A qualitative study of reasons for seeking and ceasing opioid substitution treatment in prisons in New South Wales, Australia.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Opioid substitution treatment (OST) reduces drug-related harms in custody and after release. However, OST providers in prisons have reported that some patients prefer to cease treatment prior to release, placing them at risk of fatal overdose. We aimed to examine reasons for seeking OST in custody, and intentions regarding continuation or cessation of treatment prior to and following release. DESIGN AND METHODS: This qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews with opioid-dependent people currently incarcerated in New South Wales, Australia. RESULTS: Of 46 participants, 27 were currently in OST. Reported benefits of OST included withdrawal management and avoidance of high-risk injecting. Over a third of participants in OST stated their intention to withdraw from OST prior to release. Reasons included concerns that attending community OST clinics could lead to drug use or offending, family opposition, inconvenience of clinic attendance, stigma and a perception that prison provided an opportunity to withdraw from OST more easily than in the community. Nineteen participants had already ceased OST in custody or had declined it, citing preferences to 'be clean' and the long-term nature of OST. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Balancing the preference of many patients to cease OST prior to release against patient safety post-release is a substantial challenge for opioid treatment providers in correctional settings. These findings indicate the need for research on how best to attract and retain opioid-dependent prisoners in treatment and the need to provide other interventions for prisoners uninterested in post-release OST, such as take-home naloxone. [Larney S, Zador D, Sindicich N, Dolan K. A qualitative study of reasons for seeking and ceasing opioid substitution treatment in prisons in New South Wales, Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;36:305-310].

Monitoring a Prison Opioid Treatment Program Over a Period of Change to Clinical Governance Arrangements, 2007-2013.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Opioid substitution therapy (OST) is an effective treatment for opioid dependence that is provided in many correctional settings, including New South Wales (NSW), Australia. In 2011, changes to the clinical governance of the NSW prison OST program were implemented, including a more comprehensive assessment, additional specialist nurses, and centralization of program management and planning. This study aimed to document the NSW prison OST program, and assess the impact of the enhanced clinical governance arrangements on retention in treatment until release, the provision of an OST prescription to patients at release, and presentation to a community OST clinic within 48 hours of release from custody. METHOD: Data from the NSW prison OST program were obtained for the calendar years 2007-2013. Outcomes were analyzed quarterly using log binomial segmented regression. RESULTS: 8577 people were treated with OST in NSW correctional centers, 2007-2013. Over the entire study period, patients were retained in OST until release in 82% of treatment episodes; a prescription for OST was able to be arranged prior to release in 90% of releases; and patients presented to a community clinic within 48 hours of release in 94% of releases with prescriptions. Following the introduction of the changes to clinical governance, there was a significant increasing trend in retention in OST until release, and in provision of an OST prescription at release. There was an initial increase, followed by a decreasing trend, in presentation to a community clinic within 48 hours of release. DISCUSSION: This large prison-based OST program has high rates of retention in treatment and continuity of care as patients transition from custody to the community. Strengthened clinical governance arrangements were associated with increased retention in treatment until release and increased provision of an OST prescription at release, but did not improve clinic attendance following release from custody.

The extramedical use and diversion of opioid substitution medications and other medications in prison settings in Australia following the introduction of buprenorphine-naloxone film.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Around 65% of people incarcerated in prisons in Australia, America and Europe have a history of drug dependence, sometimes treated with opioid substitution treatment (OST) medications. Studies report that those in treatment in prison do engage in some level of diversion to others, whether on a voluntary or coerced basis. We aimed to examine the use of prescribed and non-prescribed OST medications by those in prisons, especially buprenorphine-naloxone film (BNX-F); the extent of non-adherence and diversion and reasons for such practices; and the impact of the introduction of BNX-F into the prison system. DESIGN AND METHODS: Mixed methods study drawing on: (i) structured interviews with current OST clients (n = 60) who reported being incarcerated in the 12 months prior to being interviewed and (ii) qualitative interviews with key experts working in corrections and prison (or justice) health settings. RESULTS: The majority were prescribed OST medications in prison, with 25% removing all or part of their supervised dose on at least one occasion, and 44% reporting use of non-prescribed medications. Some reported intravenous use (14% injected). One-third of OST recipients reported selling/sharing OST medications with others in prison. The introduction of BNX-F into the prison system saw different diversion methods used and removal from dosing within prison. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Despite prison being a highly regulated and controlled environment, some level of diversion and sharing of psychoactive medication occurs among prisoners. The buprenorphine formulations used in OST present particular challenges with respect to supervised dosing in this setting. [White N, Ali R, Larance B, Zador D, Mattick RP, Degenhardt L. The extramedical use and diversion of opioid substitution medications and other medications in prison settings in Australia following the introduction of buprenorphine-naloxone film. Drug Alcohol Rev 2015;●●:●●-●●].

