Men's and women's response to treatment and perceptions of outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of injectable opioid assisted treatment for severe opioid use disorder

Heather Palis, Kirsten Marchand, Daphne Guh, Suzanne Brissette, Kurt Lock, Scott MacDonald, Scott Harrison, Aslam H Anis, Michael Krausz, David C Marsh, Martin T Schechter, Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes, Heather Palis, Kirsten Marchand, Daphne Guh, Suzanne Brissette, Kurt Lock, Scott MacDonald, Scott Harrison, Aslam H Anis, Michael Krausz, David C Marsh, Martin T Schechter, Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes

Abstract

Background: To test whether there are gender differences in treatment outcomes among patients receiving injectable opioids for the treatment of long-term opioid-dependence. The study additionally explores whether men and women have different perceptions of treatment effectiveness.

Methods: This study is a secondary analysis from SALOME, a double-blind, phase III, randomized controlled trial testing the non-inferiorirty of injectable hydromorphone to injectable diacetylmorphine among 202 long-term street opioid injectors in Vancouver (Canada). Given this was a secondary analysis, no a priori power calaculation was conducted. Differences in baseline characteristics and six-month treatment outcomes (illicit heroin use, opioid use, crack cocaine use, non-legal activities, physical and psychological health scores, urine positive for street heroin markers, and retention) were analysed by gender using fitted models. Responses to an open ended question on reasons for treatment effectiveness were explored with a thematic analysis.

Results: Men and women differed significantly on a number of characteristics at baseline. For example, women were significantly younger, presented to treatment with significantly higher rates of prior month sex work (31.5% vs. 0%), and used significantly more crack cocaine (14.71 vs. 8.38 days). After six-months of treatment there were no significant differences in treatment outcomes by gender, after adjusting for baseline values. For both men and women, improved health and quality of life were the most common reasons provided for treatment effectiveness, however women were more specific in the types of health improvements.

Conclusions: Despite presenting to treatment with vulnerabilities not faced to the same extent by men, at six-months women did not differ significantly from men in tested trial efficacy outcomes. While the primary outcome in the trial was the reduction of illicit opioid use, in the open-ended responses both men and women focused their comments on improvement in health and quality of life as reasons for treatment effectiveness. The supervised model of care with injectable medications provides a particularly suitable framework for providing care to opioid-dependent men and women not attracted or retained by other treatments. The absence of statistical differences reported in this secondary analysis may be due to lack of adequate statistical power to detect meaningful effects.

Trial registration: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01447212) Registered: October 4, 2011 at the following link: https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT01447212 .

Keywords: Clinical trial; Gender; Opioid-dependence; Patient perceptions.

