Methadone treatment of randomly selected criminal addicts

Impact of opioid maintenance therapy in the community on reincarceration in individuals with opioid use disorder-A linked cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Studies have found associations between Opioid Agonist Maintenance Treatment during incarceration and reduced recidivism among recently released formerly incarcerated persons. However, the role of community-based Opioid Agonist Maintenance Treatment in reducing recidivism post-release remains less explored. This study examines whether pre-release arranged, prison-to-rehabilitation Opioid Agonist Maintenance Treatment in the community following release is associated with reduced rates and lengths of re-incarceration among justice-involved individuals with Opioid Use Disorder.

METHODS

A retrospective matched cohort study was conducted using linked records of 208 individuals with a history of Opioid Use Disorder and treatment during their incarceration. The primary predictor variable was the duration of Opioid Agonist Maintenance Treatment, with re-incarceration rates and lengths of stay after reincarceration being the primary outcomes examined.

RESULTS

Analysis showed a significant decrease in reincarcerations and or lengths of stay in prison among those who have been reincarcerated and have undergone Opioid Agonist Maintenance Treatment in the community for >24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining Opioid Agonist Maintenance Treatment over 24 months may reduce re-incarcerations and may be significantly associated with a reduction in the length of prison stay for reincarcerated individuals. The effects were consistent across the overall population and the individuals receiving the treatment. Various other unmeasured factors, including judicial discretion, individual motivation, type of offense, and employment status, could influence this association.

Medications for opioid use disorder during incarceration and post-release outcomes

BACKGROUND

Continuation or initiation of MOUDs during incarceration could improve post-release outcomes by preventing return to opioid use and reducing risk of overdose. People with OUD involved in the criminal legal system are a vulnerable population, yet little research has comprehensively examined post-release outcomes associated with receiving MOUDs in jail and prison settings.

METHODS

The authors conducted a review of published peer-reviewed literature on post-release outcomes associated with the use of MOUDs in correctional settings to determine implications for further research and policy.

RESULTS

Results showed compelling evidence supporting the use of MOUDs for currently incarcerated populations, with almost all studies showing that MOUDs provided during incarceration increased community-based treatment engagement post-release. There is also evidence that initiating or continuing MOUDs during incarceration is associated with decreased opioid use and overdoses post-release, without increasing criminal involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that forcing tapering and withdrawal during incarceration can have dire consequences upon release into the community. Initiating or continuing MOUDs during incarceration reduces the risk for opioid use and overdose upon release by maintaining opioid tolerance and increasing community treatment engagement.

Opioid Use Disorder Treatments: An Evidence Map

BACKGROUND

Evidence maps are emerging data visualization of a systematic review. There are no published evidence maps summarizing opioid use disorder (OUD) interventions.

AIM

Our aim was to publish an interactive summary of all peer-reviewed interventional and observational trials assessing the treatment of OUD and common clinical outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Web of Science were queried using multiple OUD-related MESH terms, without date limitations, for English-language publications. Inclusions were human subjects, treatment of OUD, OUD patient or community-level outcomes, and systematic reviews of OUD interventions. Exclusions were laboratory studies, reviews, and case reports. Two reviewers independently scanned abstracts for inclusion before coding eligible full-text articles by pre-specified filters: research design, study population, study setting, intervention, outcomes, sample size, study duration, geographical region, and funding sources.

RESULTS

The OUD Evidence Map (https://med.nyu.edu/research/lee-lab/research/opioid-use-disorder-treatment-evidence-map) identified and assessed 12,933 relevant abstracts through 2020. We excluded 9455 abstracts and full text reviewed 2839 manuscripts; 888 were excluded, 1591 were included in the final evidence map. The most studied OUD interventions were methadone (n = 754 studies), buprenorphine (n = 499), and naltrexone (n = 134). The most common outcomes were heroin/opioid use (n = 708), treatment retention (n = 557), and non-opioid drug use (n = 368). Clear gaps included a wider array of opioid agonists for treatment, digital behavioral interventions, studies of OUD treatments in criminal justice settings, and overdose as a clinical outcome.

CONCLUSION

This OUD Evidence Map highlights the importance of pharmacologic interventions for OUD and reductions in opioid use. Future iterations will update results annually and scan policy-level interventions.

Impact of prerelease methadone on mortality among people with HIV and opioid use disorder after prison release: results from a randomized and participant choice open-label trial in Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

Mortality is elevated after prison release and may be higher in people with HIV and opioid use disorder (OUD). Maintenance with opioid agonist therapy (OAT) like methadone or buprenorphine reduces mortality in people with OUD and may confer benefits to people with OUD and HIV leaving prison. Survival benefits of OAT, however, have not been evaluated prospectively in people with OUD and HIV leaving prison.

METHODS

This study prospectively evaluated mortality after prison release and whether methadone initiated before release increased survival after release in a sample of men with HIV and OUD (n = 291). We linked national death records to data from a controlled trial of prerelease methadone initiation conducted from 2010 to 2014 with men with HIV and OUD imprisoned in Malaysia. Vital statistics were collected through 2015. Allocation to prerelease methadone was by randomization (n = 64) and participant choice (n = 246). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate treatment effects of prerelease methadone on postrelease survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 62 deaths occurred over 872.5 person-years (PY) of postrelease follow-up, a crude mortality rate of 71.1 deaths per 1000 PY (95% confidence interval [CI] 54.5-89.4). Most deaths were of infectious etiology, mostly related to HIV. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the impact of prerelease methadone on postrelease mortality was consistent with a null effect in unadjusted (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3, 95% CI 0.6-3.1) and covariate-adjusted (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.5-2.8) models. Predictors of mortality were educational level (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.8), pre-incarceration alcohol use (HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.9), and lower CD4⁺ T-lymphocyte count (HR 0.8 per 100-cell/mL increase, 95% CI 0.7-1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Postrelease mortality in this sample of men with HIV and OUD was extraordinarily high, and most deaths were likely of infectious etiology. No effect of prerelease methadone on postrelease mortality was observed, which may be due to study limitations or an epidemiological context in which inadequately treated HIV, and not inadequately treated OUD, is the main cause of death after prison release.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02396979. Retrospectively registered 24/03/2015.

Long-acting buprenorphine vs. naltrexone opioid treatments in CJS-involved adults (EXIT-CJS)

The EXIT-CJS (N = 1005) multisite open-label randomized controlled trial will compare retention and effectiveness of extended-release buprenorphine (XR-B) vs. extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) among criminal justice system (CJS)-involved adults in six U.S. locales (New Jersey, New York City, Delaware, Oregon, Connecticut, and New Hampshire). With a pragmatic, noninferiority design, this study hypothesizes that XR-B (n = 335) will be noninferior to XR-NTX (n = 335) in retention-in-study-medication treatment (the primary outcome), self-reported opioid use, opioid-positive urine samples, opioid overdose events, and CJS recidivism. In addition, persons with OUD not eligible or interested in the RCT will be recruited into an enhanced treatment as usual arm (n = 335) to examine usual care outcomes in a quasi-experimental observational cohort.

Preoperative and Postoperative Opioid Dependence in Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion for Degenerative Spinal Disorders

BACKGROUND

 Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a procedure for effectively relieving radiculopathy. Opioids are commonly overprescribed in postsurgical settings and prescriptions vary widely among providers. We identify trends in opioid dependence before and after ACDF.

METHODS

 We used the Truven Health MarketScan data to identify adult patients undergoing ACDF for degenerative cervical spine conditions between 2009 and 2015. Patients were segregated in four cohorts of preoperative and postoperative opioid nondependence (ND) or dependence (D) with 15 months of postoperative follow-up.

RESULTS

 A total of 25,403 patients with median age of 52 years (18-92) who underwent ACDF met the inclusion criteria. Breakdown of the four cohorts was as follows: prior nondependent who remain nondependent (NDND): 62.76% (n = 15,944); prior nondependent who become dependent (NDD): 4.6% (n = 1,168); prior dependent who become nondependent (DND): 14.03% (n = 3,564); and prior dependent who remain dependent (DD): 18.61% (n = 4,727). Opioid dependence decreased 9.43% postoperatively. Overall payments and 30-day readmissions increased 1.96 and 1.79 times for opioid dependent versus nondependent cohorts, respectively. Adjusted payments at 3 to 15 months were significantly increased for dependent cohorts with 3.56-fold increase for the DD cohort when compared with the NDND cohort. Length of stay, complications, medication refills, outpatient measures, and hospital admissions were also higher in those groups with postoperative opioid dependence when compared with those who were not opioid dependent.

CONCLUSIONS

 Opioid dependence after ACDF is associated with increased hospital readmissions, complication rates at 30 days, and payments within 3 months and 3 to 15 months postdischarge. Overall opioid dependence was decreased after ACDF procedure, however, a smaller number of opioid-dependent and opioid-naive patients became dependent postoperatively and should be followed carefully.

Impact of methadone treatment initiated in jail on subsequent arrest

BACKGROUND

There are limited data from randomized trials about the impact of starting methadone treatment in jail on subsequent arrest after release for adults with opioid use disorder (OUD).

METHODS

Official arrest records were obtained for 212 participants with OUD who were enrolled in a three-group randomized controlled trial of initiating methadone treatment in jail either with or without patient navigation vs. enhanced treatment-as-usual in Baltimore, Maryland. Participants treated for opioid withdrawal in jail were assigned to: 1) interim methadone (IM) with patient navigation (PN; IM + PN); 2) IM without PN (IM); or 3) enhanced treatment-as-usual (ETAU). Participants in both IM groups were able to continue treatment at a community-based methadone treatment program with counseling upon release, while ETAU participants received overdose information and a city-wide treatment assessment/referral number. Likelihood of arrest, time to first subsequent arrest, and severity of arrest charges in the 12 months following release were examined for: 1) combined IM + PN and IM groups compared to ETAU; and 2) IM + PN compared to IM.

RESULTS

Within 12 months of release from the index incarceration, 50.5% of the sample had been arrested. The majority of arrest charges (71%) were for low-level, nonviolent crimes. On an intention-to-treat basis, there were no significant differences between the combined IM + PN and IM groups vs. ETAU or IM + PN vs. IM in the likelihood of arrest, time to first subsequent arrest, or severity of arrest charges.

CONCLUSION

Initiating IM with or without PN during pretrial detention did not have a significant effect on subsequent arrest during a 12-month post-release follow-up compared to not starting methadone maintenance during detention, despite the high rate of methadone treatment entry in the community following release. This finding may be attributable to the considerable attrition from treatment in the community or other systematic factors. Additional interventions may be needed to reduce the likelihood of subsequent arrest.

Differences in Gut Microbial Diversity are Driven by Drug Use and Drug Cessation by Either Compulsory Detention or Methadone Maintenance Treatment

In this work, we investigate differences in gut microbial diversity driven by drug use or by the widely used methods for drug cessation: methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and compulsory detention (CD). Methods: 99 participants (28 CD participants, 16 MMT patients, 27 drug users, and 28 healthy controls) were selected using strict inclusion criteria. Nutritional intake and gut microbial diversity were analyzed with bioinformatics tools and SPSS 20.0. Results: Alpha diversity was not significantly different among groups, whereas beta diversity of gut microbiota and nutrient intake were significantly higher among MMT patients. Taxa were unevenly distributed between groups, with drug users having the highest proportion of Ruminococcus and MMT patients having the highest abundance of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus. Conclusion: Drug use, cessation method, and diet contribute to shaping human gut communities. High beta diversity among MMT patients is likely driven by methadone use and high nutrient intake, leading to increased orexin A and enrichment for beneficial bacteria, while diversity in CD participants is largely influenced by diet.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 electronic bibliographic databases up to February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials with 2560 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (7/13 studies, 53%) and community (6/13 studies, 47%) settings. The rating of bias was affected by the lack of clear reporting by authors, and we rated many items as 'unclear'. In two studies (190 participants) collaborative case management in comparison to treatment as usual did not reduce drug use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 2.12; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), reincarceration at nine months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.57; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), and number of subsequent arrests at 12 months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.49; 1 study, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study (36 participants) comparing buprenorphine to placebo showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at end of treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20) and three months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35); very low-certainty evidence. No adverse events were reported. One study (38 participants) comparing interpersonal psychotherapy to a psychoeducational intervention did not find reduction in drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; low-certainty evidence). One study (31 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to a waiting list showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use using the Addiction Severity Index (mean difference (MD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and abstinence from drug use at six months (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43); low-certainty evidence. One study (314 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills to a therapeutic community programme and aftercare showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.27), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03); criminal activity (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03), or drug-related crime (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32). A significant reduction for arrested (not for parole) violations at six months follow-up was significantly in favour of cognitive behavioural skills (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77; very low-certainty evidence). A second study with 115 participants comparing cognitive behavioural skills to an alternative substance abuse treatment showed no significant reduction in reincarceration at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.12; low certainty-evidence. One study (44 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills and standard therapy versus treatment as usual showed no significant reduction in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) drug score at three months (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09) and six months (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.05), and incarceration at three months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.68) and six months (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27); very low-certainty evidence. One study (171 participants) comparing a single computerised intervention versus case management showed no significant reduction in the number of days not using drugs at three months (MD -0.89, 95% CI -4.83 to 3.05; low certainty-evidence). One study (116 participants) comparing dialectic behavioural therapy and case management (DBT-CM) versus a health promotion intervention showed no significant reduction at six months follow-up in positive drug testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03), number of people not using marijuana (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59), crack (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), cocaine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12), heroin (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), methamphetamine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20), and self-reported drug use for any drug (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.56); very low-certainty evidence. One study (211 participants) comparing a therapeutic community programme versus work release showed no significant reduction in marijuana use at six months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.65), nor 18 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45), heroin use at six months (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14), nor 18 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.24 to 15.37), crack use at six months (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.41), nor 18 months (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.06), cocaine use at six months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50), nor 18 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35). It also showed no significant reduction in incarceration for drug offences at 18 months (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42); with overall very low- to low-certainty evidence. One study (511 participants) comparing intensive discharge planning and case management versus prison only showed no significant reduction in use of marijuana (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16), hard drugs (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43), crack cocaine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.54), nor positive hair testing for marijuana (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03); it found a significant reduction in arrests (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87), but no significant reduction in drug charges (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.53) nor incarceration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39); moderate-certainty evidence. One narrative study summary (211 participants) comparing buprenorphine pre- and post-release from prison showed no significant reduction in drug use at 12 months post-release; low certainty-evidence. No adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons, outcome measures and small samples. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required. On one outcome of arrest (no parole violations), we identified a significant reduction when cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was compared to a therapeutic community programme. But for all other outcomes, none of the interventions were effective. Larger trials are required to increase the precision of confidence about the certainty of evidence.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems

BACKGROUND

This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co-occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.This review addresses the following questions.• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce drug use?• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity?• Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)?• Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane .

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias.Four studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate-certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive-behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug-related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low-certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate-certainty evidence.One study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow-up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self-report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re-incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low-certainty evidence.Four studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three-month follow-up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate-certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self-reported drug use based on the ASI (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low-certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD -1.05, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re-arrest (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low-certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD -0.7, 95% CI -3.5 to 2.1), providing very low-certainty evidence.Two studies reported on the use of multi-systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD -0.22, 95% CI -2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low-certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re-arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low-certainty evidence.One study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low-certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap-around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi-systemic therapy, legal defence wrap-around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes.

Effectiveness of medication assisted treatment for opioid use in prison and jail settings: A meta-analysis and systematic review

This study examined the state of the literature on the effectiveness of medication assisted treatment (MAT; methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone) delivered in prisons and jails on community substance use treatment engagement, opioid use, recidivism, and health risk behaviors following release from incarceration. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies published through December 2017 that examined induction to or maintenance on methadone (n = 18 studies), buprenorphine (n = 3 studies), or naltrexone (n = 3 studies) in correctional settings were identified from PsycINFO and PubMed databases. There were a sufficient number of methadone RCTs to meta-analyze; there were too few buprenorphine or naltrexone studies. All quasi-experimental studies were systematically reviewed. Data from RCTs involving 807 inmates (treatment n = 407, control n = 400) showed that methadone provided during incarceration increased community treatment engagement (n = 3 studies; OR = 8.69, 95% CI = 2.46; 30.75), reduced illicit opioid use (n = 4 studies; OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.15; 0.32) and injection drug use (n = 3 studies; OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.12; 0.56), but did not reduce recidivism (n = 4 studies; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.51; 1.68). Data from observational studies of methadone showed consistent findings. Individual review of buprenorphine and naltrexone studies showed these medications were either superior to methadone or to placebo, or were as effective as methadone in reducing illicit opioid use post-release. Results provide the first meta-analytic summary of MATs delivered in correctional settings and support the use of MATs, especially with regard to community substance use treatment engagement and opioid use; additional work is needed to understand the reduction of recidivism and other health risk behaviors.

Initiating methadone in jail and in the community: Patient differences and implications of methadone treatment for reducing arrests

The extent to which patient characteristics differ between individuals entering methadone treatment through community programs and jail-based programs is not known. Such differences could impact the likelihood of relapse and recidivism in these two populations and inform efforts at targeting interventions. We compared treatment-entry characteristics of participants enrolling in methadone treatment in two studies conducted in Baltimore, one conducted in community programs (N = 295) and the other in a jail-based program (N = 225). Controlling for age, race, and gender, individuals starting methadone treatment in jail compared to the community, had more severe drug use and criminal justice profiles. These different characteristics suggest that patients initiating methadone in a jail-based program could have greater likelihood of future arrest compared to patients entering community-based treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT 02334215 and NCT 01442493.

Methadone maintenance treatment and mortality in people with criminal convictions: A population-based retrospective cohort study from Canada

BACKGROUND

Individuals with criminal histories have high rates of opioid dependence and mortality. Excess mortality is largely attributable to overdose deaths. Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is one of the best evidence-based opioid substitution treatments (OSTs), but there is uncertainty about whether methadone treatment reduces the risk of mortality among convicted offenders over extended follow-up periods. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between adherence to MMT and overdose fatality as well as other causes of mortality.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving linked population-level administrative data among individuals in British Columbia (BC), Canada with a history of conviction and who filled a methadone prescription between January 1, 1998 and March 31, 2015. Participants were followed from the date of first-dispensed methadone prescription until censoring (date of death or March 31, 2015). Methadone was divided into medicated (methadone was dispensed) and nonmedicated (methadone was not dispensed) periods and analysed as a time-varying exposure. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were estimated using multivariable Cox regression to examine mortality during the study period. All-cause and cause-specific mortality rates were compared during medicated and nonmedicated methadone periods. Participants (n = 14,530) had a mean age of 34.5 years, were 71.4% male, and had a median follow-up of 6.9 years. A total of 1,275 participants died during the observation period. The overall all-cause mortality rate was 11.2 per 1,000 person-years (PYs). Participants were significantly less likely to die from both nonexternal (adjusted HR [AHR] 0.27 [95% CI 0.23-0.33]) and external (AHR 0.41 [95% CI 0.33-0.51]) causes during medicated periods, independent of sociodemographic, criminological, and health-related factors. Death due to infectious diseases was 5 times lower (AHR 0.20 [95% CI 0.13-0.30]), and accidental poisoning (overdose) deaths were nearly 3 times lower (AHR 0.39 [95% CI 0.30-0.50]) during medicated periods. A competing risk regression demonstrated a similar pattern of results. The use of a Canadian offender population may limit generalizability of results. Furthermore, our observation period represents community-based methadone prescribing and may omit prescriptions administered during hospital separations. Therefore, the magnitude of the protective effects of methadone from nonexternal causes of death should be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to methadone was associated with significantly lower rates of death in a population-level cohort of Canadian convicted offenders. Achieving higher rates of adherence may reduce overdose deaths and other causes of mortality among offenders and similarly marginalized populations. Our findings warrant examination in other study centres in response to the crisis of opiate-involved deaths.

Associations between methadone maintenance treatment and crime: a 17-year longitudinal cohort study of Canadian provincial offenders

AIMS

To estimate and test the difference in rates of violent and non-violent crime during medicated and non-medicated methadone treatment episodes.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The study involved linkage of population level administrative data (health and justice) for all individuals (n = 14 530) in British Columbia, Canada with a history of conviction and who filled a methadone prescription between 1 January 1998 and 31 March 2015. Methadone maintenance treatment was the primary independent variable and was treated as a time-varying exposure. Each participant's follow-up (mean: 8 years) was divided into medicated (methadone was dispensed) and non-medicated (methadone was not dispensed) periods with mean durations of 3.3 and 4.6 years, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS

Socio-demographics of participants were examined along with the main outcomes of violent and non-violent offences.

FINDINGS

During the first 2 years of treatment (≤ 2.0 years), periods in which methadone was dispensed were associated with a 33% lower rate of violent crime [0.67 adjusted hazard ratio (AHR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.59, 0.76] and a 35% lower rate of non-violent crime (0.65 AHR, 95% CI = 0.62, 0.69) compared with non-medicated periods. This equates to a risk difference of 3.6 (95% CI = 2.6, 4.4) and 37.2 (95% CI = 33.0, 40.4) fewer violent and non-violent offences per 100 person-years, respectively. Significant but smaller protective effects of dispensed methadone were observed across longer treatment intervals (2.0 to ≤ 5.0 years, 5.0 to ≤ 10.0 years).

CONCLUSIONS

Among a cohort of Canadian offenders, rates of violent and non-violent offending were lower during periods when individuals were dispensed methadone compared with periods in which they were not dispensed methadone.