Drug use, health and social outcomes of hard-to-treat heroin addicts receiving supervised injectable opiate treatment: secondary outcomes from the Randomized Injectable Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT).

AIMS: The Randomized Injectable Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT) compared supervised injectable heroin (SIH) and supervised injectable methadone (SIM) with optimized oral methadone (OOM) (ISRCTN0133807). Heroin addicts (previously unresponsive to treatment) made significant reductions in street heroin use at 6 months when treated with SIH. We now examine secondary outcomes. DESIGN: Multi-site randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing SIH versus OOM and SIM versus OOM. SETTING: Three supervised injectable opiate clinics in England. PARTICIPANTS: Chronic refractory heroin addicts continuing to inject street heroin virtually daily despite oral substitution treatment (n = 127), randomized to either SIH(n = 43), SIM(n = 42) or OOM(n = 42). All received high levels of medical and psychosocial support. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: wider drug use, crime, health and social functioning at 6 months. FINDINGS: At 6 months, no significant differences were found between treatment groups in wider drug use (crack/cocaine, benzodiazepines, alcohol), physical and mental health (SF-36) or social functioning. Within each treatment group, significant reductions were observed in crime [SIH = odds ratio (OR) 0.05; P < 0.001; SIM = OR 0.11; P = 0.002; OOM = OR 0.11; P = 0.003] and money spent per week on illicit drugs (SIH = mean change £-289.43; P < 0.001; SIM = mean change £-183.41; P < 0.001; OOM = mean change £-162.80; P < 0.001), with SIH significantly more likely to have reduced money spent on illicit drugs versus OOM (mean difference £-92.04; P < 0.001). Significant improvements were seen in physical health for SIH and SIM (SIH = mean change 3.97; P = 0.008; SIM = mean change 4.73; P = 0.002) and mental health for OOM (mean change 6.04; P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Supervised injectable heroin treatment and supervised injectable methadone treatment showed no clearly identified benefit over optimized oral methadone in terms of wider drug use, crime, physical and mental health within a 6-month period, despite reducing street heroin use to a greater extent. However, all interventions were associated with improvements in these outcomes.

Supervised injectable heroin or injectable methadone versus optimised oral methadone as treatment for chronic heroin addicts in England after persistent failure in orthodox treatment (RIOTT): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Some heroin addicts persistently fail to benefit from conventional treatments. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of supervised injectable treatment with medicinal heroin (diamorphine or diacetylmorphine) or supervised injectable methadone versus optimised oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction. METHODS: In this multisite, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled chronic heroin addicts who were receiving conventional oral treatment (>or=6 months), but continued to inject street heroin regularly (>or=50% of days in preceding 3 months). Randomisation by minimisation was used to assign patients to receive supervised injectable methadone, supervised injectable heroin, or optimised oral methadone. Treatment was provided for 26 weeks in three supervised injecting clinics in England. Primary outcome was 50% or more of negative specimens for street heroin on weekly urinalysis during weeks 14-26. Primary analysis was by intention to treat; data were adjusted for centre, regular crack use at baseline, and treatment with optimised oral methadone at baseline. Percentages were calculated with Rubin's rules and were then used to estimate numbers of patients in the multiple imputed samples. This study is registered, ISRCTN01338071. FINDINGS: Of 301 patients screened, 127 were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive injectable methadone (n=42 patients), injectable heroin (n=43), or oral methadone (n=42); all patients were included in the primary analysis. At 26 weeks, 80% (n=101) patients remained in assigned treatment: 81% (n=34) on injectable methadone, 88% (n=38) on injectable heroin, and 69% (n=29) on oral methadone. Patients on injectable heroin were significantly more likely to have achieved the primary outcome (72% [n=31]) than were those on oral methadone (27% [n=11], OR 7.42, 95% CI 2.69-20.46, p<0.0001; adjusted: 66% [n=28] vs 19% [n=8], 8.17, 2.88-23.16, p<0.0001), with number needed to treat of 2.17 (95% CI 1.60-3.97). For injectable methadone (39% [n=16]; adjusted: 30% [n=14]) versus oral methadone, the difference was not significant (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.66-4.60, p=0.264; adjusted: 1.79, 0.67-4.82, p=0.249). For injectable heroin versus injectable methadone, a significant difference was recorded (4.26, 1.63-11.14, p=0.003; adjusted: 4.57, 1.71-12.19, p=0.002), but the study was not powered for this comparison. Differences were evident within the first 6 weeks of treatment. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with supervised injectable heroin leads to significantly lower use of street heroin than does supervised injectable methadone or optimised oral methadone. UK Government proposals should be rolled out to support the positive response that can be achieved with heroin maintenance treatment for previously unresponsive chronic heroin addicts. FUNDING: Community Fund (Big Lottery) Research section, through Action on Addiction.

