Patients In Substitution Treatment Research Articles

Integrating Hepatitis C Care for Opioid Substitution Treatment Patients Attending General Practice: Feasibility, Clinical, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BackgroundHepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common among people who inject drugs, yet well-described barriers mean that only a minority have accessed HCV treatment. Recent developments in HCV diagnosis and treatment facilitate innovative approaches to HCV care that improve access to, and uptake of, care by people who inject drugs.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine feasibility, acceptability, likely clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of an integrated model of HCV care for patients receiving opioid substitution treatment in general practice.MethodsA pre- and postintervention design with an embedded economic analysis was used to establish the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention to optimize HCV identification and linkage to HCV treatment among patients prescribed methadone in primary care. The “complex intervention” comprised general practitioner (GP)/practice staff education, nurse-led clinical support, and enhanced community-based HCV assessment of patients. General practices in North Dublin were recruited from the professional networks of the research team and from GPs who attended educational sessions.ResultsA total of 135 patients from 14 practices participated. Follow-up data were collected 6 months after intervention from 131 (97.0%) patients. With regard to likely clinical effectiveness, among patients with HCV antibody positivity, there was a significant increase in the proportions of patients who had a liver FibroScan (17/101, 16.8% vs 52/100, 52.0%; P<.001), had attended hepatology/infectious diseases services (51/101, 50.5% vs 61/100 61.0%; P=.002), and initiated treatment (20/101, 19.8% vs 30/100, 30.0%; P=.004). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the intervention was €13,255 (US $13,965.14) per quality-adjusted life-year gained at current full drug list price (€39,729 [US $41,857.48] per course), which would be cost saving if these costs are reduced by 88%.ConclusionsThe complex intervention involving clinical support, access to assessment, and practitioner education has the potential to enhance patient care, improving access to assessment and treatment in a cost-effective manner.

Switching opioid-dependent patients in substitution treatment from racemic methadone, levomethadone and buprenorphine to slow-release oral morphine: Analysis of the switching process in routine care

Since 2015 slow-release oral morphine (SROM) is approved for opioid substitution treatment (OST) in Germany. The SROMOS study (efficacy and tolerability of slow-release oral morphine in opioid substitution treatment) evaluates the efficacy and safety of SROM in routine care. This article describes the switching process from racemic methadone, levomethadone and buprenorphine to SROM.Between July 2016 and November 2017 180 patients in 23 study centers in Germany were included in the prospective, non-interventional, naturalistic observational study. Patients were already in OST and switched from a previous medication to SROM. The switching process was analyzed during a period of fourteen days.Data were available for 169 participants. The switching process had a different progression depending on premedication and pre dosage. On the fourteenth day of SROM treatment patients switched from racemic methadone took an average dosage of 922.2 mg/day, from levomethadone 801.0 mg/day and from buprenorphine 626.7 mg/day. Average conversion ratio racemic methadone to SROM was 1:11.8, levomethadone to SROM 1:17.4 and buprenorphine to SROM 1:58.0.This study provides the first data on the switching process from buprenorphine to SROM. Average dose ratio racemic methadone to SROM on the fourteenth day of treatment was considerably higher than recommended in the prescribing information.

Detection of heroin intake in patients in substitution treatment using oral fluid as specimen for drug testing

BackgroundDetection of heroin use is among the major tasks for drug testing and can be best performed by using 6-acetylmorphine as the target analyte. This study was performed to document analytical findings in oral fluid after OF heroin intake. MethodsThe samples were from routine drug testing of patients in substitution treatment. The analytical investigation was made with a forensic accredited liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. ResultsOut of 2814 samples, from 1875 patients, sent for routine drug testing, 406 contained one or more opiate in the drug screening when applying a cutoff limit of 1 ng/mL neat OF. Out of these 406, 314 had a measured 6-AM concentration in neat OF ≥ 1 ng/mL. The study demonstrated that 6-AM is a viable parameter in oral fluid drug testing with an about 80% sensitivity compared to using morphine and codeine as biomarkers. An additional value of using 6-AM is the confidence in concluding a heroin intake. The 6-AM concentrations varied between 1 and >1000 ng/mL, with a median value of 18.6 ng/mL. Heroin was measured in 35 samples with a median value of 0.72 ng/mL. The positive rate for opiates in urine and OF drug testing was the same, 13.5%, in similar populations of patients. Conclusions6-AM is a preferred parameter in OF drug testing for monitoring heroin use and makes OF drug testing for detecting heroin use more effective than urine drug testing when using highly sensitive mass spectrometry methods.

