Randomized trial shows opioid and psychostimulant use in adults with opioid use disorder, indicating effects of NET Device monotherapy.
Background Medical devices offer an established therapeutic approach for managing the transition from polysubstance use to abstinence, but little is known about longer-term outcomes. Aim Determine opioid and psychostimulant use over 12 weeks post-discharge following residential use of the NET Device™ or sham among participants with opioid use disorder (OUD). Design Twelve-week observation following randomized controlled trial of active NET Device (n = 53) versus sham (n = 55) as monotherapy during residential opioid discontinuation in 103 participants who completed >1 post-discharge interview (95% follow-up rate). Setting and participants Adults with OUD (50.0% with psychostimulant use) recruited at admission from 4 residential addiction treatment facilities in Kentucky. Measures Percentage of days using illicit opioids and psychostimulants as well as medications for OUD (MOUD) from weekly timeline follow-back interviews. Results Active and sham device groups reported similar rates of MOUD use and illicit opioid and psychostimulant use. In a planned secondary analysis, participants who self-administered active stimulation >24 hours (n = 23) compared to active <24 hours (n = 25), sham >24 hours (n = 21), and sham <24 hours (n = 34) reported significantly (p <.05) lower percentages of days using opioids (1.4% vs 7.4%, 6.8%, and 4.4% respectively) and psychostimulants (1.3% vs 4.1%, 6.7%, and 4.3% respectively) and MOUD (1.2% vs 20.7%, 11.3%, and 16.7% respectively). Conclusions The randomized groups did not differ on outcomes. However, participants who self-administered active NET Device stimulation >24 hours reported significantly fewer post-discharge days of opioid or psychostimulant use than those who self-administered active <24 hours or sham, but these findings need to be replicated. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04916600.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greenwald et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: