Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Nov 9.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2015 Jan;41(1):88–92. doi: 10.3109/00952990.2014.983274

Association between hepatitis C virus and opioid use while in buprenorphine treatment: preliminary findings

Sean M Murphy 1, Dana Dweik 2, Sterling McPherson 3, John R Roll 4
PMCID: PMC4638227  NIHMSID: NIHMS727629  PMID: 25490610

Abstract

Background

The prevalence of hepatitis-C-virus (HCV) infections is high among opioid-dependent individuals. Prior research on the simultaneous treatment of both conditions has primarily assessed success as it pertains to HCV; although, it has been noted that favorable substance-use-therapy outcomes may improve the likelihood of HCV-treatment initiation and success. Therefore, current guidelines for the treatment of HCV among illicit drug users suggest that treatment for addiction be given the highest priority.

Objectives

To determine whether opioid-dependent participants in a clinical trial of buprenorphine-treatment tapering regimens, who tested positive for the HCV antibody, experienced significantly different levels of opioid abstinence than those not infected.

Methods

Data came from the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trial Network study 0003, in which 516 eligible opioid-dependent participants were randomized to either a 7-day or 28-day buprenorphine tapering schedule following a 4-week buprenorphine stabilization period. Generalized estimating equations were used to test the research question.

Results

Participants with the HCV antibody were significantly less likely to submit opioid-negative urine analyses during and/or immediately following active treatment [OR = 0.69; CI = 0.51–0.93], which indicates a higher rate of opioid use among this group.

Conclusion

Individualized opioid-dependence treatment strategies may be required for opioid-dependent individuals who test positive for the HCV antibody in order to ensure resources for both opioid-dependence and HCV therapies are used efficiently.

Keywords: Opioid dependence, hepatitis C, buprenorphine

Introduction

In 2011, over 5 million US individuals aged 12 or older were using opioids (either prescription or heroin) for nonmedical purposes (1). The opioid-dependent group is relatively high-risk in terms of becoming infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV). Intravenous drug use (IDU) is the most common risk factor for HCV (2), and is common among both heroin and prescription-opioid misusers (35). In fact, Gombas et al. (6) found that over 80% of the opioid-dependent patients in their sample of individuals undergoing treatment at an outpatient drug addiction clinic were positive for the hepatitis C virus antibody (HCV Ab), and almost 67% were chronically infected.

Between 70% and 85% of individuals who are infected with HCV develop a chronic infection (roughly 3.2 million US persons), which can culminate in liver damage, failure or cancer if not successfully treated (7). Patients with HCV represent a medical challenge given their relatively high likelihood of comorbidities, psychosocial instability, and non-adherence to treatment regimens (810). Non-adherence to HCV treatment is often attributed to a complex treatment regimen and side-effects of the medications, such as depression, anxiety, malaise, fatigue, myalgia and anemia (11). Historically, there have also been concerns of non-adherence and reinfection among illicit drug users with HCV (12,13).

Recent evidence indicates that concurrent treatment of HCV and opioid dependence can be effective for those infected with HCV, and that the risk of reinfection after HCV treatment among IDUs is sufficiently low (1416); although, Aspinall et al. (16) found substantial uncertainty regarding the estimates for reinfection risk. Based on the general evidence, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (17) have recommended that current drug-users with HCV receive treatment for the virus. However, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) advises that addiction therapy be given the highest priority among this population given that there may be reluctance on the part of active drug users to undertake treatment for HCV, as well as a diminished capacity for adherence to treatment (18). Moreover, the AASLD’s practice guidelines for the diagnosis, management and treatment of hepatitis C state that treatment of HCV among illicit drug users be assessed on an individual basis, and that treatments for HCV and opioid dependence be integrated and overseen by a team of providers, including drug-abuse and psychiatric specialists. As alluded to above, the majority of the work on the simultaneous treatment of opioid dependence and HCV has focused on favorable outcomes regarding the latter condition; there has been little research on the association between HCV and successful treatment of opioid dependence. Moreover, much, but not all of the evidence of success with treating these conditions concurrently has been derived from patients in methadone maintenance treatment programs (14).

One of the most widespread and efficacious treatments for opioid-dependent patients is buprenorphine (Subutex®), which is often combined with naloxone (Suboxone®). Since buprenorphine is a partial agonist, it has a ceiling effect and behaves similar to an antagonist at high doses, while also moderating withdrawal discomfort (19). Naloxone mitigates misuse of Suboxone® by triggering opioid-withdrawal symptoms if the medication is administered parenterally. Some evidence also suggests that buprenorphine is relatively low risk in terms of adverse drug-to-drug interactions for patients on antiretroviral therapy, which is important given the number of opioid-dependent patients with comorbid diagnoses of HIV and HCV (20).

