Prescription of heroin for the management of heroin dependence: current status

Bridging the evidence and the politics: Implementation trial of supervised injectable opioid treatment (SIOT) in Australia

Supervised Injectable Opioid Treatment (SIOT) targets people experiencing opioid dependence who have not benefited from existing treatments. In this population, SIOT has been demonstrated to be efficacious and effective, yet this modality of treatment has only been taken up in a few countries. In this commentary we describe the socio-political context and history to the recent establishment of an implementation trial of injectable hydromorphone in Sydney, Australia. These factors influenced choices about the trial design, including integration of SIOT within an existing opioid agonist treatment program, time-limited treatment, and an assessment of feasibility, acceptability, safety and cost. While all new drug policy initiatives occur within a specific socio-political and historical context, we hope this commentary provides reflections for other places considering the introduction of SIOT.

Challenges for the implementation of injectable opioid agonist treatment: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is a valuable, patient-centred, evidence based intervention. However, limited information exists on contextual factors that may support or hinder iOAT implementation and sustainability. This study aims to examine existing research on iOAT using diacetylmorphine and hydromorphone, focusing on identifying the key barriers and facilitators to its successful implementation.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in the MEDLINE and PsycInfo databases (via Ovid) from inception to February 2024, supplemented by a comprehensive grey literature search. No restrictions were applied regarding publication type, year, or geographic location. Articles were independently screened by two reviewers. Eligible articles described the feasibility, implementation, and/or evaluation of iOAT in one or more countries, presenting perspectives on receiving, administering, or governing iOAT.

RESULTS

Forty-four publications were selected for inclusion. Barriers identified through thematic analysis included public acceptance concerns such as medication diversion, increased crime, and the Honey-Pot effect. Legal and ethical challenges identified involved enacting changes in law to make certain substances available as a medically controlled options for treatment, and addressing patient consent issues. Negative media coverage and public controversies were found to undermine acceptance, and high start-up costs especially for security, facility access, and economic feasibility were seen as additional obstacles. Regulatory barriers and stringent protocols were the most frequently cited limiting factors by patients and providers. Facilitators included the integration of trial prescriptions into comprehensive drug policy strategies and publishing data for evidence-based debates, together with ethics committees ensuring compliance with ethical standards. Developing information strategies and addressing opponents' claims improved public perception. Cost-effectiveness evidence was found to support long-term implementation, while flexible treatment protocols, inclusive spaces, and affirming therapeutic relationships were seen as important facilitators to enhance patient engagement and treatment effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful implementation of iOAT requires balancing political and social acceptability with scientific integrity, alongside strategic communication and public outreach. Further research is needed to enhance the transferability of findings across diverse socio-political contexts and address key influencing factors associated with iOAT programs.

Implementation of time-limited parenteral hydromorphone in people with treatment-resistant injecting opioid use disorder: a protocol for a single-site, uncontrolled, open-label study to assess feasibility, safety and cost

INTRODUCTION

Supervised injectable opioid treatment (SIOT) is an evidence-based intervention targeting opioid-dependent people for whom existing treatments have been ineffective. This project will primarily assess the feasibility and the acceptability of time-limited SIOT using injectable hydromorphone delivered in an existing Australian public opioid treatment programme, with secondary outcomes of safety, cost, changes in drug use and other health outcomes. If feasible, the goal is to scale up the intervention to be more widely available in Australia.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Between 20 and 30 participants will be offered two times per day hydromorphone to inject under direct observation, in addition to their current opioid agonist treatment (OAT), for up to 2 years. At the end of 2 years of supervised hydromorphone treatment, participants will be continued on standard OAT only. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants included in the study. This is a single-site, uncontrolled, open-label study where quantitative and qualitative interview data will be collected at baseline, 12 months and lastly at 3 months following their final hydromorphone dose. The main outcome measures are feasibility, as assessed by recruitment, retention and participation in treatment, and acceptability to participants, clinic staff and other stakeholders assessed by qualitative interviews. Secondary outcome measures of safety, as assessed by adverse events, and cost will also be assessed, as well as a range of other drug and health outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethical approval from the St Vincent's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH00418). This will be the first study of time-limited SIOT in the Australian setting. All results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences and local practice meetings. A preliminary report on outcomes will also be presented to local health policy makers. A consumer and community forum will also be held to feedback results to a broader audience.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621001729819.

Restricting supply of tobacco products to pharmacies: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

We synthesised the published literature on proposals to restrict tobacco supply to pharmacies, covering (1) policy concept/rationale/attempts, (2) policy impact and implementation and (3) policy and research recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

We searched eight databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, IPA, ProQuest and OATD) for publications with at least an English-language abstract. We searched reference lists of included publications manually.

STUDY SELECTION

One author screened all publications, and a second author reviewed a 10% subset. We focused on approaches to restrict the supply of tobacco products to pharmacies, without any restrictions on study design, location, participants or publication date.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction adhered to the JBI Scoping Review Methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 18 publications. Among the 13 studies conducted in specific geographical contexts, 8 were from Aotearoa/New Zealand. Most publications (n=8) focused on effectiveness domains, indicating potential reductions in retailer density, smoking prevalence, disease burden, cost and increased opportunities for cessation advice. Seven explored policy acceptability among experts, pharmacists and people who smoke. Publications noted that pharmacy-only supply aligns with other programmes involving pharmacists, such as needle exchange programmes, but conflicts with efforts to phase out tobacco sales from the US and Canadian pharmacies.

CONCLUSIONS

Progress in tobacco retailing policy (eg, licensing, retailer incentives) and research (eg, assessment of policy equity and durability, application in other geographical contexts) are needed before a pharmacy-only tobacco supply model would be feasible.

Heroin assisted treatment for key health outcomes in people with chronic heroin addictions: A context-focused systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Randomised controlled trials in Europe and Canada have shown that supervised heroin assisted treatment (HAT) is an effective treatment option for people with long-term heroin addictions for whom the standard opioid substitution treatments (OST) have not been effective. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of supervised HAT and analyse the significance of context and implementation in the design of successful HAT programmes.

METHODS

PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating supervised HAT compared to any other OST. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, evaluated a supervised form of HAT, and included illegal drug use and/or health as a primary outcome measure. There were no restrictions on publication date. The following outcomes of the included studies were analysed using narrative synthesis and meta-analysis where possible: retention, street drug use, health, and social functioning.

RESULTS

Nine randomised controlled trials spanning eight studies (n = 2331) and three systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Seven of the eight studies compared HAT to methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). One study compared HAT to injectable hydromorphone in a double-blind non-inferiority trial. Meta-analysis was performed on pooled results of retention across all included studies and found that HAT has a statistically significant effect on retention [Z = 7.65 (P > 0.0001)]. Five of the eight included studies found that supervised HAT reduces participants' use of illegal drugs more significantly than MMT. Evidence of improved health in participants receiving supervised HAT compared to other OSTs was inconsistent; positive effects were observed in three of the included studies (n = 1626).

CONCLUSION

When compared to methadone maintenance treatment (MMT), heroin assisted treatment (HAT) more consistently retains people with heroin addictions in treatment and reduces their consumption of illicit drugs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration: CRD42022341306.

The suitability of oral diacetylmorphine in treatment-refractory patients with heroin dependence: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To review the scientific literature on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and clinical efficacy and safety of (supervised) oral diacetylmorphine for patients with severe heroin dependence.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases were searched. Eleven published studies were identified and selected based on defined eligibility and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Four pharmacokinetic studies reported negligible plasma concentrations of diacetylmorphine and its active metabolite 6-monacetylmorphine. Among six pharmacodynamic studies, three trials showed that oral diacetylmorphine reduced opioid withdrawal symptoms, one open-label pilot study reported that two patients experienced a modest 'rush' after oral diacetylmorphine and two studies found that patients could not distinguish between oral diacetylmorphine, methadone, or morphine. Regarding the clinical studies, a Swiss prospective cohort study in patients with heroin dependence showed high retention rates of oral diacetylmorphine treatment with few serious adverse events, whereas in the Canadian SALOME trial, oral diacetylmorphine treatment was prematurely discontinued because treatment retention of oral diacetylmorphine was lower than injectable diacetylmorphine maintenance treatment. Finally, two case studies illustrate the limitations and potential problems of oral diacetylmorphine in the treatment of treatment-refractory heroin dependent patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on all published data, it is unlikely that oral diacetylmorphine produces a substantial 'rush'. Prescription of oral diacetylmorphine might therefore be effective only for treatment-refractory patients with heroin dependence (i) as maintenance treatment for those who never injected or inhaled opioids; (ii) as maintenance treatment for those who want to switch from injection to oral administration of diacetylmorphine; and/or (iii) to reduce opioid withdrawal symptoms.

Perceptions of injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) among people who regularly use opioids in Australia: findings from a cross-sectional study in three Australian cities

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Not all people experiencing opioid dependence benefit from oral opioid agonist treatment. The aim of this study was to examine perceptions of (supervised) injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) (described as 'an opioid similar to heroin self-injected at a clinic several times a day') among people who regularly use opioids and determine how common iOAT eligibility criteria accord with interest in iOAT.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey SETTING: Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, Australia PARTICIPANTS: A total of 344 people (63% male) who use opioids regularly and had ever injected opioids, interviewed December 2017-March 2018. The mean age of participants was 41.5 years [standard deviation (SD) = 8.5].

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome measures were interest in iOAT, factors associated with interest and the proportion of participants who would be eligible using common criteria from trials and guidelines. We examined willingness to travel for iOAT, medication preferences and perspectives on whom should receive iOAT.

FINDINGS

Overall, 53% of participants (n = 182) believed that iOAT would be a good treatment option for them. Participants who believed that iOAT was a good treatment option for them were more likely to be male [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-2.82], have used heroin in the past month (aOR = 6.03, 95% CI = 2.86-12.71), currently regularly inject opioids (aOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.16-2.91) and have met ICD-10 criteria for opioid dependence (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.65-7.24). Those interested in iOAT had commenced more treatment episodes (aOR =1.06, 95% CI = 1.00-1.12). Among those interested in iOAT (n = 182), 26% (n = 48) met common eligibility criteria for iOAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment does not appear to be universal among people who regularly use opioids. Among study participants who expressed interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment, most did not meet common eligibility criteria.

Clinical benefits and risks of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonists to treat severe opioid use disorder: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Demand for treatments for severe opioid use disorder is increasing worldwide. The current pharmacotherapy is mainly focused on opioid and adrenergic receptors. The N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) is among other receptors that can also be targeted to treat the disease. Findings from randomized controlled trials (RTCs) on NMDAR antagonists to treat severe opioid use disorder amply varied. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits and assess the potential risks for adverse events or side effects of NMDAR antagonists that were investigated for the treatment of severe opioid use disorder.

METHODS

Articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Proquest. Cochrane Review Database, Medline Ovid, and EMBASE from their inception to March 2019. RTCs on NMDAR antagonists for the treatment of severe opioid use disorder were independently screened and assessed by two authors. The results were synthesized qualitatively.

RESULTS

Nineteen RTCs of 1459 participants met the inclusion criteria. There is moderate evidence suggesting that ketamine, memantine, amantadine, and dextromethorphan may be able to manage opioid withdrawal symptoms. There is little evidence suggesting that memantine may be able to reduce methadone maintenance dose in participants on methadone, reduce opioid use, and reduce craving. Dropout is noticeable among dextromethorphan's participants. Safety concerns are more likely associated with dextromethorphan and ketamine.

CONCLUSIONS

NMDAR antagonists have the potentiality to treat severe opioid use disorder. There is insufficient evidence to recommend them for the treatment of severe opioid use disorder due to several limitations inherent to the RCTs reviewed. Further exploration is needed.

Providing free heroin to addicts participating in research - ethical concerns and the question of voluntariness

Providing heroin to people with heroin addiction taking part in medical trials assessing the effectiveness of the drug as a treatment alternative breaches ethical research standards, some ethicists maintain. Heroin addicts, they say, are unable to consent voluntarily to taking part in these trials. Other ethicists disagree. In our view, both sides of the debate have an inadequate understanding of 'voluntariness'. In this article we therefore offer a fuller definition of the concept, one which allows for a more flexible, case-to-case approach in which some heroin addicts are considered capable of consenting voluntarily, others not. An advantage of this approach, it is argued, is that it provides a safety net to minimise the risk of inflicting harm on trial participants.

Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of the effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment compared with oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction, the additional cost of injectable treatment is considerable, and cost-effectiveness uncertain.

AIMS

To compare the cost-effectiveness of supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone with optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction.

METHOD

Multisite, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Economic perspective included health, social services and criminal justice resources.

RESULTS

Intervention costs over 26 weeks were significantly higher for injectable heroin (mean £8995 v. £4674 injectable methadone and £2596 oral methadone; P<0.0001). Costs overall were highest for oral methadone (mean £15 805 v. £13 410 injectable methadone and £10 945 injectable heroin; P = n.s.) due to higher costs of criminal activity. In cost-effectiveness analysis, oral methadone was dominated by injectable heroin and injectable methadone (more expensive and less effective). At willingness to pay of £30 000 per QALY, there is a higher probability of injectable methadone being more cost-effective (80%) than injectable heroin.

CONCLUSIONS

Injectable opioid treatments are more cost-effective than optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. The choice between supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone is less clear. There is currently evidence to suggest superior effectiveness of injectable heroin but at a cost that policy makers may find unacceptable. Future research should consider the use of decision analytic techniques to model expected costs and benefits of the treatments over the longer term.

Design considerations for supervised consumption facilities (SCFs): preferences for facilities where people can inject and smoke drugs

BACKGROUND

Supervised consumption facilities (SCFs) aim to improve the health and well-being of people who use drugs by offering safer and more hygienic alternatives to the risk environments where people typically use drugs in the community. People who smoke crack cocaine may be willing to use supervised smoking facilities (SSFs), but their facility design preferences and the views of other stakeholders have not been previously investigated in detail.

METHODS

We consulted with people who use drugs and other stakeholders including police, fire and ambulance service personnel, other city employees and city officials, healthcare providers, residents, and business owners (N = 236) in two Canadian cities without SCFs and asked how facilities ought to be designed. All consultations were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic analyses were used to describe the knowledge and opinions of stakeholders.

RESULTS

People who use drugs see SSFs as offering public health and safety benefits, while other stakeholders were more sceptical about the need for SSFs. People who use drugs provided insights into how a facility might be designed to accommodate supervised injection and supervised smoking. Their strongest preference would allow both methods of drug use within the same facility with some form of physical separation between the two based on different highs, comfort regarding exposure to different methods of drug administration, and concerns about behaviours often associated with smoking crack cocaine. Other stakeholders raised a number of SSF implementation challenges worthy of consideration.

CONCLUSION

Decision-makers in cities considering SCF or SSF implementation should consider the opinions and preferences of potential clients to ensure that facilities will attract, retain, and engage people who use drugs.

Staff concerns in heroin-assisted treatment centres

Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) is a solution for improving the condition of treatment-resistant heroin addicts. Since 1994, six randomized controlled trials have concluded that HAT is more efficacious than oral methadone for severe heroin addicts. We visited seven HAT treatment centres in four countries in order to observe diacetylmorphine (DAM) administration and to study the main concerns of the staff. Nurses were concerned by the risk taken if a previously intoxicated patient received his dose of DAM. Another concern was the smuggling of DAM doses. The HAT centres face a dilemma: treating patients while at the same time allowing their risky street habits in the centre.

The science and practice of medication-assisted treatments for opioid dependence

This paper briefly reviews the evolution of opioid addiction treatment from humanitarian to scientific and evidence-based, the evidence bases supporting major medication-assisted treatments and adjunctive psychosocial techniques, as well as challenges faced by clinicians and treatment providers seeking to provide those treatments. Attitudes, politics, policy, and financial issues are discussed.

Feasibility of double-blind clinical trials with oral diacetylmorphine: a randomized controlled phase II study in an inpatient setting

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of conducting double-blind controlled randomized clinical trials using twice-a-day immediate-release oral diacetylmorphine (DAM) in heroin-dependent patients, by means of measuring the capacity of oral DAM to block opiate withdrawal and clinicians' ability to distinguish it from morphine and methadone. This was a randomized, phase II, double-blind, multicenter pilot study comparing immediate-release oral DAM, slow-release oral morphine and oral methadone administered twice a day during 10 days. Forty-five heroin-dependent patients were randomly assigned to these three treatment groups in an inpatient regime. Patients were stabilized with a mean of 350 mg (SD = 193) of immediate-release oral DAM, 108 mg (SD = 46.2) of slow-release oral morphine and 40 mg (SD = 17.9) of methadone. No statistically significant differences were found between any studied medication in clinical outcome. Neither patients nor clinicians were able to identify the administered medication. This study shows the feasibility of double-blind clinical trials using b.i.d. immediate-release oral DAM allowing further phase III clinical trials in the process of introducing oral DAM as a medication for heroin-dependent patients not responding to standard maintenance treatments.

Optimizing heroin-assisted treatment (HAT): assessment of the contribution of direct ethanol metabolites in identifying hazardous and harmful alcohol use

BACKGROUND

Heavy alcohol consumption may accelerate the progression of hepatitis C-related liver disease and/or limit efforts at antiviral treatment in opioid-dependent patients receiving heroin-assisted treatment (HAT). Our study aims to assess alcohol intake among HAT patients by self-reports compared to direct ethanol metabolites.

METHOD

Fifty-four patients in HAT were recruited from the centre for HAT at the University of Basel, Switzerland. The patients completed the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT), a self-report questionnaire on past-week ethanol intake and provided samples for the determination of ethyl glucuronide (UEtG) and ethyl sulphate (UEtS) in urine and of ethyl glucuronide (HEtG) in hair.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients scored above the AUDIT cut-off levels. Twenty-six patients tested positive for UEtG and 29 for UEtS. HEtG identified ethanol intake of more than 20 g/d in 20 additional cases that did not appear in the AUDIT. Using the total score of the AUDIT, HEtG detected 14 additional cases of relevant alcohol intake.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study, which is the first assessing alcohol intake in HAT patients using direct ethanol metabolites and self reports, suggest the complementary use of both. Improved detection of hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in the context of HCV and heroin dependence will allow for earlier intervention in this population. This ultimately will contribute to an improvement in quality of life of patients in HAT. Furthermore, a significant reduction of costs can be achieved through a reduction of complications caused by alcohol intake.

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.