[Opiate substitution: the users' point of view]

Intravenous misuse of slow-release oral morphine capsules: how much morphine is injected?

BACKGROUND

The injection of morphine from morphine sulfate capsules containing sustained-release microbeads (Skenan®) is a practice frequently described by French intravenous opioid users. They seek an injectable form of substitution for heroin. Depending on how the syringe is prepared, the morphine rates may vary. The dosage of the capsule, the temperature of the dissolving water and the type of filter used have been identified as the parameters most likely to influence the final quantity of morphine in solution before intravenous injection. The aim of our study was to determine the amounts of morphine actually injected, according to the different preparation modalities described by people who inject morphine and the harm reduction equipment made available to them.

METHODS

Different morphine syringes were prepared by varying the dosage of the capsule (100 or 200 mg), the temperature of the dissolving water before adding morphine, ambient (≈ 22 °C) or heat (≈ 80 °C) and four filtration devices: risk reduction Steribox® cotton, risk reduction filter "Sterifilt®", "Wheel" filter and cigarette filter. The quantification of the morphine in the syringe body was carried out by liquid phase chromatography coupled with a mass spectrometry detector.

RESULTS

The best extraction yields were obtained with heated water, independently of dosages (p < 0.01). Yields of 100 mg capsules varied according to the filter (p < 0.01) and the water temperature (p < 0.01), with maximum yields obtained for solutions dissolved in heated water, then filtered with the "Wheel" filter (83 mg). The yields of the 200 mg capsules varied according to the temperature of the water (p < 0.01), without difference according to the filter used (p > 0.01), and maximum yields obtained for solutions dissolved in heated water (95 mg).

CONCLUSIONS

No procedure for dissolving Skenan® led to the complete dissolution of the morphine it contains. Whatever the variations in preparation conditions, the extraction rates of the 200 mg morphine capsules were lower than those of 100 mg, without the risk reduction filters adversely impacting morphine extraction. Offering an injectable substitution to persons who inject morphine would make it possible to reduce the risks and damage, particularly overdoses, associated with variations in dosage due to preparation methods.

How do people who use drugs receiving Opioid Medication Therapy perceive their treatment ? A multicentre study

Background

The resurgence of heroin use and the misuse of pharmaceutical opioids are some of the reasons for a worldwide increase in opioid dependence. Opioid Medication Therapies (OMT) have amply demonstrated their efficacy. From a medical point of view, the main objectives of OMT concern medical and social outcomes, centred on risk reduction and the cessation of opioid use. But patient points of view can differ and few studies have explored opioid-dependent patient viewpoints on their OMT. This variable seems important to consider in a patient-centred approach. The aim of our study was to explore points of view of people who use drugs (PWUD) treated with OMT, in a large multicentre sample.

Method

A cross-sectional multicentre study explored the points of view of PWUD with Opioid Use Disorder following OMT. Data regarding the patients’ points of view were collected using a self-administered questionnaire developed by the scientific committee of the study. A descriptive analysis and an exploratory factor analysis were performed to explore the structure of items exploring patient viewpoints.

Results

263 opioid dependent PWUD were included, a majority were men consuming heroin prior to being prescribed OMT. 68% were on methadone, 32% were on buprenorphine. Most PWUD identified a positive impact on their lives, with 92.8% agreeing or strongly agreeing that OMT had changed a lot of things in their lives. The exploratory factor analysis identified three factors: (F1) items related to points of views concerning the objectives and efficacy of OMT; (F2) items related to the legitimacy of OMT as a treatment compared to a drug, (F3) items related to experiences and relationships with OMT.

Conclusion

Patient viewpoints on efficacy were correlated with the pharmacological benefits of OMT and with the associated psychosocial measures. The implications of OMT in relationships, such as the feeling of being judged, concerned a majority. Points of view were ambivalent concerning the role of OMT as a treatment or as a drug. Involving patient points of view in therapeutic strategies decisions could help enhance positive views among PWUD on OMT and help PWUD towards their recovery.

Trial registration: OPAL study was registered: (NCT01847729).

Profile, risk practices and needs of people who inject morphine sulfate: Results from the ANRS-AERLI study

AIMS

In France, a non-negligible proportion of opioid-dependent individuals inject morphine sulfate. Although it has not yet been officially approved as an opioid substitution treatment (OST), some physicians can prescribe its use for people in methadone or buprenorphine treatment failure. Longitudinal data from the ANRS-AERLI study, which evaluated an educational intervention for safer injection called AERLI, provided us the opportunity to better characterize the profile, risk practices and needs of people who inject morphine sulfate (MSI), through comparison with other injectors, and to identify correlates of HIV/HCV risk practices in this group.

METHODS

The national multisite ANRS-AERLI study assessed the impact of AERLI offered in volunteer harm reduction (HR) centers ("with intervention") (n = 113) through comparison with standard HR centers ("without intervention") (n = 127). All participants were scheduled to be followed up for 12 months and have 3 telephone interviews: at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. We compared MSI (n = 79) with other opioid injectors (n = 161) and then used a mixed logistic model to identify factors associated with HIV/HCV risk practices among MSI.

FINDINGS

Of the 240 eligible participants, 79 were regular MSI. They were less likely to use cocaine, crack or buprenorphine and to receive OST than other participants. Conversely, MSI were more likely to inject drugs more than three times a day and to report HIV/HCV risk practices. Among MSI, multivariate analysis showed that those receiving morphine sulfate as an OST were less likely to report such practices than other participants (aOR [95%CI] = 0.11 [0.02-0.61]).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that while MSI use fewer stimulants, they have more HIV/HCV risk practices than other injectors. However, when MSI are prescribed morphine sulfate as a treatment, these practices tend to decrease. Our findings suggest the importance of increasing access to morphine sulfate as a new OST in France.