The fine line between harm reduction and harm production--development of a clinical policy on femoral (groin) injecting.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The femoral region ('groin') appears to be increasingly commonly used by injecting drug users in the UK. With the advent of Britain's first supervised prescribed injectable opioid treatment clinic, unprecedented decisions and judgements were required about the safe supervision of this practice, or whether to permit this behaviour on site at all. This paper reports the reasons for, and outcome of, development of a clinical policy on injecting into the deep femoral vein (groin injecting). METHOD: A small in-depth audit of the complications of femoral injecting was undertaken in a supervised injecting clinic. RESULTS: All femoral injectors had had either local site-related medical complications or other health problems which could potentially be worsened by ongoing injection. This finding along with the personal and professional issues raised by staff for supervision of femoral injecting led to a revised policy focussing on achieving a shift towards lower-risk peripheral venous and intramuscular sites. CONCLUSION: While the clinic staff's training may be more compatible with professional duties of care by encouraging cessation of femoral injecting, this does not tell us what advice harm reduction workers in the field should offer groin injectors. More research is needed into this high-risk, controversial injecting practice.

London audit of drug-related overdose deaths: characteristics and typology, and implications for prevention and monitoring.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the circumstances and draft a typology of drug-related overdose deaths. SETTING: London, 2003. METHODS: An audit of 148 drug overdose deaths (involving heroin, methadone, dihydrocodeine, cocaine, amphetamine or MDMA) investigated by coroners during 2003. Information extracted on toxicology, pathology and circumstances were used to identify drug(s) implicated in the death. RESULTS: Poly- or multiple drug use was detected in the majority of deaths with at least 69 different combinations, including 66% for heroin and 42% for cocaine. Six categories of death were identified involving an opiate (100, 68%); cocaine (14, 9%); other controlled drug (five, 3%); mixed drug overdose (18, 12%); other prescribed drug (five, 3%); and other causes (seven, 5%). A witness was present and the death was not instantaneous in 92 (61%) cases, although evidence in the coronial file suggested that in the majority of cases the overdose went unnoticed until too late to intervene. In all, 15 (one in 10) of the deceased were released from prison within 3 months of death; and 37 (one in four) were reported as in receipt of a methadone prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Perhaps for the first time in the United Kingdom cocaine was detected in more drug overdose deaths than methadone. However, reducing heroin use is central to the prevention of drug-related deaths. We recommend that overdose prevention encompasses strategies to encourage a 'mutual duty of care' among problem drug users, and in the United Kingdom further investigation of the relationship of methadone treatment failures on overall trends in drug-related deaths is merited.

Methodology for the Randomised Injecting Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT): evaluating injectable methadone and injectable heroin treatment versus optimised oral methadone treatment in the UK.

Whilst unsupervised injectable methadone and diamorphine treatment has been part of the British treatment system for decades, the numbers receiving injectable opioid treatment (IOT) has been steadily diminishing in recent years. In contrast, there has been a recent expansion of supervised injectable diamorphine programs under trial conditions in a number of European and North American cities, although the evidence regarding the safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of this treatment approach remains equivocal. Recent British clinical guidance indicates that IOT should be a second-line treatment for those patients in high-quality oral methadone treatment who continue to regularly inject heroin, and that treatment be initiated in newly-developed supervised injecting clinics. The Randomised Injectable Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT) is a multisite, prospective open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the role of treatment with injected opioids (methadone and heroin) for the management of heroin dependence in patients not responding to conventional substitution treatment. Specifically, the study examines whether efforts should be made to optimise methadone treatment for such patients (e.g. regular attendance, supervised dosing, high oral doses, access to psychosocial services), or whether such patients should be treated with injected methadone or heroin. Eligible patients (in oral substitution treatment and injecting illicit heroin on a regular basis) are randomised to one of three conditions: (1) optimized oral methadone treatment (Control group); (2) injected methadone treatment; or (3) injected heroin treatment (with access to oral methadone doses). Subjects are followed up for 6-months, with between-group comparisons on an intention-to-treat basis across a range of outcome measures. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who discontinue regular illicit heroin use (operationalised as providing >50% urine drug screens negative for markers of illicit heroin in months 4 to 6). Secondary outcomes include measures of other drug use, injecting practices, health and psychosocial functioning, criminal activity, patient satisfaction and incremental cost effectiveness. The study aims to recruit 150 subjects, with 50 patients per group, and is to be conducted in supervised injecting clinics across England.

Patients prescribed injectable heroin or methadone -their opinions and experiences of treatment.

AIMS: To describe the opinions and experiences of treatment of a cohort of patients prescribed injectable opiate treatment (IOT). DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional survey of all patients on injectable diamorphine or methadone at a tertiary referral clinic in the northwest of England in June 2000. FINDINGS: A total of 104 subjects were prescribed IOT, mostly male (87.5%) and with a mean age of 36.3 years (SEM 0.66, range 20-53). The majority (75.0%) were prescribed injectable methadone with the remainder (25.0%) on injectable diamorphine. Most subjects (93.3%) used intravenously, many (58.7%) into the femoral vein. Treatment was sought most frequently in order to procure a drug supply of known dose and purity, to improve family relationships and to avoid trouble with the police. Half were satisfied with their treatment but many wanted to change to injectable diamorphine or to increase their doses. Subjects cited many advantages of injectable diamorphine over injectable methadone, although benefits of injectable methadone were acknowledged. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects articulated a consistent desire for IOT in order to 'stabilize' their lives in a number of ways. This sample was recruited from one of the country's largest specialist IOT clinics. The generalizability of this study's findings to all patients in the United Kingdom currently prescribed IOT, however, was not examined. Nevertheless, these findings suggest that clinicians and policy makers should be aware of many heroin users' perception of IOT as long-term treatment and their clear preference for injectable diamorphine. Further investigation of differential outcomes between oral and injectable OT and between different injectable opiates is warranted.

Methadone-related deaths and mortality rate during induction into methadone maintenance, New South Wales, 1996.

The aims of this study were to describe the causes of death in cases found positive for methadone post-mortem, the proportion of cases involving methadone syrup, and of this group, the proportion not registered in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) at time of death, and the number of deaths during induction into MMT in New South Wales in 1996. Coronial files of cases were reviewed. Data on file with the Pharmaceutical Services Branch, NSW Health Department on number of people admitted to and discharged from MMT in 1996, and details of methadone treatment for cases in MMT, were examined. Eighty-seven methadone positive cases were identified, of which 62 (71%) died of drug-related causes. Of 9835 people inducted into MMT in 1996, seven died within the first 7 days (21% of all deaths in MMT), for an overall mortality rate (MR) of 7.1 deaths per 10,000 inductions (95% CI 1.8-12.4). Fifty-one per cent (51%) of methadone syrup-related cases occurred in people not registered in MMT. This high proportion of diversion related deaths continues to be of concern. The findings reinforce to providers of MMT the necessity of careful procedures for initiation of treatment and support the need for ongoing surveillance of methadone related deaths both in and out of MMT.

Using ambulance attendances to recruit people who have experienced non-fatal heroin overdose.

AIMS: To trial two novel methods of recruiting people who experience non-fatal heroin overdose through the ambulance service. SETTING: Melbourne and Sydney, Australia. METHODS: In Melbourne potential participants were given numbered contact cards by ambulance paramedics after revival, while in Sydney potential participants were approached after revival by a researcher who travelled with ambulance paramedics to the overdose scene. RESULTS: In Melbourne 281 cards were distributed during the period 1 June 1998-31 December 1998 and a subsequent contact rate of 24% was achieved with 14% attending a subsequent interview. In Sydney there were 170 initial contacts of which 139 (82%) answered a series of questions asked at the scene (the remainder either ineligible or incapable of answering questions) with 48 (35%) also attending for follow-up interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment through contact with ambulance services is a novel method of recruiting heroin users for research into non-fatal heroin overdose with advantages over other methods of sampling for research on non-fatal heroin overdose.