Premium
A randomized trial comparing levo‐alpha acetylmethadol with methadone maintenance for patients in primary care settings in Australia
Author(s) -
Ritter Alison J.,
Lintzeris Nicholas,
Clark Nicolas,
Kutin Jozica J.,
Bammer Gabriele,
Panjari Mary
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
addiction
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.424
H-Index - 193
eISSN - 1360-0443
pISSN - 0965-2140
DOI - 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00529.x
Subject(s) - methadone , methadone maintenance , randomized controlled trial , medicine , primary care , emergency medicine , psychiatry , family medicine
Aims The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of levo‐alpha‐acetylmethadol (LAAM) and methadone, as measured by retention in treatment and heroin use, in a randomized trial conducted under naturalistic conditions. Setting This study is the first randomized trial comparing LAAM with methadone in the primary care setting. Participants were recruited through 29 medical practitioners working in specialist and generalist settings in Australia. Participants Existing methadone maintenance patients, aged 18 years and over and able to give informed consent, were randomized to receive either LAAM or methadone. A total of 93 patients participated. Intervention After being trained in the use of LAAM, existing methadone prescribers were then able to determine an individually tailored treatment regimen for each patient. The trial was an open‐label study. Methadone and LAAM dosing was supervised through local community pharmacies. Participation in ancillary services (e.g. counselling) was optional for all patients. The treatment period for the trial was 12 months. Measurements Baseline, 3‐, 6‐ and 12‐month interviews were conducted. Outcome measures were retention in treatment, self‐reported heroin use and serious adverse events. Findings There were no significant differences between LAAM and methadone on retention in treatment, nor heroin use. There was a trend for LAAM patients to have lower heroin use than methadone patients. Of the seven serious adverse events in the LAAM group, three were not drug‐related. There were two dosing errors. Conclusions This study demonstrates (a) the efficacy of LAAM as a treatment for heroin dependence, and (b) the capacity for LAAM to be effectively delivered in primary care settings by trained general practitioners and pharmacists. The next challenge is to resolve outstanding safety concerns with LAAM.