Effects of medication assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder on functional outcomes: A systematic review

This systematic review synthesizes evidence on the effects of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD) on functional outcomes, including cognitive (e.g., memory), physical (e.g., fatigue), occupational (e.g., return to work), social/behavioral (e.g., criminal activity), and neurological (e.g., balance) function. Five databases were searched from inception to July 2017 to identify English-language controlled trials, case control studies, and cohort comparisons of one or more groups; cross-sectional studies were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened identified literature, abstracted study-level information, and assessed the quality of included studies. Meta-analyses used the Hartung-Knapp method for random-effects models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. A comprehensive search followed by 1411 full text publication screenings yielded 30 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 observational studies meeting inclusion criteria. The studies reported highly diverse functional outcome measures. Only one RCT was rated as high quality, but several methodologically sound observational studies were identified. The statistical power to detect differences in functional outcomes was unclear in most studies. When compared with matched "healthy" controls with no history of substance use disorder (SUD), in two studies MAT patients had significantly poorer working memory and cognitive speed. One study found MAT patients scored worse in aggressive responding than did "healthy" controls. A large observational study found that MAT users had twice the odds of involvement in an injurious traffic accident as non-users. When compared with persons with OUD not on MAT, one cohort study found lower fatigue rates among buprenorphine-treated OUD patients. No differences were reported for occupational outcomes and results for criminal activity and other social/behavioral areas were mixed. There were few differences among MAT drug types. A pooled analysis of three RCTs found a significantly lower prevalence of fatigue with buprenorphine compared to methadone, while a meta-analysis of the same RCTs found no statistical difference in insomnia prevalence. Three RCTs that focused on cognitive function compared the effects of buprenorphine to methadone; no statistically significant differences in memory, cognitive speed and flexibility, attention, or vision were reported. The quality of evidence for most functional outcomes was rated low or very low. In sum, weaknesses in the body of evidence prevent strong conclusions about the effects of MAT for opioid use disorder on functional outcomes. Rigorous studies of functional effects would strengthen the body of literature.

When does methadone treatment reduce arrest and severity of arrest charges? An analysis of arrest records

This is an analysis of the odds of arrest, severity of charges, and factors predicting these outcomes in the year after methadone treatment entry using arrest records of patients (N=289) participating in two opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in Baltimore, MD as part of a previously-reported study. Baseline Addiction Severity Index data were examined along with publicly-available dates of arrest and arrest charges from the year before and after OTP entry. Severity of charges was rated independently by three researchers using a 1-7 point scale. Data were analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equations and Multiple Regression. The majority of the patients had no arrests over both time periods (61.6% and 65.7%, respectively). Of those arrested, the majority of the sample were charged with non-severe crimes in the year before and after OTP entry (82.9% and 73.7%, respectively). There were no significant differences in the odds of arrest or severity of charges in the year before versus the year after OTP admission (both ps>0.05). Predictors of arrest following admission included an arrest in the year prior to admission (p<0.001), younger age (p<0.001), and more lifetime months of incarceration (p=0.045). Predictors of the higher severity of charges included younger age (p<0.001), African-American race (p=0.032), and more lifetime months of incarceration (p=0.018). While in this population, the odds of arrest and severity of charges did not decrease significantly in the year following OTP entry, we discuss the need to avoid generalizing findings without considering those factors that may influence the likelihood of post-OTP entry arrest.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of unsupervised buprenorphine-naloxone for the treatment of heroin dependence in a randomized waitlist controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Access to opioid agonist treatment can be associated with extensive waiting periods with significant health and financial burdens. This study aimed to determine whether patients with heroin dependence dispensed buprenorphine-naloxone weekly have greater reductions in heroin use and related adverse health effects 12-weeks after commencing treatment, compared to waitlist controls and to examine the cost-effectiveness of this strategy.

METHODS

An open-label waitlist RCT was conducted in an opioid treatment clinic in Newcastle, Australia. Fifty patients with DSM-IV-TR heroin dependence (and no other substance dependence) were recruited. The intervention group (n=25) received take-home self-administered sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone weekly (mean dose, 22.7±5.7mg) and weekly clinical review. Waitlist controls (n=25) received no clinical intervention. The primary outcome was heroin use (self-report, urine toxicology verified) at weeks four, eight and 12. The primary cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per additional heroin-free-day.

RESULTS

Outcome data were available for 80% of all randomized participants. Across the 12-weeks, treatment group heroin use was on average 19.02days less/month (95% CI -22.98, -15.06, p<0.0001). A total 12-week reduction in adjusted costs including crime of $A5,722 (95% CI 3299, 8154) in favor of treatment was observed. Excluding crime, incremental cost per heroin-free-day gained from treatment was $A18.24 (95% CI 4.50, 28.49).

CONCLUSION

When compared to remaining on a waitlist, take-home self-administered buprenorphine-naloxone treatment is associated with significant reductions in heroin use for people with DSM-IV-TR heroin dependence. This cost-effective approach may be an efficient strategy to enhance treatment capacity.

A randomized clinical trial of buprenorphine for prisoners: Findings at 12-months post-release

BACKGROUND

This study examined whether starting buprenorphine treatment prior to prison and after release from prison would be associated with better drug treatment outcomes and whether males and females responded differently to the combination of in-prison treatment and post-release service setting.

METHODS

Study design was a 2 (In-Prison Treatment: Condition: Buprenorphine Treatment: vs. Counseling Only)×2 [Post-Release Service Setting Condition: Opioid Treatment: Program (OTP) vs. Community Health Center (CHC)]×2 (Gender) factorial design. The trial was conducted between September 2008 and July 2012. Follow-up assessments were completed in 2014. Participants were recruited from two Baltimore pre-release prisons (one for men and one for women). Adult pre-release prisoners who were heroin-dependent during the year prior to incarceration were eligible. Post-release assessments were conducted at 1, 3, 6, and 12-month following prison release.

RESULTS

Participants (N=211) in the in-prison treatment condition effect had a higher mean number of days of community buprenorphine treatment compared to the condition in which participants initiated medication after release (P=0.005). However, there were no statistically significant hypothesized effects for the in-prison treatment condition in terms of: days of heroin use and crime, and opioid and cocaine positive urine screening test results (all Ps>0.14) and no statistically significant hypothesized gender effects (all Ps>0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

Although initiating buprenorphine treatment in prison compared to after-release was associated with more days receiving buprenorphine treatment in the designated community treatment program during the 12-months post-release assessment, it was not associated with superior outcomes in terms of heroin and cocaine use and criminal behavior.

Extended-release naltrexone for pre-release prisoners: A randomized trial of medical mobile treatment

BACKGROUND

Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder but is rarely initiated in US prisons or with criminal justice populations. Mobile treatment for chronic diseases has been implemented in a variety of settings. Mobile treatment may provide an opportunity to expand outreach to parolees to surmount barriers to traditional clinic treatment.

METHODS

Male and female prisoners (240) with pre-incarceration histories of opioid use disorder who are within one month of release from prison will be enrolled in this randomized clinical trial. Participants are randomized to one of two study arms: 1) [XR-NTX-OTx] One injection of long-acting naltrexone in prison, followed by 6 monthly injections post-release at a community opioid treatment program; or 2) [XR-NTX+ MMTx] One injection of long-acting naltrexone in prison followed by 6 monthly injections post-release at the patient's place of residence utilizing mobile medical treatment. The primary outcomes are: treatment adherence; opioid use; criminal activity; re-arrest; reincarceration; and HIV risk-behaviors.

