1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0740-5472(99)00008-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Three Oral Formulations of Methadone A Clinical and Pharmacodynamic Comparison

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These findings are in line with previous research documenting high rates of what has been defined as “change intolerance” to the introduction of new methadone formulations (Silver & Shaffer, 1996; Steels, Hamilton, & McLean, 1992). Although limited clinical evidence support a psychological (e.g., perceived lower efficacy due to lower volumes) rather than a biological or pharmacological basis underlying withdrawal symptoms (Gourevitch, et al, 1999), it may also be partially explained by dispensation challenges with the new formulation, including difficulties in titrating doses (McNeil, et al, 2015). Regardless, its adverse social and health effects cannot be overlooked.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These findings are in line with previous research documenting high rates of what has been defined as “change intolerance” to the introduction of new methadone formulations (Silver & Shaffer, 1996; Steels, Hamilton, & McLean, 1992). Although limited clinical evidence support a psychological (e.g., perceived lower efficacy due to lower volumes) rather than a biological or pharmacological basis underlying withdrawal symptoms (Gourevitch, et al, 1999), it may also be partially explained by dispensation challenges with the new formulation, including difficulties in titrating doses (McNeil, et al, 2015). Regardless, its adverse social and health effects cannot be overlooked.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, accidental opioid-related overdose deaths have become one of the leading causes of injury deaths in North America, exceeding deaths from motor-vehicle accidents in many American states and Canadian provinces (Compton, et al, 2016; Gourevitch, et al, 1999; King, et al, 2014). In addition to overdose deaths and other medical complications related to chronic opioid use, opioid use disorder (OUD) has been linked to increased risk of transmitting and acquiring blood-borne viruses, including HIV and viral hepatitis, through the sharing of injection equipment (Degenhardt & Hall, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of Methadose® in comparison to other formulations appears limited. While finding no differences in pharmacodynamic or clinical measures, the only study comparing methadone formulations (including Methadose®) was limited to 18 people on methadone who were drug abstinent and HIV-negative (Gourevitch et al, 1999). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As in the recently published, large-scale study by Anglin et al [2] , our study was randomized, but treatment was not blinded. This may be surprising for a prospective multi-centre trial, but there are several good reasons for an open-label comparison of methadone and LAAM: (1) Experienced opioid users are able to tell the diff erence between LAAM and methadone due to the faster increase of serum levels after methadone intake independent of formulation [17] . This may cause a slight feeling of euphoria or being " drugged " and is presumably less frequent under LAAM maintenance.…”
Section: Secondary Criteria Of Effi Cacymentioning
confidence: 99%