References

    1. Gowing L, Farrell M, Bornemann R, Ali R. Substitution treatment of injecting opioid users for prevention of HIV infection. The Cochrane Library. 2004. .
    1. Hser YI, et al. Trajectories of heroin addiction: growth mixture modeling results based on a 33-year follow-up study. Eval Rev. 2007;31(6):548–563. doi: 10.1177/0193841X07307315.
    1. Arfken CL, et al. Gender differences in problem severity at assessment and treatment retention. J Subst Abus Treat. 2001;20(1):53–57. doi: 10.1016/S0740-5472(00)00155-0.
    1. Puigdollers E, et al. Characteristics of heroin addicts entering methadone maintenance treatment: quality of life and gender. Subst Use Misuse. 2004;39(9):1353–1368. doi: 10.1081/JA-120039392.
    1. Brady, T.M. and O.S.E. Ashley, Women in substance abuse treatment: Results from the Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS) (DHHS Publication No. SMA 04–3968, Analytic Series A-26). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies., 2005.
    1. Greenfield SF, et al. Substance abuse treatment entry, retention, and outcome in women: a review of the literature. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;86(1):1–21. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.05.012.
    1. Hser YI, et al. Effects of program and patients characteristics on retention of drug treatment patients. Eval Program Plann. 2001;24:331–341. doi: 10.1016/S0149-7189(01)00027-1.
    1. Haasen C, et al. Heroin-assisted treatment for opioid dependence: Randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;191:55–62. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.026112.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes E, et al. Effectiveness of diacetylmorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid dependence in women. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;11(1):50–7. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.03.016.
    1. Charney DA, Gill KJ. Impulsivity, Personality Disorders and the Engagement in Addiction Treatment. European Psychiatry. 2007;22:S184. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2007.01.605.
    1. Charney DA, Palacios-Boix J, Gill KJ. Sexual abuse and the outcome of addiction treatment. Am J Addict. 2007;16(2):93–100. doi: 10.1080/10550490601184225.
    1. Des Jarlais DC, et al. Convergence of HIV seroprevalence among injecting and non-injecting drug users in New York City. AIDS. 2007;21(2):231–235. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3280114a15.
    1. Doyal L. Gender and the 10/90 gap in health research. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:3.
    1. Johnson JL, Greaves L, Repta R. Better science with sex and gender: Facilitating the use of a sex and gender-based analysis in health research. Int J Equity Health. 2009;8:14. doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-8-14.
    1. Grella CE, et al. Gender similarities and differences in the treatment, relapse, and recovery cycle. Eval Rev. 2008;32(1):113–137. doi: 10.1177/0193841X07307318.
    1. Eiroa-Orosa FJ, et al. Implication of gender differences in heroin-assisted treatment: results from the German randomized controlled trial. Am J Addict. 2010;19(4):312–318.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes E, et al. Effectiveness of diacetylmorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid dependence in women, in Drug Alcohol Depend. Ireland: 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd; 2010. pp. 50–57.
    1. Bourgois P, Hart LK. Commentary on Genberg et al. (2011): the structural vulnerability imposed by hypersegregated US inner-city neighborhoods--a theoretical and practical challenge for substance abuse research. Addiction, 2011. 106(11):1975–7.
    1. Quesada J, Hart LK, Bourgois P. Structural vulnerability and health: Latino migrant laborers in the United States. Med Anthropol. 2011;30(4):339–362. doi: 10.1080/01459740.2011.576725.
    1. Grella CE, Lovinger K. Gender differences in physical and mental health outcomes among an aging cohort of individuals with a history of heroin dependence. Addict Behav. 2012;37(3):306–312. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.11.028.
    1. Bourgois P, et al. Structural Vulnerability: Operationalizing the Concept to Address Health Disparities in Clinical Care. Acad Med. 2016;92(3):299–307. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001294.
    1. Cox LG, Simpson A. Cultural safety, diversity and the servicer user and carer movement in mental health research. Nurs Inq. 2015;22(4):306–316. doi: 10.1111/nin.12096.
    1. Nguyen HT. Patient centred care - cultural safety in indigenous health. Aust Fam Physician. 2008;37(12):990–994.
    1. Pauly BB, McCall J, Browne AJ, Parker J, Mollison A. Toward cultural safety: nurse and patient perceptions of illicit substance use in a hospitalized setting. Adv Nurs Sci. 2015;38(2):121–35. doi: 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000070.
    1. Smye V, Browne AJ. ‘Cultural safety’ and the analysis of health policy affecting aboriginal people. Nurse Res. 2002;9(3):42–56. doi: 10.7748/nr2002.04.9.3.42.c6188.
    1. Trujols J, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures: are they patient-generated, patient-centred or patient-valued? J Ment Health. 2013;22(6):555–562. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2012.734653.
    1. Pulford J, Adams P, Sheridan J. Client/clinician discrepancies in perceived problem improvement and the potential influence on dropout response. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2009;7(4):497–505. doi: 10.1007/s11469-007-9116-2.