RESULTS

We describe the background and rationale for the study, its aims, hypotheses, and study design.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of long-acting injectable naltrexone may be a promising form of treatment for pre-release prisoners. Finally, as many individuals in the criminal justice system drop out of treatment, this study will assess whether treatment at their place of residence will improve adherence and positively affect treatment outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02867124.

The Role of Legal Coercion in the Treatment of Offenders with Alcohol and Heroin Problems

This article discusses the ethical justification for, and reviews the American evidence on the effectiveness of, treatment for alcohol and heroin dependence that is provided under legal coercion to offenders whose alcohol and drug dependence has contributed to the commission of the offence with which they have been charged or convicted. The article focuses on legally coerced treatment for drink-driving offenders and heroin-dependent property offenders. It outlines the various arguments that have been made for providing such treatment under legal coercion, namely: the over-representation of alcohol and drug dependent persons in prison populations; the contributory causal role of alcohol and other drug problems in the offences that lead to their imprisonment; the high rates of relapse to drug use and criminal involvement after incarceration; the desirability of keeping injecting heroin users out of prisons as a way of reducing the transmission of infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis; and the putatively greater cost-effectiveness of treatment compared with incarceration. The ethical objections to legally coerced drug treatment are briefly discussed before the evidence on the effectiveness of legally coerced treatment for alcohol and other drug dependence is reviewed. The evidence, which is primarily from the USA, gives qualified support for some forms of legally coerced drug treatment, provided that these programs are well resourced, carefully implemented, and their performance is monitored to ensure that they provide a humane and effective alternative to imprisonment. Expectations about what these programs can achieve also need to be realistic.

Pharmacotherapy for opioid dependence in jails and prisons: research review update and future directions

Purpose

The World Health Organization recommends the initiation of opioid agonists prior to release from incarceration to prevent relapse or overdose. Many countries in the world employ these strategies. This paper considers the evidence to support these recommendations and the factors that have slowed their adoption in the US.

Methods

We reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal/observational studies that examine participant outcomes associated with the initiation or continuation of opioid agonists (methadone, buprenorphine) or antagonists (naltrexone) during incarceration. Papers were identified through a literature search of PubMed with an examination of their references and were included if they reported outcomes for methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone continued during incarceration or initiated prior to release in a correctional institution.

Results

Fourteen studies were identified, including eight RCTs and six observational studies. One RCT found that patients treated with methadone who were continued on versus tapered off methadone during brief incarceration were more likely to return to treatment upon release. A second RCT found that the group starting methadone treatment in prison versus a waiting list was less likely to report using heroin and sharing syringes during incarceration. A third RCT found no differences in postrelease heroin use or reincarceration between individuals initiating treatment with methadone versus those initiating treatment with buprenorphine during relatively brief incarcerations. Findings from four additional RCTs indicate that starting opioid agonist treatment during incarceration versus after release was associated with higher rates of entry into community treatment and reduced heroin use. Finally, one pilot RCT showed that providing extended-release naltrexone prior to discharge resulted in significantly lower rates of opioid relapse compared to no medication.

Conclusion

Reasons why uptake of these pharmacotherapies is limited in the US and relatively widespread in Europe are discussed. Recommendations for future research are outlined.

The newer Opioid Agonist Treatment with lower substitutive opiate doses is associated with better toxicology outcome than the older Harm Reduction Treatment

BACKGROUND

Charge-free heroin use disorder treatment in Italy follows two main approaches, i.e., harm reduction treatment (HRT) strategy in community low-threshold facilities for drug addiction and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) in high-threshold facilities for opioid addiction, focusing on pharmacological maintenance according to the Dole and Nyswander strategy. We aimed to compare the impact of HRT and OAT on patient outcome, as assessed through negativity for drugs on about 1-year urinalyses.

METHODS

We examined retrospectively the urinalyses of HRT and OAT patients for which at least four randomly sampled urinalyses per month were available for about 1 year, during which patients were undergoing methadone or buprenorphine maintenance; urinalyses focused on heroin, cocaine, cannabinoids, and their metabolites.

RESULTS

Included were 189 HRT and 58 OAT patients. The latter were observed for a significantly longer period. There was a higher proportion of heroin- and cocaine-clean urinalyses in OAT patients, with cocaine-clean urinalyses discriminating best between the two groups. OAT patients were older, with longer dependence duration, more severe addiction history, and received lower methadone doses. Buprenorphine maintenance was more often associated with heroin-clean urinalyses. The higher the methadone doses, the lower were the percentage of heroin-clean urinalyses in HRT patients (negative correlation).

CONCLUSIONS

The OAT approach was related to higher recovery and polyabuse abstinence rates compared to the HRT approach, despite greater severity of substance use, psychiatric and physical comorbidities. Our results are consistent with the possibility to use lower maintenance opiate doses (after induction and stabilization in methadone treatment according to Dole and Nyswander methodology) in treating heroin addiction. This seemed to be impossible adopting the currently accepted HRT model.

Buprenorphine dose induction in non-opioid-tolerant pre-release prisoners

BACKGROUND

In a previously reported randomized controlled trial, formerly opioid-dependent prisoners were more likely to enter community drug abuse treatment when they were inducted in prison onto buprenorphine/naloxone (hereafter called buprenorphine) than when they received counseling without buprenorphine in prison (47.5% vs. 33.7%, p=0.012) (Gordon et al., 2014). In this communication we report on the results of the induction schedule and the adverse event profile seen in pre-release prisoners inducted onto buprenorphine.

METHOD

This paper examines the dose induction procedure, a comparison of the proposed versus actual doses given per week, and side effects reported for 104 adult participants who were randomized to buprenorphine treatment in prison. Self-reported side effects were analyzed using generalized estimated equations to determine changes over time in side effects.

RESULTS

Study participants were inducted onto buprenorphine at a rate faster than the induction schedule. Of the 104 (72 males, 32 females) buprenorphine recipients, 64 (37 males, 27 females) remained on medication at release from prison. Nine participants (8.6%) discontinued buprenorphine because of unpleasant opioid side effects. There were no serious adverse events reported during the in-prison phase of the study. Constipation was the most frequent symptom reported (69 percent).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that buprenorphine administered to non-opioid-tolerant adults should be started at a lower, individualized dose than customarily used for adults actively using opioids, and that non-opioid-tolerant pre-release prisoners can be successfully inducted onto therapeutic doses prior to release.

Determination and Validation of a Solid-phase Extraction Gas Chromatography-mass Spectrometry for the Quantification of Methadone and Its Principal Metabolite in Human Plasma

This study aimed to develop a solid-phase extraction gas chromatography-selected ion monitoring-mass spectrometry method for the determination of methadone (MDN) and 2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (EDDP) in human plasma. The linear response was obtained over the concentration range from 10 to 2000 ng/mL for MDN and EDDP. The absolute recoveries of MDN and EDDP were 95.9%–98.9% and 94.8%–102.4%, with relative standard deviation (RSD) ranging from 1.8% to 2.7% and 1.8% to 3.9%, respectively. The intra- and interday precisions were found to be less than 5% for both analytes. The limits of detection of MDN and EDDP were 4 and 5 ng/mL, respectively. The presented method was convenient for therapeutic drug monitoring and pharmacokinetic studies in patients on heroin-assisted MDN therapy.

Methadone continuation versus forced withdrawal on incarceration in a combined US prison and jail: a randomised, open-label trial

BACKGROUND

Methadone is an effective treatment for opioid dependence. When people who are receiving methadone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence are incarcerated in prison or jail, most US correctional facilities discontinue their methadone treatment, either gradually, or more often, abruptly. This discontinuation can cause uncomfortable symptoms of withdrawal and renders prisoners susceptible to relapse and overdose on release. We aimed to study the effect of forced withdrawal from methadone upon incarceration on individuals' risk behaviours and engagement with post-release treatment programmes.

METHODS

In this randomised, open-label trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) inmates of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RI, USA) who were enrolled in a methadone maintenance-treatment programme in the community at the time of arrest and wanted to remain on methadone treatment during incarceration and on release, to either continuation of their methadone treatment or to usual care--forced tapered withdrawal from methadone. Participants could be included in the study only if their incarceration would be more than 1 week but less than 6 months. We did the random assignments with a computer-generated random permutation, and urn randomisation procedures to stratify participants by sex and race. Participants in the continued-methadone group were maintained on their methadone dose at the time of their incarceration (with dose adjustments as clinically indicated). Patients in the forced-withdrawal group followed the institution's standard withdrawal protocol of receiving methadone for 1 week at the dose at the time of their incarceration, then a tapered withdrawal regimen (for those on a starting dose >100 mg, the dose was reduced by 5 mg per day to 100 mg, then reduced by 3 mg per day to 0 mg; for those on a starting dose >100 mg, the dose was reduced by 3 mg per day to 0 mg). The main outcomes were engagement with a methadone maintenance-treatment clinic after release from incarceration and time to engagement with methadone maintenance treatment, by intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses, which we established in a follow-up interview with the participants at 1 month after their release from incarceration. Our study paid for 10 weeks of methadone treatment after release if participants needed financial help. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874964.

FINDINGS

Between June 14, 2011, and April 3, 2013, we randomly assigned 283 prisoners to our study, 142 to continued methadone treatment, and 141 to forced withdrawal from methadone. Of these, 60 were excluded because they did not fit the eligibility criteria, leaving 114 in the continued-methadone group and 109 in the forced-withdrawal group (usual care). Participants assigned to continued methadone were more than twice as likely than forced-withdrawal participants to return to a community methadone clinic within 1 month of release (106 [96%] of 110 in the continued-methadone group compared with 68 [78%] of 87 in the forced-withdrawal group; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2·04, 95% CI 1·48-2·80). We noted no differences in serious adverse events between groups. For the continued-methadone and forced-withdrawal groups, the number of deaths were one and zero, non-fatal overdoses were one and two, admissions to hospital were one and four; and emergency-room visits were 11 and 16, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

Although our study had several limitations--eg, it only included participants incarcerated for fewer than 6 months, we showed that forced withdrawal from methadone on incarceration reduced the likelihood of prisoners re-engaging in methadone maintenance after their release. Continuation of methadone maintenance during incarceration could contribute to greater treatment engagement after release, which could in turn reduce the risk of death from overdose and risk behaviours.

FUNDING

National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Lifespan/Tufts/Brown Center for AIDS Research from the National Institutes of Health.

A Phase 4, Pilot, Open-Label Study of VIVITROL® (Extended-Release Naltrexone XR-NTX) for Prisoners

This was a Phase 4, pilot, open-label feasibility study of extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) administered to pre-release prisoners having a history of pre-incarceration opioid disorder. We evaluated the relationship between XR-NTX adherence and criminal recidivism (re-arrest and re-incarceration) and opioid and cocaine use. Twenty-seven pre-release male and female prisoners who had opioid disorders during the year prior to index incarceration were recruited and received one XR-NTX injection once each month for 7 months (1 injection pre-release from prison and 6 injections in the community) and of those 27, 10 (37%) were retained in treatment at 7-months post release. Results indicate those completing 6 compared to those completing <6 injections were less likely to test positive for opioids in the community (0% vs. 62.5%, respectively; p=0.003). Although not statistically significant, individuals who did not complete all 6 injections were more likely to be re-arrested compared to those completing all 6 community injections (31.3% vs. 0%, respectively; p=0.123). Contingent upon further study of a randomized controlled trial, XR-NTX may be a feasible option in the prison setting in view of the lack of potential for diversion. Furthermore, these data suggest that completing the entire course of treatment (6 injections) may reduce opioid use and, to a lesser degree, re-arrest and re-incarceration.

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both, for illicit drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Web resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological intervention a component of which is designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity, or both, in drug-using offenders. We also report data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials with 2647 participants met the inclusion criteria. The interventions included in this review report on agonistic pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) compared to no intervention, other non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Studies could not be combined all together because the comparisons were too different. Only subgroup analysis for type of pharmacological treatment were done. When compared to non-pharmacological, we found low quality evidence that agonist treatments are not effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity, objective results (biological) (two studies, 237 participants (RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.00); subjective (self-report), (three studies, 317 participants (RR 0.61 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18); self-report drug use (three studies, 510 participants (SMD: -0.62 (95% CI -0.85 to -0.39). We found low quality of evidence that antagonist treatment was not effective in reducing drug use (one study, 63 participants (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.70) but we found moderate quality of evidence that they significantly reduced criminal activity (two studies, 114 participants, (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74).Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity showed mixed results. In the comparison of methadone to buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone, no significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (two studies, 370 participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.55), continuous measures of drug use (one study, 81 participants, (mean difference (MD) 0.70, 95% CI -5.33 to 6.73); or criminal activity (one study, 116 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.88) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similar results were found for comparisons with diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.51) or naltrexone for dichotomous measures of reincarceration (one study, 44 participants, (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.26), and continuous outcome measure of crime, (MD -0.50, 95% CI -8.04 to 7.04) or self report drug use (MD 4.60, 95% CI -3.54 to 12.74).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared to non-pharmacological treatment, agonist treatments did not seem effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity. Antagonist treatments were not effective in reducing drug use but significantly reduced criminal activity. When comparing the drugs to one another we found no significant differences between the drug comparisons (methadone versus buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone) on any of the outcome measures. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in Issue 3 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one from a family of four reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and 5 Internet resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2009). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate, or prevent relapse of drug use and criminal activity, or both in drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials with 2058 participants met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the trials was generally difficult to rate due to a lack of clear reporting. On most 'Risk of bias' items, we rated the majority of studies as unclear. Overall, we could not statistically combine the results due to the heterogenous nature of the different study interventions and comparison groups. A narrative summary of the findings identified that the interventions reported limited success with reducing self report drug use, but did have some impact on re-incarceration rates, but not re-arrest. In the single comparisons, we found moderate-quality evidence that therapeutic communities determine a reduction in re-incarceration but reported less success for outcomes of re-arrest, moderate quality of evidence and self report drug use. Three single studies evaluating case management via a mental health drug court (very low quality of evidence), motivational interviewing and cognitive skills (low and very low quality of evidence) and interpersonal psychotherapy (very low quality of evidence) did not report significant reductions in criminal activity and self report drug use respectively. Quality of evidence for these three types of interventions was low to very low. The trials reported some cost information, but it was not sufficient to be able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Two of the five trials showed some promising results for the use of therapeutic communities and aftercare, but only in relation to reducing subsequent re-incarceration. Overall, the studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. More evaluations are required to assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Website resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity in female drug-using offenders. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials with 1792 participants met the inclusion criteria. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. We rated the majority of studies as being at 'unclear' risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. We divided the studies into different categories for the purpose of meta-analyses: for any psychosocial treatments in comparison to treatment as usual we found low quality evidence that there were no significant differences in arrest rates, (two studies; 489 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.52) or drug use (one study; 77 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), but we found moderate quality evidence that there was a significant reduction in reincarceration, (three studies; 630 participants; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce self reported drug use (one study; 36 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35). No cost or cost-effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Three of the nine trials show a positive trend towards the use of any psychosocial treatment in comparison to treatment as usual showing an overall significant reduction in subsequent reincarceration, but not arrest rates or drug use. Pharmacological interventions in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce drug use and did not measure criminal activity. Four different treatment comparisons showed varying results and were not combined due to differences in the intervention and comparison groups. The studies overall showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons and outcome measures assessed, which limited the possibility to pool the data. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required to identify the important elements for treatment success in drug-using female offenders. More trials are required to increase the precision of confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments for female drug-using offenders.