Furthermore, with the passage of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) of 2000 (21), sufficiently-trained providers in office-based settings are able to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid-dependence treatment. The successful oversight of opioid-addiction and HCV therapies in a single primary-care setting would be consistent with the principles of the Patient-Centered Medical Home (22).

The objective of this study was to determine whether opioid-dependent participants in a longitudinal clinical trial of different buprenorphine treatment tapering regimens, who had tested positive for the HCV Ab, experienced significantly different levels of opioid abstinence compared to those not infected.

Methods

Study design

This was a secondary longitudinal cohort analysis from a randomized controlled trial on opioid-dependent patients undergoing buprenorphine-tapering regimens, following a buprenorphine-stabilization regimen (23). Please see Ling et al. (23) and McPherson et al. (24) for previous primary and secondary analyses using these data.

Study sample

The data for this study were obtained from the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trial Network study 0003 (23). This study was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group study design, in which eligible participants were randomized to either a 7-day or 28-day tapering schedule following a 4-week buprenorphine induction/stabilization period. Participants were followed for 28 days post stabilization, regardless of tapering assignment, and were tested for opioid use at the end of each week. Eligible participants were: (1) at least 15 years of age; (2) seeking treatment for opioid dependence at a participating treatment program in one of 10 cities across the US; (3) tested negative for methadone and benzodiazepines; (4) not in poor general health; (5) did not report an allergy to buprenorphine or naloxone; (6) not pregnant or nursing; (7) only dependent on opioids (as opposed to also being dependent on alcohol or other drugs); (8) had not participated in an investigational drug study; (9) had not undergone levo-alpha acetyl methadol (LAAM) or methadone maintenance in the 30 days prior to the trial; (10) did not have legal action pending; (11) able to remain in the area; and (12) did not have any other medical or psychiatric condition that could jeopardize their safety while participating in the trial. With regard to opioid use in the 30 days prior to the trial, participants averaged almost 23 days of heroin use and 6.5 days of opioid analgesic use. Of those abusing heroin, roughly 57% were doing so intravenously.

Participants who were abusing opioid analgesics primarily did so orally (75%); however, roughly 6% administered the drug intravenously.

Measures

Our primary variable of interest was a binary indicator of whether the participant’s urine analysis (UA) was negative for opioids at the end of each week of the trial, including stabilization, for a total of five UAs over time. Our independent variable was a binary measure of whether the individual tested positive for the HCV Ab at the beginning of the trial. The control variables in the model consisted of the participant’s age, gender (1 = female; 0 = male), binary indicators of race (white/Caucasian [reference group], black/African American, Hispanic/Latino[a], or other), randomized assignment to tapering arm (1 = 28-day; 0 = 7-day), and Addiction Severity Index (ASI) Lite scores. The ASI measures the severity of an individual’s problems with regard to factors that are often impacted by substance abuse (25). The ASI-Lite, which was administered at baseline, consists of seven different composite scores, all of which were included in the analysis. Each score is measured continuously on a scale from zero to one, with a higher score indicating increased severity. The components of the ASI-Lite are as follows:

  • Medical – assesses severity of medical issues, including chronic conditions, hospitalizations, and medication usage.

  • Employment – evaluates issues pertaining to employment, including education, income and financial support, dependents, and employment patterns.

  • Alcohol – measures alcohol use and issues associated with it, such as treatment for dependence, need for additional treatment, and money spent on it.

  • Drug – assesses drug use by type and route of administration, as well as issues pertaining to drug use, including treatment for dependence, need for additional treatment, and money spent on drugs.

  • Legal – an evaluation of legal problems, including convictions, time incarcerated, and probation/parole status.

  • Family/social – assesses family and social issues, including satisfaction with relationships, living arrangements, and conflicts.

  • Psychiatric – a psychological assessment, including mental-health issues and treatment history.

Analysis

We tested for differences between participants who tested positive for the HCV Ab and those who did not, using Chi-square tests for the binary variables and t-tests for the continuous variables. The effect that a positive HCV Ab test result had on the likelihood that a participant’s UA was negative for opioids throughout the trial was analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEE). GEE is a technique used to estimate longitudinal data, which controls for within-subject correlation and allows for non-normally distributed dependent variables such as binary, count, multinomial, and other types of distributed variables (26,27). Analyses utilized bi-directional tests to protect against a Type-I error. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals are presented for our longitudinal binary outcome.

