A cost-effectiveness analysis of opioid substitution therapy upon prison release in reducing mortality among people with a history of opioid dependence.

AIM: Although opioid substitution therapy (OST) immediately after prison release reduces mortality, the cost-effectiveness of treatment has not been examined. Therefore, we undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis of OST treatment upon prison release and the prevention of death in the first 6 months post-release. DESIGN: Population-based, retrospective data linkage study using records of OST entrants (1985-2010), charges and court appearances (1993-2011), prison episodes (2000-11) and death notifications (1985-2011). SETTING: New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 16,073 people with a history of opioid dependence released from prison for the first time between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2011. INTERVENTION: OST treatment compared to no OST treatment at prison release. MEASUREMENTS: Mortality and costs (treatment, criminal justice system-court, penalties, prison-and the social costs of crime) were evaluated at 6 months post-release. Analyses included propensity score matching, bootstrapping and regression. FINDINGS: A total of 13,468 individuals were matched (6734 in each group). Twenty (0.3%) people released onto OST died, compared with 46 people (0.7%) not released onto OST. The final average costs were lower for the group that received OST post-release ($7206 versus $14,356). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that OST post-release was dominant, incurring lower costs and saving more lives. The probability that OST post-release is cost-effective per life-year saved is 96.7% at a willingness to pay of $500. CONCLUSION: Opioid substitution treatment (compared with no such treatment), given on release from prison to people with a history of opioid dependence, is cost-effective in reducing mortality in the first 6 months of release.

Offending, custody and opioid substitution therapy treatment utilisation among opioid-dependent people in contact with the criminal justice system: comparison of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

BACKGROUND: Although Indigenous Australians are over-represented among heroin users, there has been no study examining offending, time in custody, and opioid substitution therapy (OST) treatment utilisation among Indigenous opioid-dependent (including heroin) people at the population level, nor comparing these to non-Indigenous opioid-dependent people. The aims of this study were to compare the nature and types of charges, time in custody and OST treatment utilisation between opioid-dependent Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in contact with the criminal justice system. METHODS: This was a population-based, retrospective data linkage study using records of OST entrants in New South Wales, Australia (1985-2010), court appearances (1993-2011) and custody episodes (2000-2012). Charge rates per 100 person-years were compared between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by sex, age and calendar year. Statistical comparisons were made for variables describing the cumulative time and percentage of follow-up time spent in custody, as well as characteristics of OST initiation and overall OST treatment utilisation. RESULTS: Of the 34,962 people in the cohort, 6,830 (19.5%) were Indigenous and 28,132 (80.5%) non-Indigenous. Among the 6,830 Indigenous people, 4,615 (67.6%) were male and 2,215 (32.4%) female. The median number of charges per person against Indigenous people (25, IQR 31) was significantly greater than non-Indigenous people (9, IQR 16) (p < 0.001). Overall, Indigenous people were charged with 33.2% of the total number of charges against the cohort and 44.0% of all violent offences. The median percentage of follow-up time that Indigenous males and females spent in custody was twice that of non-Indigenous males (21.7% vs. 10.1%, p < 0.001) and females (6.0% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001). The percentage of Indigenous people who first commenced OST in prison (30.2%) was three times that of non-Indigenous people (11.2%) (p < 0.001). Indigenous males spent less time in OST compared to non-Indigenous males (median percentage of follow-up time in treatment: 40.5% vs. 43.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to non-Indigenous opioid-dependent people, Indigenous opioid-dependent people in contact with the criminal justice system are charged with a greater number of offences, spend longer in custody and commonly initiate OST in prison. Hence, contact with the criminal justice system provides an important opportunity to engage Indigenous people in OST.

The impact of opioid substitution therapy on mortality post-release from prison: retrospective data linkage study.

AIMS: Release from prison is a high-risk period for mortality. We examined the impact of opioid substitution therapy (OST), for opioid dependence during and after incarceration, upon mortality post-release. DESIGN: A cohort was formed of all opioid-dependent people who entered OST between 1985 and 2010 and who, following first OST entry, were released from prison at least once between 2000 and 2012. We linked data on OST history, court and prison records and deaths. SETTING: New South Wales (NSW), Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 16,453 people released from prison 60,161 times. MEASUREMENTS: Crude mortality rates (CMRs) were calculated according to OST retention; multivariable Cox regressions for post-release periods were undertaken to examine the association between OST exposure (a time-dependent variable) and mortality post-release, for which covariates were updated per-release. FINDINGS: There were 100,978 person-years (PY) post-release; 1050 deaths occurred. Most received OST while incarcerated (76.5%); individuals were receiving OST in 51% of releases. Lowest post-release mortality was among those continuously retained in OST post-release CMR 4 weeks post-release = 6.4 per 1000 PY; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.2, 7.8, highest among those with no OST (CMR = 36.7 per 1000 PY; 95% CI = 28.8, 45.9). Multi-factorial models showed OST exposure in the 4 weeks post-release reduced hazard of death by 75% (adjusted hazard ratio 0.25; 95% CI = 0.12, 0.53); OST receipt in prison had a short-term protective effect that decayed quickly across time. CONCLUSION: In New South Wales, Australia, opioid substitution therapy in prison and post-release appears to reduce mortality risk in the immediate post-release period.

Correlates of driving under the influence of cannabis.

BACKGROUND: Identifying cannabis users who are most at risk of driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) has important implications for drug treatment and prevention efforts. This paper examined correlates of DUIC among a purposive sample of recent cannabis users. METHODS: Interviews were carried out among a cross-sectional sample of 320 Australian cannabis users. Past-year prevalence of DUIC (without using alcohol or other drugs) was regressed against a range of potential predictor variables. RESULTS: Use of multiple drugs, believing that DUIC does not increase accident risk and cannabis dependence all predicted likelihood of DUIC. There was an interaction between age of first cannabis use and gender, whereby earlier onset cannabis use predicted DUIC but only among women. CONCLUSIONS: The correlates of drug driving reflected cannabis users' beliefs about the dangers of cannabis use as well as their patterns of drug consumption. The emergence of cannabis dependence and age of onset as predictors of DUIC suggests a clearly defined role for treatment and prevention efforts in reducing the potential harms associated with DUIC.

The impact of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) on crime.

The current study aimed to model the effect of Australia's first Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) on acquisitive crime and loitering by drug users and dealers. The effect of the MSIC on drug-related property and violent crime was examined by conducting time series analysis of police-recorded trends in theft and robbery incidents, respectively. The effect of the MSIC on drug use and dealing was examined by (a) time series analysis of a special proxy measure of drug-related loitering; (b) interviewing key informants; and (c) examining trends in the proportion of Sydney drug offences that were recorded in Kings Cross. There was no evidence that the MSIC trial led to either an increase or decrease in theft or robbery incidents. There was also no evidence that the MSIC led to an increase in 'drug-related' loitering at the front of the MSIC after it opened, although there was a small increase in 'total' loitering (by 1.2 persons per occasion of observation). Trends in both 'drug-related' and 'total' loitering at the front of the MSIC steadily declined to baseline levels, or below, after it opened. There was a very small but sustained increase in 'drug-related' (0.09 persons per count) and 'total' loitering (0.37 persons per count) at the back of the MSIC after it opened. Key informant interviews noted an increase in loitering across the road from the MSIC but this was not attributed to an influx of new users and dealers to the area. There was no increase in the proportion of drug use or drug supply offences committed in Kings Cross that could be attributed to the opening of the MSIC. These results suggest that setting up an MSIC does not necessarily lead to an increase in drug-related problems of crime and public loitering.