    1. De Maeyer JV, Broekaert W. E., Exploratory study on drug users’ perspectives on quality of life: More than health-related quality of life? Soc Indic Res. 2009;90(1):107–126. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9315-7.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes E, et al. Hydromorphone Compared With Diacetylmorphine for Long-term Opioid Dependence: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73(5):1–9. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.0109.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes E, et al. The SALOME study: recruitment experiences in a clinical trial offering injectable diacetylmorphine and hydromorphone for opioid dependency. Subst Abuse Treat, Prev Policy. 2015;10(1):3. doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-10-3.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes E, et al. History of Treatment Access and Drug Use among Participants in a Trial Testing Injectable Opioids Under Supervision for Long-Term Heroin Injectors. J Addiction Med Ther. 2015;3(1):1015.
    1. Marsden J, et al. The Maudsley Addiction Profile (MAP): a brief instrument for assessing treatment outcome. Addiction. 1998;93(12):1857–1867. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.9312185711.x.
    1. McLellan AT, et al. The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. J Subst Abus Treat. 1992;9:199–213. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-S.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes E, et al. Predictors of treatment allocation guesses in a randomized controlled trial testing double-blind injectable hydromorphone and diacetylmorphine for severe opioid use disorder. Addict Res Theory. 2017;25(4):263–72. doi: 10.1080/16066359.2016.1263729.
    1. Vittinghoff E. In: Regression Methods in Biostatistics: Linear, Logistic, Survival, and Repeated Measures Model. Gail M, editor. New York: Springer; 2012.
    1. Laird N. Further Comparative Analyses of Pretest-Posttest Research Designs. Am Stat. 1983;37(4):329–330. doi: 10.2307/2682785.
    1. Biering K, Hjollund NH, Frydenberg M. Using multiple imputation to deal with missing data and attrition in longitudinal studies with repeated measures of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Epidemiol. 2015;7:91–106. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S72247.
    1. S.A.S. Institute. SAS 9.4 for Windows. Cary: SAS Institue Inc.; 2012.
    1. LeCompte MD, Schensul JJ. Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Rowman Altamira: Lanham; 1999.
    1. Castleberry A. NVivo 10 [software program]. Version 10. QSR International; 2014.
    1. Marchand K, Oviedo-Joekes E, Guh D, Marsh DC, Brissette S, Schechter MT. Sex work involvement among women with long-term opioid injection drug dependence who enter opioid agonist treatment. Harm reduction J. 2012;9(8). .
    1. Hegamin A, Anglin G, Farabee D. Gender differences in the perception of drug user treatment: assessing drug user treatment for youthful offenders. Subst Use Misuse. 2001;36(14):2159–2170. doi: 10.1081/JA-100108441.
    1. Marchand K, et al. The Role of Gender in Factors Associated With Addiction Treatment Satisfaction Among Long-Term Opioid Users. ADM. 2015;500:14–00189.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes E, et al. Diacetylmorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid addiction. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(8):777–786. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810635.
    1. Strang J, et al. Supervised injectable heroin or injectable methadone versus optimised oral methadone as treatment for chronic heroin addicts in England after persistent failure in orthodox treatment (RIOTT): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9729):1885–1895. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60349-2.
    1. Bell J. Pharmacological maintenance treatments of opiate addiction. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;77(2):253–263. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12051.
    1. Nosyk B, et al. The effect of motivational status on treatment outcome in the North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI) study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;111(1–2):161–165. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.03.019.
    1. Romo N, Poo M, Ballesta R. From illegal poison to legal medicine: a qualitative research in a heroin-prescription trial in Spain. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009;28(2):186–195. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2008.00015.x.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes, E., et al., “The problem is that, besides needing the drug, we have lost everything”. The Andalusian heroin trial from the participants’ side. 17th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm, April 30 to May 4th. Vancouver, Canada, 2006.
    1. Groshkova T, et al. Treatment expectations and satisfaction of treatment-refractory opioid-dependent patients in RIOTT, the Randomised Injectable Opiate Treatment Trial, the UK's first supervised injectable maintenance clinics. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2013;32(6):566–573. doi: 10.1111/dar.12062.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes E, et al. A chance to stop and breathe: participants’ experiences in the North American Opiate Medication Initiative clinical trial. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2014;9:21. doi: 10.1186/1940-0640-9-21.
    1. Bowen S. Marginalized evidence: Effective knowledge translation strategies for low awareness issues. In Healthcare Management Forum. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2006. 19(2). pp. 38-44.
    1. Bowen S, Martens P. Demystifying knowledge translation: learning from the community. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(4):203–211. doi: 10.1258/135581905774414213.
    1. Loukanova S, Molnar R, Bridges JF. Promoting patient empowerment in the healthcare system: highlighting the need for patient-centered drug policy. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2007;7(3):281–289. doi: 10.1586/14737167.7.3.281.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever