Abstract

BackgroundIntramuscular (IM) injection of drugs is associated with high rates of injecting-related injuries and diseases. However, little is known about the role of this route of administration in heroin-assisted treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of IM diacetylmorphine administration and associated complications as well as to explore patients’ views and opinions on the topic and the underlying reasons for this practice.MethodsThe research site was a Swiss outpatient treatment centre specialised in heroin-assisted treatment. We conducted in-depth interviews with two patients who intramuscularly inject diacetylmorphine. Interviews were analysed qualitatively, and emerging themes were used to develop a 38-item questionnaire on IM injections. We then offered this questionnaire to all patients in the treatment centre.ResultsFive main themes emerged from the in-depth interviews: poor venous access, side effects, subjective effects, procedure for IM injection, and consideration of alternatives to IM. These themes covered the rationale for using this route of administration, complications, subjective effects of IM diacetylmorphine, hygiene and safety measures as well as alternative routes of administration. Fifty-three patients filled in the questionnaire. The lifetime prevalence of IM injections was 60.4% (n = 32) and 34.4% (n = 11) of the patients stated that IM injection was their primary route of administration. No participant reported using the IM route for street drugs. The main reason for IM injections was poor vein access. Other reasons given were time saving and less risk of injuries. Complications included induration of muscle tissue and pain, whereas more severe complications like thrombosis and infections of the injection site were reported much less often.ConclusionAs the population of opioid-dependent individuals is aging and the deterioration of access veins is likely to increase, the frequency of IM injecting will equally increase. Even though our data show that the IM injection of diacetylmorphine in a clinical setting is a common practice and appears to be relatively safe, research on alternative routes of administration is needed to provide potentially less harmful alternative routes of administration in heroin-assisted treatment.

Highlights

  • Intramuscular (IM) injection of drugs is associated with high rates of injecting-related injuries and diseases

  • It emerged that IM injection was not their route of choice but rather served as an alternative to IV injections

  • Surprisingly few studies exist on IM substance use in general, and we found no studies reporting on IM injection in injectable opioid agonist treatment (OAT)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Intramuscular (IM) injection of drugs is associated with high rates of injecting-related injuries and diseases. Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) has been introduced in Switzerland in 1994 for patients with very severe opioid use disorder [1]. Patients who seek the euphoric effects (“high”) of rapid-onset opioids prefer IV injection. This route of administration is becoming increasingly unsuitable for a large part of the opioid-dependent population in Switzerland, as long-term IV opioid use is associated with deterioration of access veins [2, 3]. Patients in HAT who are not able to inject IV anymore but do not like to relinquish the euphoric effects associated with the rapid onset of DAM often resort to off-label intramuscular (IM) injection [4]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call