The SUMMIT trial: a field comparison of buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance treatment.

This prospective patient-preference study examined the effectiveness in practice of methadone versus buprenorphine maintenance treatment and the beliefs of subjects regarding these drugs. A total of 361 opiate-dependent individuals (89% of those eligible, presenting for treatment over 2 years at a drug service in England) received rapid titration then flexible dosing with methadone or buprenorphine; 227 patients chose methadone (63%) and 134 buprenorphine (37%). Participants choosing methadone had more severe substance abuse and psychiatric and physical problems but were more likely to remain in treatment. Survival analysis indicated those prescribed methadone were over twice as likely to be retained (hazard ratio for retention was 2.08 and 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.49-2.94 for methadone vs. buprenorphine), However, those retained on buprenorphine were more likely to suppress illicit opiate use (odds ratio = 2.136, 95% CI = 1.509-3.027, p < .001) and achieve detoxification. Buprenorphine may also recruit more individuals to treatment because 28% of those choosing buprenorphine (10% of the total sample) stated they would not have accessed treatment with methadone.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and stepped care interventions for older hazardous alcohol users in primary care (AESOPS) - a randomised control trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is a wealth of evidence regarding the detrimental impact of excessive alcohol consumption. In older populations excessive alcohol consumption is associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease, hypertension, stroke and a range of cancers. Alcohol consumption is also associated with an increased risk of falls, early onset of dementia and other cognitive deficits. Physiological changes that occur as part of the ageing process mean that older people experience alcohol related problems at lower consumption levels. There is a strong evidence base for the effectiveness of brief psychosocial interventions in reducing alcohol consumption in populations identified opportunistically in primary care settings. Stepped care interventions involve the delivery of more intensive interventions only to those in the population who fail to respond to less intensive interventions and provide a potentially resource efficient means of meeting the needs of this population. METHODS/DESIGN: The study design is a pragmatic prospective multi-centre two arm randomised controlled trial. The primary hypothesis is that stepped care interventions for older hazardous alcohol users reduce alcohol consumption compared with a minimal intervention at 12 months post randomisation. Potential participants are identified using the AUDIT questionnaire. Eligible and consenting participants are randomised with equal probability to either a minimal intervention or a three step treatment approach. The step treatment approach incorporates as step 1 behavioural change counselling, step 2 three sessions of motivational enhancement therapy and step 3 referral to specialist services. The primary outcome is measured using average standard drinks per day and secondary outcome measures include the Drinking Problems Index, health related quality of life and health utility. The study incorporates a comprehensive economic analysis to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions. DISCUSSION: The paper presents a protocol for the first pragmatic randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stepped care interventions for older hazardous alcohol users in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN52557360.

Crack/cocaine use in a rural county of England.

Crack/cocaine use is an increasing problem in the UK. This study is the first to ascertain the magnitude of the crack/cocaine problem in a rural county of the UK and to determine users' needs for treatment services. A questionnaire on drug dependence and risk behaviour was completed by 306 users of drug treatment services, and focus groups were conducted with 45 self-selected crack/cocaine users. It is estimated that 31% (95% C.I., 26% to 37%) of drug users in treatment services have moderate/severe dependence on crack/cocaine. Factors associated with severe crack/cocaine dependence are severe dependence on benzodiazepines, increasing number of drugs used, engaging in sex work and non-white ethnicity. Those with severe dependence have a higher prevalence of hepatitis B and C compared with those with moderate or no dependence. All focus group participants describe a frenzied drug life so when entering treatment they require additional support to give structure to their lives to prevent relapse. Current service provision appears not to provide help to crack/cocaine users. Given the lack of pharmacological treatment, programmes should incorporate a wide range of activities and interventions to provide structure to clients' lives. Learning from ex-users was perceived as an important component of treatment.

The prevalence of problem drug misuse in a rural county of England.

Previous capture-recapture studies have estimated the prevalence of problem drug misuse in urban areas. This study estimates the prevalence in a rural county, Norfolk, using data from four sources: drug treatment agencies, probation, the arrest referral service, and police (drug-related crime with/without acquisitive crime). Careful consideration was given to methods of matching datasets and sensitivity analyses involved altering matching rules and postcode criteria. Whilst it is recognised that acquisitive crime is often related to drug use, this is the first capture-recapture study to incorporate acquisitive crime data. In further sensitivity analyses the proportion of acquisitive crime assumed to be drug-related was varied from 25-60%. The main analysis provided an estimated prevalence of problem drug use in Norfolk of 2.05% (95% confidence interval: 1.66%-2.56%) for ages 15-54 years, considerably higher than the 1.1% currently suggested for the UK. Sensitivity analyses based on varied matching and postcode criteria produced estimates ranging from 2.41%-3.37%, suggesting our estimate may be conservative. Sensitivity analyses assuming that 25-60% of acquisitive crimes were drug-related, produced estimates ranging from 2.02% to 5.73%, further supporting our main analysis. In conclusion, this study provides evidence that problem drug misuse is more prevalent in this rural population than previously thought.