Sensitivity analysis

After confirming that there were no statistically significant differences between those with missing information in the dependent variable and those without, we tested the sensitivity of our estimates to missing data using multiple imputation (MI) (28,29). In instances where data are believed to be missing at random (MAR), as is the case here, MI has been shown to be superior to other missing data techniques (3032). Fifty datasets were created and analyzed via the MI procedure in order to produce efficient standard errors. The parameter estimates and standard errors were combined using Rubin’s rules (33).

Results

The descriptive statistics, as well as the results of the bivariate analyses, are presented in Table 1. The mean age of the participants in the total sample was 36 and roughly 33% were female. The majority were white/Caucasian (71%); an additional 11% were black/African American, 7% were Hispanic/Latino(a), and 11% identified with a category other than those just mentioned. In terms of our primary variables of interest, approximately 36% of the participants in the overall sample tested positive for the HCV Ab (51% of which were in the 28-day tapering arm), and of the five UAs given throughout the trial, the average number that were negative for opioids among this group was 1.8.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics.

Variable Total sample HCV-Ab positive HCV-Ab negative
n % n % n %
Positive for HCV Ab 515 36 184 100 331 0
Urine analysis negative for opioids after:
  Stabilization 513 63 182 59 330 65
  7 days 202 57 75 53 127 60
  14 days 431 57 153 54 277 59
  21 days 364 51 129 52 235 51
  28 days 146 41 49 43 96 41
Female 516 33 184 31 331 34
Race
  White/Caucasian* 515 71 184 66 330 74
  Black/African American 515 11 184 12 330 10
  Hispanic/Latino(a)** 515 7 184 13 330 4
  Other 515 11 184 10 330 12
28-day tapering arm 516 51 184 51 331 50
N Mean
(SD)
n Mean
(SD)
n Mean
(SD)

Number of urine analyses negative for opioids 516 1.81
(1.44)
184 1.73
(1.47)
331 1.85
(1.43)
Age** 516 35.91
(10.45)
184 41.97
(9.23)
331 32.52
(9.54)
ASI-Lite components
  Medical* 516 0.16
(0.28)
184 0.19
(0.32)
331 0.13
(0.25)
  Employment** 516 0.48
(0.32)
184 0.62
(0.32)
331 0.40
(0.29)
  Alcohol 506 0.05
(0.10)
183 0.04
(0.10)
322 0.05
(0.09)
  Drug 506 0.33
(0.07)
184 0.33
(0.06)
321 0.33
(0.07)
  Legal* 512 0.08
(0.15)
180 0.10
(0.16)
331 0.07
(0.14)
  Psychiatric 512 0.19
(0.20)
182 0.17
(0.21)
331 0.19
(0.20)
  Family/social 516 0.14
(0.20)
184 0.14
(0.20)
331 0.14
(0.20)
*

indicates significant difference between HCV-Ab positive and negative groups at p ≤ 0.05;

**

indicates significant difference between HCV-Ab positive and negative groups at p ≤ 0.01.

Regarding gender mix, participants with the HCV Ab did not differ significantly from those without; this was also true of tapering arm assignment. Participants with the HCV Ab were significantly older. In terms of race, a significantly larger proportion of patients with the HCV Ab were Hispanic/Latino(a), while the opposite was true for whites/Caucasians. Furthermore, the mean ASI-Lite medical, employment, and legal component scores were significantly higher for the HCV Ab group.

The results from the GEE analysis can be viewed in Table 2. Having tested positive for the HCV Ab decreased the odds of having a UA that was negative for opioids by 31% (95% CI: 0.51–0.93). Other factors that affected the likelihood of participants testing negative for opioids were age (OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01–1.04), and the ASI-Lite medical (OR = 1.75; 95% CI: 1.07–2.87), employment (OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.37–0.86) and alcohol (OR = 9.09; 95% CI: 2.02–40.80) components.

Table 2.

GEE regression results for predictors of opioid abstinence.

Variable Odds ratio 95% CI
Positive for HCV Ab* 0.69 0.51–0.93
Age** 1.03 1.01–1.04
Female 0.84 0.64–1.10
Race
  Black/African American 1.20 0.78–1.82
  Hispanic/Latino(a) 0.86 0.53–1.38
  Other 1.38 0.92–2.08
ASI-Lite components
  Medical* 1.75 1.07–2.87
  Employment** 0.56 0.37–0.86
  Alcohol** 9.09 2.02–40.80
  Drug 0.23 0.03–1.55
  Legal 1.31 0.53–3.25
  Psychiatric 1.25 0.63–2.46
  Family/social 1.72 0.89–3.32
28-day tapering arm 1.04 0.82–1.33
*

indicates p ≤ 0.05;

**

indicates p ≤ 0.01.