Psychiatric services and prescription fills among veterans with serious mental illness in methadone maintenance treatment

OBJECTIVE

Comorbidity and co-prescription patterns of people with serious mental illness in methadone maintenance may complicate their treatment and have not been studied. The goal of this study was to examine the care and characteristics of people with serious mental illness in methadone maintenance treatment nationally in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

METHODS

Using national VHA data from FY2012, bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to compare veterans in methadone maintenance treatment wo had a serious mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major affective disorder) to patients in methadone maintenance treatment without serious mental illness and patients with serious mental illness who were not in methadone maintenance treatment.

RESULTS

Only a small fraction of patients with serious mental illness were receiving methadone maintenance treatment (0.65%), but a relatively large proportion in methadone maintenance treatment had a serious mental illness (33.2%). Compared to patients without serious mental illness, patients with serious mental illness in methadone maintenance treatment were more likely to have been homeless, to have had a recent psychiatric hospitalization, to be over 50% disabled, and to have had more fills for more classes of psychotropic drugs. Compared to other patients with serious mental illness, patients with serious mental illness in methadone maintenance treatment were more likely to have a drug abuse diagnosis and to reside in large urban areas.

CONCLUSIONS

One-third of patients in methadone maintenance treatment have serious mental illness and more frequent psychiatric comorbidity, and they are more likely to use psychiatric and general health services and fill more types of psychiatric prescriptions. Further study and clinical awareness of potential drug-drug interactions in this high medication and service using population are needed.

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use and/or criminal activity for illicit drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity and/or drug use.

SEARCH METHODS

Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases (searched between 2004 and 21 March 2013) and five additional Web resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2011) were searched. Experts in the field were contacted for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological interventions for reducing, eliminating or preventing relapse in drug-using offenders were included. Data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions were reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 76 trials across the four reviews were identified. After a process of prescreening had been completed, 17 trials were judged to meet the inclusion criteria for this specific review (six of the 17 trials are awaiting classification for the review). The remaining 11 trials contained a total of 2,678 participants. Nine of the eleven studies used samples with a majority of men. The interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) were compared to non pharmacological treatments (e.g., counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). When combined, the results suggest that pharmacological interventions do significantly reduce subsequent drug use using biological measures, (three studies, 300 participants, RR 0.71 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.97)), self report dichotomous data (three studies, 317 participants, RR 0.42, (95% CI 0.22 to 0.81)) and continuous measures (one study, MD -59.66 (95% CI -120.60 to 1.28)) . In the subgroups analysis for community setting, (two studies, 99 participants: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.09)) and for secure establishment setting, (one study, 201 participants: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.10)), the results are no longer statistically significant. Criminal activity was significantly reduced favouring the dichotomous measures of re arrest, (one study, 62 participants, RR 0.60 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.14)), re-incarceration, (three studies, 142 participants, RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.56)) and continuous measures (one study, 51 participants, MD -74.21 (95% CI -133.53 to -14.89)). Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity show mixed results. Buprenorphine in comparison to a non pharmacological treatment seemed to favour buprenorphine but not significantly with self report drug use, (one study, 36 participants, RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.35)). Methadone and cognitive behavioural skills in comparison to standard psychiatric services, did show a significant reduction for self report dichotomous drug use (one study, 253 participants, RR 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.56)) but not for self report continuous data (one study 51 participants) MD -0.52 (95% CI -1.09 to 0.05)), or re incarceration RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.53 to 2.87)). Naltrexone was favoured significantly over routine parole and probation for re incarceration (two studies 114 participants, RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.69)) but no data was available on drug use. Finally, we compared each pharmacological treatment to another. In each case we compared methadone to: buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone. No significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (one study, 193 participants RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.76)), continuous measures of drug use MD 0.70 (95% CI -5.33 to 6.73) or criminal activity RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.88)) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similiar results were found for comparisons with Diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants RR 1.25 (95% CI 1.03-1.51)) or Naltrexone for dichotomous measures of re incarceration (one study, 44 participants, RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.26)), and continuous outcome measure of crime MD -0.50 (95% CI -8.04 to 7.04)) or self report drug use MD 4.60 (95% CI -3.54 to 12.74)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders do appear to reduce overall subsequent drug use and criminal activity (but to a lesser extent). No statistically significant differences were displayed by treatment setting. Individual differences are displayed between the three pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) when compared to a non pharmacological intervention, but not when compared to each other. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias because trial information was inadequately described.

Individual Patient and Program Factors Related to Prison and Community Treatment Completion in Prison-Initiated Methadone Maintenance Treatment

While prison-initiated methadone maintenance treatment is effective, it is largely unknown as to what patient and program factors are related to outcomes. These issues were studied in a secondary analysis of data from 67 male prerelease prison inmates with preincarceration heroin addiction. Three outcomes are examined: completed prison treatment; completed 1 year of community treatment; and number of days in community treatment. Being employed (p = .045) during the three years prior to index incarceration was significantly and positively related to community treatment completion. Increased frequency of urine tests taken was significantly associated with a greater number of days in community treatment (p < .001). Limitations, policy implications, and directions for future research are discussed.

Methadone maintenance treatment in prisons: The New South Wales Experience

This paper uses the New South Wales experience with methadone maintenance treatment in prison to address the question: should methadone maintenance treatment be provided in Australian prisons for opioid-dependent prisoners? First, it outlines three rationales for providing drug dependence treatment in prisons: as a way of giving prisoners access to community-based forms of drug treatment in the prison setting; as a measure to reduce recidivism in opioid-dependent prisoners; and as a measure to prevent the transmission of HIV and other infectious diseases within prisons, and to the sexual partners of prisoners on their release. Secondly, it reviews the kind of research evidence that supports the effectiveness of community-based methadone maintenance treatment in Australia. Thirdly, the effectiveness of the New South Wales Prison Methadone Programme, one of the few prison-based methadone programmes in the world, is evaluated in the light of the available research evidence.

