METHODS: Two hundred thirty-eight men participated in this cross-sectional study. Four questionnaires were used, the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, Opiate Treatment Index, Malay version of the International Index of Erectile Function 15 (Mal-IIEF-15), and World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF Scale. Multivariate analysis of covariance was used to examine the relationship between MMT and BMT and the Mal-IIEF 15 scores while controlling for all the possible confounders.
RESULTS: The study population consisted of 171 patients (71.8%) on MMT and 67 (28.2%) on BMT. Patients in the MMT group who had a sexual partner scored significantly lower in the sexual desire domain (p < 0.012) and overall satisfaction (p = 0.043) domain compared with their counterparts in the BMT group. Similarly, patients in the MMT group without a sexual partner scored significantly lower in the orgasmic function domain (p = 0.008) compared with those in the BMT group without a partner. Intercourse satisfaction (p = 0.026) and overall satisfaction (p = 0.039) were significantly associated with the social relationships domain after adjusting for significantly correlated sociodemographic variables.
CONCLUSIONS: Sexual functioning is critical for improving the quality of life in patients in an opioid rehabilitation program. Our study showed that buprenorphine causes less sexual dysfunction than methadone. Thus, clinicians may consider the former when treating heroin dependents who have concerns about sexual function.
AIM: We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among male patients on methadone and buprenorphine treatments.
METHODS: Relevant studies published from inception until December 2012 were identified by searching PubMed, OVID, and Embase. Studies were selected using prior defined criteria. Heterogeneity, publication bias, and odds ratio were assessed thoroughly.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To examine the prevalence and odds ratio of sexual dysfunctions among the methadone and buprenorphine groups.
RESULTS: A total of 1,570 participants from 16 eligible studies were identified in this meta-analysis. The studies provided prevalence estimates for sexual dysfunction among methadone users with a meta-analytical pooled prevalence of 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.65). Only four studies compared sexual dysfunction between the two groups, with a significantly higher combined odds ratio in the methadone group (OR = 4.01, 95% CI, 1.52-10.55, P = 0.0049).
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence showed that the prevalence of sexual dysfunction was higher among the users of methadone compared with buprenorphine. Patients with sexual difficulty while on methadone treatment were advised to switch to buprenorphine.
METHODS: 126 detoxified heroin-dependent patients, from an outpatient research clinic and detoxification programme in Malaysia, were randomly assigned by a computer-generated randomisation sequence to 24 weeks of manual-guided drug counselling and maintenance with naltrexone (n=43), buprenorphine (n=44), or placebo (n=39). Medications were administered on a double-blind and double-dummy basis. Primary outcomes, assessed by urine testing three times per week, were days to first heroin use, days to heroin relapse (three consecutive opioid-positive urine tests), maximum consecutive days of heroin abstinence, and reductions in HIV risk behaviours over 6 months. The study was terminated after 22 months of enrolment because buprenorphine was shown to have greater efficacy in an interim safety analysis. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00383045.
FINDINGS: We observed consistent, linear contrasts in days to first heroin use (p=0.0009), days to heroin relapse (p=0.009), and maximum consecutive days abstinent (p=0.0007), with all results best for buprenorphine and worst for placebo. Buprenorphine was associated with greater time to first heroin use than were naltrexone (hazard ratio 1.87 [95% CI 1.21-2.88]) or placebo (2.02 [1.29-3.16]). With buprenorphine, we also recorded significantly greater time to heroin relapse (2.17 [1.38-3.42]), and maximum consecutive days abstinent than with placebo (mean days 59 [95% CI 43-76] vs 24 [13-35]; p=0.003); however, for these outcomes, differences between buprenorphine and naltrexone were not significant. Differences between naltrexone and placebo were not significant for any outcomes. HIV risk behaviours were significantly reduced from baseline across all three treatments (p=0.003), but the reductions did not differ significantly between the three groups.
INTERPRETATION: Our findings lend support to the widespread dissemination of maintenance treatment with buprenorphine as an effective public-health approach to reduce problems associated with heroin dependence.
METHODS: Participants with opioid and ATS dependence (N = 69) were enrolled in a pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial; all received buprenorphine/naloxone and behavioral counseling and were randomized to atomoxetine 80 mg daily (n = 33) or placebo (n = 33). The effect size of the between-group difference on the primary outcome, proportion of ATS-negative urine tests, was estimated using Cohen's d for the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample and for higher adherence subsample (≥60 days of atomoxetine or placebo ingestion).
RESULTS: Participants were all male with mean (SD) age 39.4 (6.8) years. The proportion of ATS-negative urine tests was higher in atomoxetine- compared to placebo-treated participants: 0.77 (0.63-0.91) vs. 0.67 (0.53-0.81, d = 0.26) in the ITT sample and 0.90 (0.75-1.00) vs. 0.64 (0.51-0.78, d = 0.56) in the higher adherence subsample. The proportion of days abstinent from ATS increased from baseline in both groups (p