Discussion

Opioid-dependent participants who tested positive for the HCV Ab were older and more racially diverse than those who were negative for the HCV Ab. The HCV Ab group also appeared to have more severe medical and employment issues, which was not surprising given that individuals with HCV have been shown to be at higher risk for comorbidities and psychosocial instability, and often have problems adhering to their medication regimen (810).

In terms of the estimated effect of HCV on opioid abstinence throughout the trial, those who tested positive for the HCV Ab were significantly less likely to test negative for opioids, indicating a higher rate of opioid use among this group, a finding that held after controlling for the ASI components. This finding indicates that individuals entering treatment for opioid-dependence who test positive for the HCV Ab may warrant special consideration with regard to their treatment strategy. Our findings also support the notion that information obtained from the ASI can be useful in a clinical setting (34). For example, our results indicate that patients with more severe employment issues were also significantly less likely to submit UAs that were negative for opioids, while patients with complex medical and alcohol issues were more likely to test negative. These findings warrant further investigation.

Strengths and limitations

The longitudinal nature of the data represents a strength of this study. Furthermore, we focused on the association between HCV and opioid use while receiving opioid-agonist therapy for opioid dependence. Prior work on the simultaneous treatment of HCV and substance abuse has centered on successful treatment of the former. Furthermore, our work focused on treatment of opioid dependence via buprenorphine, a drug that has begun to garner a great deal of attention in this context.

The primary limitation of this study is that our measure of HCV merely indicates the presence of the antibody, that is, it does not indicate activity of the virus. Additionally, patients in our sample were on a buprenorphine regimen and were then transitioned onto a tapering regimen. Moreover, the exclusion criterion that participants could only be dependent on opioids limits the generalizability of our findings. For example, this is likely reflected in the ASI-Lite drug-severity score, which, as can be seen in Table 1, had a mean of only 0.33 (SD = 0.07).

Missing information in our dependent variable is also a limitation. Due to a lack of evidence that the information was missing-not-at-random, we employed the MI procedure, which relies on the missing-at-random assumption. The lack of difference between the results obtained via the intention-to-treat analysis, which employs the missing-completely-at-random assumption, and the MI results, indicates that the missing information does not invalidate our findings. Finally, the fact that the clinical trial from which this data was obtained was not designed to answer our research question limits our ability to make causal inferences about the role that HCV plays in opioid abstinence. However, our data clearly represent an association worth pursuing.

Conclusion

Due in large part to intravenous drug use being the leading risk factor for HCV transmission, many individuals with an opioid-dependence disorder are also infected with HCV (2). Given the hardships faced by individuals with these comorbid conditions, not to mention the substantial economic costs associated with opioid dependence and HCV, it is imperative that effective treatment is received. Although there is evidence that patients with HCV and an opioid dependence can be effectively treated for both simultaneously, it has been suggested that successful treatment for substance use disorders may both increase the likelihood of HCV-positive patients undergoing treatment for HCV, and increase the probability of successful HCV-treatment outcomes. Therefore, it has been recommended that addiction therapy be given special consideration in the treatment of those with substance use disorders and HCV (18). However, much of the literature on treating patients with HCV and an opioid dependence has focused solely on successful HCV treatment. Our findings indicate that opioid-dependent individuals who were being treated with buprenorphine and tested positive for the HCV Ab were significantly less likely to submit opioid-negative UAs, indicating a higher rate of opioid use; thus, individualized opioid-dependence treatment strategies may be required for this group in order to ensure resources for both opioid-dependence and HCV therapies are used efficiently.

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by grants from the Life Science Discovery Fund (Roll, PI) and a grant to the Clinical Trials network Pacific Northwest Node (award number blinded for review) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA; [Donovan and Roll, Co-PIs]).

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this paper.

