Table 3.
Abstinence rates at three and 12 months: comparison between groups (odds ratiosd and 95% confidence intervals)
| Total | MI | BUP | CBT | NRT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beginner | (n = 432)a | (n = 67) | (n = 99) | (n = 164) | (n = 102) |
| Abstinence at three monthsb, c (n, %) | 37.3 (161) | 32.8 (22) | 46.5 (46) | 34.8 (57) | 35.3 (36) |
| Comparison with the MI group | 1.8 (0.9–3.4) | 1.1 (0.6–1.9) | 1.11 (0.6–2.1) | ||
| Comparison with the BUP group | 0.6 (0.4–1.0) | 0.6 (0.4–1.1) | |||
| Comparison with the CBT group | 1.0 (0.6–1.7) | ||||
| Completer | (n = 238)a | (n = 39) | (n = 58) | (n = 89) | (n = 52) |
| Abstinence at three monthsb, c (n, %) | 67.7 (161) | 56.4 (22) | 79.3 (46) | 64.0 (57) | 69.2 (36) |
| Comparison with the MI group | 3.0 (1.2–7.3) | 1.4 (0.6–2.9) | 1.7 (0.7–4.1) | ||
| Comparison with the BUP group | 0.5 (0.2–1.0) | 0.6 (0.3–1.4) | |||
| Comparison with the CBT group | 1.3 (0.6–2.6) | ||||
| 12‐Month follow‐up e | (n = 325) | (n = 44) | (n = 76) | (n = 129) | (n = 76) |
| Abstinence at 12 months (%, n) | 25.9 (84) | 29.6 (13) | 29.0 (22) | 20.9 (27) | 29.6 (22) |
| Comparison with the MI group | 1.0 (0.4–2.2) | 0.6 (0.3–1.4) | 1.0 (0.4–2.2) | ||
| Comparison with the BUP group | 0.6 (0.3–1.2) | 1.0 (0.5–2.0) | |||
| Comparison with the CBT group | 1.5 (0.8–2.9) |
Thirty‐five patients excluded from analysis due to abstinence before first intervention.
LOCF analysis: last observation of abstinence/non‐abstinence is carried forward if subject dropped‐out or were lost.
Point‐prevalence of abstinence at end of treatment: self‐report of abstinence at the final visit and seven days prior to the assessments, no biochemical confirmation, the treatment period was nine to 12 weeks.
Odds ratios were computed by logistic regression analysis, which was used to determine pairwise differences in abstinence rates.
Continuous abstinence since end of treatment: self‐reported abstinence in follow‐up interview assessment or by mail (questionnaire), no biochemical confirmation.