Comments on a pragmatic trial

Methadone induction in primary care for opioid dependence: a pragmatic randomized trial (ANRS Methaville)

Objective

Methadone coverage is poor in many countries due in part to methadone induction being possible only in specialized care (SC). This multicenter pragmatic trial compared the effectiveness of methadone treatment between two induction models: primary care (PC) and SC.

Methods

In this study, registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov (NCT00657397), opioid-dependent individuals not on methadone treatment for at least one month or receiving buprenorphine but needing to switch were randomly assigned to start methadone in PC (N = 155) or in SC (N = 66) in 10 sites in France. Visits were scheduled at months M0, M3, M6 and M12. The primary outcome was self-reported abstinence from street-opioids at 12 months (M12) (with an underlying 15% non-inferiority hypothesis for PC). Secondary outcomes were abstinence during follow-up, engagement in treatment (i.e. completing the induction period), retention and satisfaction with the explanations provided by the physician. Primary analysis used intention to treat (ITT). Mixed models and the log-rank test were used to assess the arm effect (PC vs. SC) on the course of abstinence and retention, respectively.

Results

In the ITT analysis (n = 155 in PC, 66 in SC), which compared the proportions of street-opioid abstinent participants, 85/155 (55%) and 22/66 (33%) of the participants were classified as street-opioid abstinent at M12 in PC and SC, respectively. This ITT analysis showed the non-inferiority of PC (21.5 [7.7; 35.3]). Engagement in treatment and satisfaction with the explanations provided by the physician were significantly higher in PC than SC. Retention in methadone and abstinence during follow-up were comparable in both arms (p = 0.47, p = 0.39, respectively).

Conclusions

Under appropriate conditions, methadone induction in primary care is feasible and acceptable to both physicians and patients. It is as effective as induction in specialized care in reducing street-opioid use and ensuring engagement and retention in treatment for opioid dependence.

Trial registration

Number Eudract 2008-001338-28; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00657397; International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN31125511

Efficacy and safety of specific immunotherapy with a modified mite extract

BACKGROUND

In specific immunotherapy (SIT), modified extracts have been used to allow safe administration of higher allergen doses. Schedules reaching maintenance doses in approximately 1 month, which may have greater efficacy, have even been proposed.

AIMS

To assess the safety and efficacy of SIT with modified (depigmented and polymerized) Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus extract in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty patients with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic rhinitis and who were monosensitized to Dermatophagoides were included in this controlled, pragmatic, 1-year open study. The patients were randomly allocated to receive treatment with a Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus 100 % modified allergen vaccine (active group, n = 25) or pharmacological treatment only (control group, n = 25). All SIT-related adverse reactions were recorded. Efficacy was assessed primarily through the results of nasal allergen challenges, through visual analog scale (VAS) and symptom scores.

RESULTS

In SIT-treated patients, significant improvements were found in symptom scores (mean reduction > 40 %), VAS scores (mean improvement > 20 %) and nasal challenges (mean increase in allergen concentration threshold > 500 %). For symptom and VAS scores, statistically significant differences between control and SIT-treated patients were recorded at 12 months. In nasal challenges statistically significant differences were observed as early as at 6 months. Control patients showed no significant differences during the study period. Local reactions were observed in 28 % of SIT-treated patients (total 24 reactions). There was only one immediate grade I systemic reaction, which was successfully treated with an antihistamine.

CONCLUSIONS

SIT with this modified extract appears to be a relatively safe treatment, which can rapidly improve nasal allergenic tolerance, reduce symptom scores and improve subjective self-evaluation measured through VAS, reflecting a general improvement in patients' well-being.