Benzodiazepine maintenance in opiate substitution treatment: Good or bad? A retrospective primary care case-note review.

Co-prescribing benzodiazepines to patients in opiate substitution treatment is controversial and often alleged to increase mortality. In an inner-London general practice, patients with problematic benzodiazepine co-dependence were allowed benzodiazepine maintenance treatment (BMT) since 1994, providing an opportunity for analysis. 1) Case-note review of all 278 opiate substitution treatment patients, accruing 1289 patient treatment years; 46% had concurrent BMT. 2) National Health Service database search for patients who died after leaving accrued a further 883 years of information; only patients who left the UK were unaccounted for (4%). Three groups were studied: 1) never obtained benzodiazepine prescription (NOB): n=80); 2) briefly/occasionally prescribed benzodiazepines (BOP): n=71; 3) BMT: n=127. Treatment retention (months); deaths/100 patient treatment years; deaths after leaving the service/100 years of information. Treatment retention: NOB: 34 months; BOP: 51 months; BMT: 72 months. In-treatment mortality: NOB: 1.79/100 patient treatment years; BOP: 0.33/100 patient treatment years; BMT: 1.31/100 patient treatment years. Deaths after leaving service: NOB: 2.24/100 years of information, BOP: 0.63/100 years of information. However, mortality for previously BMT-patients increased by 450% to 5.90/100 years of information. BMT patients had longer treatment retention than NOB or BOP and lower mortality than NOB patients. It is unlikely that patients had access to prescribed benzodiazepines on leaving the service because of restrictions in the national guidelines but co-dependent patients are a high-risk group who may stand to gain most benefit from opiate substitution treatment if combined with benzodiazepine-maintenance.

Is pain associated with illicit opioid use or aberrant opioid-related behaviors in opioid substitution treatment patients

Aims: The limited literature on pain in opioid treatment samples indicates that current pain is highly prevalent. Understanding the clinical implications of current pain on treatment outcomes is important, particularly in light of ageing opioid treatment cohorts. This study aims to explore correlates of pain, including aberrant behaviors related to prescribed opioid use. Methods: Data on pain, physical health and previous tried pain treatments were collected in methadone or buprenorphine patients (n=141) fromthree treatment services.Measures included basic demographics, the Brief Pain Inventory, measures of general mental and physical health and quality of life questions, pain history and previous treatments tried for pain. Univariate andmultivariate analysis were used to examine correlates of pain. Results: Forty percent of the sample reported current pain. Of those with current pain, 68% reported trying some form of treatment other thanprescribed opioids. Correlates of current painwere depression, anxiety and poorer ratings of health. Current pain was not associated with greater use of illicit opioids (prescribed opioids or heroin) norwith any aberrant opioid related behaviors. Pain levels were comparable amongst methadone and buprenorphine treatment participants. Conclusions: The high prevalence of severe mental health comorbidity amongst opioid dependent people with current pain suggests screening for pain and tailoring of treatment where pain exists is warranted. The lack of association with pain and aberrant behaviors suggests it should not be assumed that those in opioid treatment misuse medications in response to pain. Financial support: Funding for the parent study was provided by Reckitt Benkiser in the form of an united educational grant; the funders had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; or in the decision to submit the paper for presentation at CPDD.

In Control?: Ukrainian Opiate Substitution Treatment Patients Strive for a Voice in Their Treatment

This article explores the burgeoning advocacy movement for methadone and buprenorphine treatment by patients, parents, and doctors in Ukraine, and their efforts to remake a system that infantilizes and controls patients into one where patients have a voice in their treatment. Through a review of gray literature and in-depth interviews with 28 patient-advocates and doctors in five Ukrainian cities between October 2009 and July 2010, this piece chronicles the emergence of opiate substitution treatment in Ukraine, describes successes toward patient-friendly treatment, and explores the institutionalized barriers that have pushed the patients to become advocates for their own treatment.

Personality Differences between Drug Injectors and Non-injectors among Substance-Dependent Patients in Substitution Treatment

Background: Understanding personality differences between injectors and non-injectors in substitution treatment may provide new insights to help improve treatment programs. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare drug injectors and non-injectors in terms of personality disorders and dimensions. Methods: Forty participants recruited from substance abuse treatment centers (23 injectors and 17 non-injectors) completed the self-report Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire 4th version and Temperament and Character Inventory. Mann–Whitney U tests were used to compare means of personality disorder traits, temperament, and character differences between injectors and non-injectors. Results: The mean (SD) age of the sample (72.5% male) was 36.5 (8.7) years. Injectors reported more borderline personality disorders and increased global personality disturbance (p < .05). Similarly, Anticipatory worry, Shyness, and Fatigability facet scores were higher among injectors (p < .01). Attachment, Purposeful, and Congruent second nature facet scores were higher among non-injectors (p < .01). Conclusion: According to the route of drug administration, drug dependents differed in terms of personality disorders and dimensions. Scientific Significance: These results may have implications for the implementation of treatment programs. New research in this area may contribute to the understanding and prevention of intravenous drug use.

Enhanced tuberculosis case detection among substitution treatment patients: a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundHistorically, HIV, TB (tuberculosis) and illegal drug treatment services in Estonia have been developed as vertical structures. Related health care services are often provided by different health care institutions and in different locations. This may present obstacles for vulnerable groups, such as injecting drug users (IDU), to access the needed services. We conducted a small scale randomized controlled trial to evaluate a case management intervention aimed at increasing TB screening and treatment entry among IDUs referred from a methadone drug treatment program in Jõhvi, North-Eastern Estonia.FindingsOf the 189 potential subjects, 112 (59%) participated. HIV prevalence was 86% (n = 96) and 7.4% (n = 8) of participants were interferon gamma release assay (IGRA) positive (6.5% were both HIV and IGRA-positive, n = 7). Overall, 44% of participants (n = 49) attended TB clinic, 17 (30%) from control group and 32 (57%) from case management group (p = 0.004). None of the participants were diagnosed with TB. In a multivariate model, those randomized to case management group were more likely to access TB screening services.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate the urgent need for scaling up TB screening among IDUs and the value of more active approach in referring substitution treatment patients to TB services.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01290081

Prescribers' perceptions of the diversion and injection of medication by opioid substitution treatment patients

To examine Australian opioid substitution treatment (OST) prescribers' perceptions of (i) diversion and/or injection of methadone, buprenorphine, buprenorphine-naloxone by patients; and (ii) effectiveness of current treatment policies in minimising the associated risks. 1278 authorised OST prescribers, identified by each jurisdiction's health department records, were sent a postal survey in 2007. Reminder letters and additional copies of the survey were sent to non-responders at weeks four and eight following the initial mail-out. Respondents went into a draw to win one of ten $100 book vouchers. Although the response rate was 26% (N = 291), participating prescribers served half (49%) of all OST patients in Australia. Prescribers perceived more buprenorphine patients removed supervised doses (7%) and diverted unsupervised doses (20%), compared with methadone patients (1% and 4% respectively) and buprenorphine-naloxone patients (3% and 2% respectively). Prescribers reported significantly more buprenorphine and buprenorphine-naloxone patients injected doses (5% respectively), compared with methadone patients (2%). Non-adherence was identified through patient self-report (51%), and the reports of pharmacists (49%) and other staff (34%). More prescribers were confident in assessing the risk of injection (54%) than diversion (37%). Many prescribers responded 'don't know' to quantitative survey items. Qualitative responses highlighted uncertainties in assessing diversion/injection and whether current responses constituted 'best practice'. Australian prescribers perceive most patients adhere with OST, although they may underestimate the levels of diversion. Prescribers' beliefs about patients' behaviours are important and influence decisions to prescribe, medication choice and suitability for unsupervised dosing. The uncertainties in assessing and responding to diversion/injection may be a factor deterring prescribers' participation in OST.