References

  • 1.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sarbah SA, Younossi ZM, Hepatitis C. an update on the silent epidemic. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2000;30:125–143. doi: 10.1097/00004836-200003000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Havens JR, Walker R, Leukefeld CG. Prevalence of opioid analgesic injection among rural nonmedical opioid analgesic users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;87:98–102. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sigmon SC. Characterizing the emerging population of prescription opioid abusers. Am J Addict. 2006;15:208–212. doi: 10.1080/10550490600625624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Roy E, Arruda N, Bourgois P. The growing popularity of prescription opioid injection in downtown Montreal: new challenges for harm reduction. Subst Use Misuse. 2011;46:1142–1150. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2011.552932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gombas W, Fischer G, Jagsch R, Eder H, Okamoto I, Schindler S, Muller C, Ferenci P, Kasper S. Prevalence and distribution of hepatitis C subtypes in patients with opioid dependence. Eur Addict Res. 2000;6:198–204. doi: 10.1159/000052046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hepatitis C information for health professionals. Atlanta, GA: 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Belfiori B, Chiodera A, Ciliegi P, Tosti A, Baldelli F, Stagni G, Francisci D. Treatment for hepatitis C virus in injection drug users on opioid replacement therapy: a prospective multicentre study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;19:731–732. doi: 10.1097/01.meg.0000280175.79379.04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.McCance-Katz EF. Treatment of opioid dependence and coinfection with HIV and hepatitis C virus in opioid-dependent patients: the importance of drug interactions between opioids and antiretroviral agents. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41(Suppl 1):S89–S95. doi: 10.1086/429503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fried MW. Side effects of therapy of hepatitis C and their management. Hepatology. 2002;36(5) Suppl 1:S237–S244. doi: 10.1053/jhep.2002.36810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sun X, Patnode CD, Williams C, Senger CA, Kapka TJ, Whitlock EP. Interventions to improve patient adherence to hepatitis C treatment: comparative effectiveness. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Edlin BR, Seal KH, Lorvick J, et al. Is it justifiable to withhold treatment for hepatitis C from illicit-drug users? N Engl J Med. 2001;345:211–215. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200107193450311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sylvestre DL. Treating hepatitis C virus infection in active substance users. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40(Suppl 5):S321–S324. doi: 10.1086/427447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hellard M, Sacks-Davis R, Gold J. Hepatitis C treatment for injection drug users: a review of the available evidence. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:561–573. doi: 10.1086/600304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dalgard O. Follow-up studies of treatment for hepatitis C virus infection among injection drug users. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40(Suppl 5):S336–S338. doi: 10.1086/427449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Aspinall EJ, Corson S, Doyle JS, Grebely J, Hutchinson SJ, Dore GJ, Goldberg DJ, Hellard ME. Treatment of hepatitis C virus infection among people who are actively injecting drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57(Suppl 2):S80–S89. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.National Institutes of Health. NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement: management of hepatitis C: June 10–12, 2002. Hepatology. 2002;36(5) Suppl 1:S3–S20. doi: 10.1053/jhep.2002.37117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ghany MG, Strader DB, Thomas DL, Seeff LB. Diagnosis, management, and treatment of hepatitis C: an update. Hepatology. 2009;49:1335–1374. doi: 10.1002/hep.22759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Clinical guidelines for the use of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid addiction. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); 2004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.McCance-Katz EF, Sullivan LE, Nallani S. Drug interactions of clinical importance among the opioids, methadone and buprenorphine, and other frequently prescribed medications: a review. Am J Addict. 2010;19:4–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2009.00005.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) [last accessed 22 December 2010]; n.d. Available at: http://www.buprenorphine.samhsa.gov/
  • 22.Kinsman D, Blaser J. Joint principles of a patient-centered medical home released by organizations representing more than 300,000 physicians 2007. [last accessed 15 August 2012]; Available at: http://www.acponline.org/pressroom/pcmh.htm. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ling W, Hillhouse M, Domier C, Doraimani G, Hunter J, Thomas C, Jenkins J, Hasson A, Annon J, Saxon A, Selzer J, Boverman J, Bilangi R. Buprenorphine tapering schedule and illicit opioid use. Addiction. 2009;104:256–265. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02455.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.McPherson S, Barbosa-Leiker C, McDonell M, Howell D, Roll J. Longitudinal missing data strategies for substance use clinical trials using generalized estimating equations: an example with a buprenorphine trial. Human Psychopharmacol: Clin Experimental. 2013;28:506–515. doi: 10.1002/hup.2339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cacciola JS, Alterman AI, McLellan AT, Lin YT, Lynch KG. Initial evidence for the reliability and validity of a “Lite” version of the Addiction Severity Index. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;87:297–302. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hardin JW, Hilbe J. Generalized estimating equations. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Liang K-Y, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Allison PD. Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Little RJA. Missing data. In: Everitt BS, Howell DC, editors. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2005. pp. 1234–1238. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Carpenter JR, Kenward MG, Vansteelandt S. A comparison of multiple imputation and doubly robust estimation for analyses with missing data. J Royl Statist Soc: A (Statistics in Society) 2006;169:571–584. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Meth. 2002;7:147. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Schafer JL. Multiple imputation in multivariate problems when the imputation and analysis models differ. Statistica Neerlandica. 2003;57:19–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1987. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Saffier K, Colombo C, Brown D, Mundt MP, Fleming MF. Addiction Severity Index in a chronic pain sample receiving opioid therapy. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;33:303–311. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.12.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES