Evidence Hub

Opioid agonist treatment and risk of mortality during opioid overdose public health emergency: population based retrospective cohort study

L. Pearce, J. Min, M. Piske, Hao-Xuan Zhou, F. Homayra, A. Slaunwhite, M. Irvine, G. McGowan et al.

British medical journal, 2020

55 participants · 197 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objective To compare the risk of mortality among people with opioid use disorder on and off opioid agonist treatment (OAT) in a setting with a high prevalence of illicitly manufactured fentanyl and other potent synthetic opioids in the illicit drug supply. Design Population based retrospective cohort study. Setting Individual level linkage of five health administrative datasets capturing drug dispensations, hospital admissions, physician billing records, ambulatory care reports, and deaths in British Columbia, Canada. Participants 55 347 people with opioid use disorder who received OAT between 1 January 1996 and 30 September 2018. Main outcome measures All cause and cause specific crude mortality rates (per 1000 person years) to determine absolute risk of mortality and all cause age and sex standardised mortality ratios to determine relative risk of mortality compared with the general population. Mortality risk was calculated according to treatment status (on OAT, off OAT), time since starting and stopping treatment (1, 2, 3-4, 5-12, >12 weeks), and medication type (methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone). Adjusted risk ratios compared the relative risk of mortality on and off OAT over time as fentanyl became more prevalent in the illicit drug supply. Results 7030 (12.7%) of 55 347 OAT recipients died during follow-up. The all cause standardised mortality ratio was substantially lower on OAT (4.6, 95% confidence interval 4.4 to 4.8) than off OAT (9.7, 9.5 to 10.0). In a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 55 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free