Kontingenzmanagement in der Substitutionsbehandlung Opiatabhängiger

The majority of opiate-dependent patients in substitution treatment show additional substance-related disorders. Concomitant use of heroin, alcohol, benzodiazepines or cocaine compromises treatment success. Concomitant drug use may be treated by using contingency management (CM) which is based on learning theory. In CM, abstinence from drugs, as verified by drug screenings, is reinforced directly and contingently. Reinforcers used in CM studies with substituted patients were, amongst others, vouchers and take-home privileges. Studies in the USA show a medium average effect of CM on drug consumption rates and abstinence. The effects decrease markedly after the end of the intervention. We discuss whether CM is applicable within the German substitution treatment system and how it can be combined with other interventions such as selective detoxification treatments or cognitive-behavioural programmes.

Praxis, Probleme und Perspektiven der Substitutionsbehandlung Opioidabhängiger in Deutschland

Opioid dependency is a complex and chronically relapsing disease with high risks of morbidity and mortality. Frequent relapses and in most of the cases a long process of maturing out characterize this disease. Opioid substitution programs with methadone, buprenorphine and other opioids are a suitable intervention and form the first choice in the treatment of this disease. In Germany, compared to its neighboring countries, this treatment was introduced relatively late. However, in the last five years, the number of patients in substitution treatment has increased significantly to more than 70,000 patients, which marks an increase of 50%, meaning that one third to one half of the estimated opiate users are being reached. Despite the widely acknowledged success with respect to the improvement of the quality of life, survival rates, and accessibility of the target groups for ongoing treatments of drug-related diseases (such as HIV/HCV infections), opioid substitution treatment is still discussed controversially. In this contribution, problems in the areas of service provision, juristic, social, health and research policies are discussed and possibilities of increasing the access and quality of this treatment are introduced.

Estimating heroin epidemics with data of patients in methadone maintenance treatment, collected during a single treatment day

Effects of differing drug policies are difficult to evaluate, because time trends in the spread of heroin use, the most problematic illicit drug world-wide, are unknown in almost all countries. We aimed to develop a simple method to estimate these dynamics with data that can be gathered from patients in substitution treatment within a single day. We tested the assumption that being in substitution treatment on any day depends solely upon individual time since onset of regular heroin use (following a 'general inclusion function'). We used data from the case register for substitution treatments in the canton of Zurich (1992--2004), comprising 9518 patients, to model a 'general inclusion function'. Applying this function, we calculated 30 incidence curves for heroin dependence, each with data of one of 30 randomly chosen treatment days between 1992 and 2004. Incidence modelling led to 30 similar curves, and therefore our hypothesis was corroborated. Additionally, our approach also revealed a restricted access to substitution treatment in the early 1990s and a decline in demand due to the introduction of heroin-assisted treatment from 1994 onwards. In the canton of Zurich, the probability of being in substitution treatment can be described by a 'general inclusion function', and therefore dynamics of heroin epidemics can be estimated based on data of a single treatment day. Adaptation of our function to areas with a more restricted access to substitution treatment may permit these estimations also in other regions or countries. Thus, our approach facilitates the urgently needed assessment of the effects of different drug policies.

One-year Mortality Rates of Patients Receiving Methadone and Buprenorphine Maintenance Therapy

Mortality rates in drug-dependent patients in substitution treatment remain a matter of debate. Although several retrospective toxicological or forensic postmortem studies on this issue have been conducted, few prospective studies have addressed this problem. In a nationally representative sample of 2694 opioid dependent patients in substitution treatment either with methadone or buprenorphine at baseline were monitored over a 12-month period (response rate, 91%). A total number of 1629 (60.4%) were still in treatment after 12 months. The overall mortality rate was 1.04%. In total, 28 patients of the initial sample deceased within the 1-year follow-up period. Eleven (0.4%) of these deaths are due to a fatal intoxication. Three patients (0.1%) died of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and 3 (0.1%) committed suicide. Thirteen of these patients (4 with overdose/polyintoxication) were not in substitution treatment at the time of death. Other reasons included accidents and deaths due to other medical conditions. Only in one case the reason could not be ascertained. The mortality rate was similar in methadone as compared with buprenorphine patients. Taking into account the high comorbidity of opioid dependent patients and the severity of dependence, the mortality rate of approximately 1% confirms that maintenance treatment could be regarded as a fairly safe treatment.