Effects of Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) for Opioid Use Disorder on Functional Outcomes
May 30, 2018
This systematic review synthesizes evidence on the effects of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD) on functional outcomes, including cognitive (e.g., memory), physical (e.g., fatigue), occupational (e.g., employment status), social/ behavioral (e.g., criminal activity), and neurological (e.g., balance) function. Literature reviewers screened 6,292 citations and presented results in comprehensive evidence tables.
A Systematic Review
|PDF file||3.1 MB||
Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.
This systematic review addresses the question: What are the effects of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) that use buprenorphine, buprenorphine combined with naloxone, methadone, or naltrexone for opioid use disorder (OUD) on functional outcomes compared with wait-list, placebo, treatment without medication, any other comparator, or each other (e.g., buprenorphine versus naltrexone)?
Functional outcomes investigated included cognitive (e.g., memory), physical (e.g., fatigue), occupational (e.g., employment status), social/behavioral (e.g., criminal activity), and neurological (e.g., balance) function.
We searched five scientific research databases from inception to 2017 and reference mined existing reviews. Two independent literature reviewers screened 6,292 citations; 1,327 full-text publications were reviewed in detail and 37 studies met inclusion criteria. Critical appraisals assessed studies in detail, and quality of evidence was rated using established criteria. Results were synthesized in meta-analyses and presented in comprehensive evidence tables. Although MAT patients performed significantly better on some functional outcomes than persons with OUD who did not receive MAT, MAT patients performed worse on several cognitive measures than did matched "healthy" controls with no history of substance use disorder (SUD) or OUD. Because of the moderate-to-high risk of bias of most studies, quality of evidence is low or very low for all findings.
The small number of studies reporting on outcomes of interest and the weaknesses in the body of evidence prevent making strong conclusions about MAT effects on functional outcomes. The literature shows that more research is needed that targets functional outcomes specifically, and there is, in particular, a lack of research evaluating potential differences in functional effects among medication types, the route of administration, treatment modality, and length of treatment.
Food and Drug Administration Warnings Table
Risk of Bias Instruments
This research is sponsored by the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury and conducted within the Forces and Resources Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.