life in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Relationship between health-related quality of life and clustering of metabolic syndrome diagnostic components

Brief Communication