IMPORTANCE Mortality among people with opioid dependence is higher than that of the general population. Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is an effective treatment for opioid dependence; however, there has not yet been a systematic review on the relationship between OAT and specific causes of mortality.OBJECTIVE To estimate the association of time receiving OAT with mortality.DATA SOURCES The Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases were searched through February 18, 2020, including clinical trial registries and previous Cochrane reviews.STUDY SELECTION All observational studies that collected data on all-cause or cause-specific mortality among people with opioid dependence while receiving and not receiving OAT were included. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were also included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data on study, participant, and treatment characteristics were extracted; person-years, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality were calculated. Crude mortality rates and rate ratios (RRs) were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESOverall all-cause and cause-specific mortality both by setting and by participant characteristics. Methadone and buprenorphine OAT were evaluated specifically. RESULTSFifteen RCTs including 3852 participants and 36 primary cohort studies including 749 634 participants were analyzed. Among the cohort studies, the rate of all-cause mortality during OAT was more than half of the rate seen during time out of OAT (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.42-0.53). This association was consistent regardless of patient sex, age, geographic location, HIV status, and hepatitis C virus status and whether drugs were taken through injection. Associations were not different for methadone (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41-0.54) vs buprenorphine (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.26-0.45). There was lower risk of suicide (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.61), cancer (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98), drug-related (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.33-0.52), alcohol-related (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72), and cardiovascular-related (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79) mortality during OAT. In the first 4 weeks of methadone treatment, rates of all-cause mortality and drug-related poisoning were almost double the rates during the remainder of OAT (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.55-5.09) but not for buprenorphine (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.18-1.85). All-cause mortality was 6 times higher in the 4 weeks after OAT cessation (RR, 6.01; 95% CI,, remaining double the rate for the remainder of time not receiving OAT (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.50-2.18). Opioid agonist treatment was associated with a lower risk of mortality during incarceration (RR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01-0.46) and after release from incarceration (RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.02-0.56). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis systematic review and meta-analysis found that OAT was associated with lower rates of mortality. However, access to OAT remains limited, and coverage of OAT remains ...

No abstract

Background and Aims: Studies often rely upon self-report and biological testing methods for measuring illicit drug use, although evidence for their agreement is limited to specific populations and self-report instruments. We aimed to examine comprehensively the evidence for agreement between self-reported and biologically measured illicit drug use among all major illicit drug classes, biological indicators, populations and settings.Methods: We systematically searched peer-reviewed databases (Medline, Embase and PsycINFO) and grey literature. Included studies reported 2 × 2 table counts or agreement estimates comparing self-reported and biologically measured use published up to March 2022. With biological results considered to be the reference standard and use of random-effect regression models, we evaluated pooled estimates for overall agreement (primary outcome), sensitivity, specificity, false omission rates (proportion reporting no use that test positive) and false discovery rates (proportion reporting use that test negative) by drug class, potential consequences attached to self-report (i.e. work, legal or treatment impacts) and time-frame of use. Heterogeneity was assessed by inspecting forest plots.Results: From 7924 studies, we extracted data from 207 eligible studies. Overall agreement ranged from good to excellent (> 0.79). False omission rates were generally low, while false discovery rates varied by setting. Specificity was generally high but sensitivity varied by drug, sample type and setting. Self-report in clinical trials and situations of no consequences was generally reliable. For urine, recent (i.e. past 1-4 days) self-report produced lower sensitivity and false discovery rates than past month. Agreement was higher in studies that informed participants biological testing would occur (diagnostic odds ratio = 2.91, 95% confidence interval = 1.25-6.78). The main source of bias was biological assessments (51% studies).Conclusions: While there are limitations associated with self-report and biological testing to measure illicit drug use, overall agreement between the two methods is high,