Background: Opioid use disorder (OUD) remains a significant public health concern in Saudi Arabia; however, recent evidence describing patient characteristics and treatment outcomes in inpatient settings is limited. The objective of this study was to describe the demographic, clinical, and treatment profiles of inpatients with OUD and assess early post-discharge outcomes, following buprenorphine-based therapy. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional chart review was conducted at the Eradah Mental Health Complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Medical records of 22 male inpatients admitted between April and September 2024 with confirmed OUD alone or in combination with other substances were reviewed. Extracted data included socio-demographics, substance use history, comorbidities, withdrawal symptoms, treatment regimens, prevalence of polysubstance use, treatment types, discharge status, and six-month relapse or readmission rates. Results: The mean age of patients was 38.3 years. Most were Saudi nationals (n=13, 59.1%) and unemployed (n=19, 86.4%). Heroin was the most commonly used opioid (n=14, 63.6%). Polysubstance use was highly prevalent (n=20, 90.9%), with methamphetamine/amphetamine reported in 45.5% of patients (n=10). Withdrawal symptoms occurred in 68.2% of patients (n=15), with the most common being insomnia (n=10, 66.7%), muscle aches (n=8, 53.3%), and sweating (n=6, 46.7%). Medical comorbidities were documented in 45.5% (n=10). Buprenorphine/naloxone induction followed by transition to weekly long-acting injectable buprenorphine was the most common regimen (n=12, 54.5%). Planned discharges were documented in 63.6% of patients (n=14), while six-month readmissions occurred in 27.3% (n=6). Loss to follow-up was recorded in 22.7% (n=5). Conclusion: This inpatient cohort showed frequent polysubstance use, medical comorbidity, non-employment, and prior treatment exposure. Buprenorphine-based opioid agonist therapy (OAT) was commonly used, including long-acting injectable formulations, but observed associations with discharge pathways are preliminary and should not be interpreted as causal or as evidence of treatment effectiveness. Larger multicenter studies with standardized follow-up are needed.
Zuraie et al. (Tue,) studied this question.