Methadone prescribing under supervised consumption on premises: a Scottish clinician's perspective on prescribing practice.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Specialist services have increased their capacity considerably in recent years to initiate and/or provide ongoing treatment for drug misuse. Consequently, methadone prescribing has substantially increased and over 17,000 patients are currently receiving methadone. Clinical guidance promotes consumption on the premises (COP) initially to ensure patients take medication as prescribed and also to prevent diversion. Diversion poses two risks: the patient may remain under-treated and continue illicit heroin use; diverted drugs put others at risk. However, COP can be restrictive. Current UK guidance is vague and not evidence-based recommending 'around three months subject to assessment of compliance and individual circumstances'. The overall aim of this study was to describe clinical practice regarding prescribing methadone under COP in Scotland, and reasons for this. Design and Methods. A structured, postal questionnaire was sent to all lead clinicians in specialist drug treatment centres in Scotland in 2009 (n=42). The questionnaire explored current practice, influence of supervision on retention, views of best practice and contingency management. RESULTS: The response rate was 76% (n=32). Clinicians usually supervise for a minimum of three months with patient-centred criteria used to determine when to reduce or stop COP. Employment, clinical stability, family support and concerns for the safety of children in the home influenced decision making. Contingency management approaches to supervision were widely used (62%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: In Scotland, clinicians' practice is variable and individualised to patients, but generally cautious regarding relaxing supervision conditions. This may reflect the lack of evidence-based guidance.

A pilot randomised controlled trial of brief versus twice weekly versus standard supervised consumption in patients on opiate maintenance treatment.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Methadone maintenance remains the mainstay of treatment for opiate dependence in Scotland. Guidelines recommend supervised self-administration for at least 3 months, yet this is often interpreted as long-term supervision. However, there is no evidence base for deciding the optimal period of supervision. We tested the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of different supervision models. DESIGN AND METHODS: Three armed pilot RCT, set in three Scottish treatment areas, recruited opiate-dependent patients who had received methadone treatment for 3 months. Participants were randomised to: (i) no supervision; (ii) twice weekly supervision; or (iii) daily supervision for further 3 months. As a pilot, key process measures were: recruitment rates, follow-up rates and treatment fidelity. We also wanted to estimate effect sizes of two co-primary outcomes for a full RCT: treatment retention and illicit heroin use. The recruitment target was 60 participants. RESULTS: One hundred and two eligible patients were identified, 60 (59%) participated, and 46 followed up (77%). Study fidelity was good with two participants moving group. Those randomised to no supervision were significantly happier with their group allocation. No significant differences were found in primary outcomes, although retention decreased with increased supervision, while illicit heroin use was least in those most supervised. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to recruit and randomise participants to an RCT comparing different forms of supervised consumption. Pilot data suggest increased supervision may reduce illicit heroin use, but may decrease retention. This should now be tested in a large-scale multicentre RCT.