Postprison release HIV-risk behaviors in a randomized trial of methadone treatment for prisoners

BACKGROUND

This secondary analysis examined the impact of methadone initiated in prison on postrelease HIV risk behaviors. The parent study was a three-group randomized clinical trial in which participants received drug abuse counseling in prison and were randomly assigned to: (1) passive referral to substance abuse treatment upon release; (2) guaranteed methadone treatment admission upon release; and (3) methadone in prison and guaranteed continuation of methadone upon release.

METHODS

Participants were 211 adult males with preincarceration histories of opiate dependence. The AIDS Risk Assessment was administered at baseline (in prison) and at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month postrelease. Data were analyzed for the entire sample (N = 211) as well as the subsamples who reported injecting drugs in the 30 days prior to incarceration (n = 131) and who reported having unprotected sex in that time frame (n = 144) using generalized linear mixed model on an intent-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

There were no significant changes in sex- or drug-risk by Condition over Time. There were significant Time and Condition main effects for the total sample as well as the injector subsample for drug-risk behaviors. There were no significant Condition main effects for HIV sex-risk behaviors, but there were significant Time main effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Methadone initiated in prison or immediately postrelease is associated with reduced HIV drug-risk compared to counseling in prison without methadone and passive referral to treatment at release. Participation in several drug- and sex-risk behaviors also showed significant declines during the postrelease time periods.

Rate of community methadone treatment reporting at jail reentry following a methadone increased dose quality improvement effort

The Rikers Island Key Extended Entry Program (KEEP) has offered methadone treatment for opioid dependent inmates incarcerated in New York City's jails since 1986. In response to a trend toward low-dose methadone maintenance prescribing, a quality improvement (QI) protocol trained KEEP counselors, physicians, and pharmacists in the evidence base supporting moderate-to-high methadone maintenance doses in order to maximize therapeutic effects and rates of successful reporting to community methadone treatment programs (MTPs) post release. Discharge dose level and length of incarceration data were analyzed for 2 groups of KEEP patients discharged pre/post-QI. Among patients incarcerated for 21 or more days, the proportion of those on moderate-to-high doses of methadone increased significantly. Patients who reached a moderate-to-high methadone dose demonstrated higher rates of reporting to community MTP versus lower doses, both pre- and post-QI. Overall, a higher proportion of all patients reported to community MTP post-QI.

A randomized trial of methadone initiation prior to release from incarceration

Individuals who use heroin and illicit opioids are at high risk for infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other blood-borne pathogens, as well as incarceration. The purpose of the randomized trial reported here is to compare outcomes between participants who initiated methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) prior to release from incarceration, with those who were referred to treatment at the time of release. Participants who initiated MMT prior to release were significantly more likely to enter treatment postrelease (P < .001) and for participants who did enter treatment, those who received MMT prerelease did so within fewer days (P = .03). They also reported less heroin use (P = .008), other opiate use (P = .09), and injection drug use (P = .06) at 6 months. Initiating MMT in the weeks prior to release from incarceration is a feasible and effective way to improve MMT access postrelease and to decrease relapse to opioid use.

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Methadone Maintenance for Prisoners: Prediction of Treatment Entry and Completion in Prison

The present report is an intent-to-treat analysis involving secondary data drawn from the first randomized clinical trial of prison-initiated methadone in the United States. This study examined predictors of treatment entry and completion in prison. A sample of 211 adult male prerelease inmates with preincarceration heroin dependence were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions: counseling only (counseling in prison; n= 70); counseling plus transfer (counseling in prison with transfer to methadone maintenance treatment upon release; n= 70); and counseling plus methadone (methadone maintenance in prison, continued in a community-based methadone maintenance program upon release; n= 71). Entered prison treatment (p <. 01), and completed prison treatment (p< .001) were significantly predicted by the set of 10 explanatory variables and favored the treatment conditions receiving methadone. The present results indicate that individuals who are older in age and have longer prison sentences may have better outcomes than younger individuals with shorter sentences, meaning they are more likely to enter and complete prison-based treatment. Furthermore, implications for the treatment of prisoners with prior heroin dependence and for conducting clinical trials may indicate the importance of examining individual characteristics and the possibility of the examination of patient preference.

The effectiveness of opioid maintenance treatment in prison settings: a systematic review

AIMS

To review evidence on the effectiveness of opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) in prison and post-release.

METHODS

Systematic review of experimental and observational studies of prisoners receiving OMT regarding treatment retention, opioid use, risk behaviours, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/hepatitis C virus (HCV) incidence, criminality, re-incarceration and mortality. We searched electronic research databases, specialist journals and the EMCDDA library for relevant studies until January 2011. Review conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were identified: six experimental and 15 observational. OMT was associated significantly with reduced heroin use, injecting and syringe-sharing in prison if doses were adequate. Pre-release OMT was associated significantly with increased treatment entry and retention after release if arrangements existed to continue treatment. For other outcomes, associations with pre-release OMT were weaker. Four of five studies found post-release reductions in heroin use. Evidence regarding crime and re-incarceration was equivocal. There was insufficient evidence concerning HIV/HCV incidence. There was limited evidence that pre-release OMT reduces post-release mortality. Disruption of OMT continuity, especially due to brief periods of imprisonment, was associated with very significant increases in HCV incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Benefits of prison OMT are similar to those in community settings. OMT presents an opportunity to recruit problem opioid users into treatment, to reduce illicit opioid use and risk behaviours in prison and potentially minimize overdose risks on release. If liaison with community-based programmes exists, prison OMT facilitates continuity of treatment and longer-term benefits can be achieved. For prisoners in OMT before imprisonment, prison OMT provides treatment continuity.

Medication-assisted treatment research with criminal justice populations: challenges of implementation

Creating, implementing and evaluating substance abuse interventions, especially medication-assisted treatments, for prisoners, parolees, and probationers with histories of heroin addiction is an especially challenging endeavor because of the difficulty in coordinating and achieving cooperation among diverse criminal justice, substance abuse treatment, research, and social service agencies, each with its own priorities and agenda. In addition, there are special rules that must be followed when conducting research with criminal justice-involved populations, particularly prisoners. The following case studies will explore the authors' experience of over 10 years conducting pharmacotherapy research using methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone with criminal justice populations. The major obstacles and how they were overcome are presented. Finally, recommendations are provided with regard to implementing and conducting research with criminal justice populations.

Interest in low-threshold employment among people who inject illicit drugs: implications for street disorder

BACKGROUND

Income generation opportunities available to people who use illicit drugs have been associated with street disorder. Among a cohort of injection drug users (IDU) we sought to examine street-based income generation practices and willingness to forgo these sources of income if other low-threshold work opportunities were made available.

METHODS

Data were derived from a prospective community recruited cohort of IDU. We assessed the prevalence of engaging in disorderly street-based income generation activities, including sex work, drug dealing, panhandling, and recycling/salvaging/vending. Using multivariate logistic regressions based on Akaike information criterion and the best subset selection procedure, we identified factors associated with disorderly income generation activities, and assessed willingness to forgo these sources of income during the period of November 2008 to July 2009.

RESULTS

Among our sample of 874 IDU, 418 (48%) reported engaging in a disorderly income generation activity in the previous six months. In multivariate analyses, engaging in disorderly income generation activities was independently associated with high intensity stimulant use, as well as binge drug use, having encounters with police, being a victim of violence, sharing used syringes, and injecting in public areas. Among those engaged in disorderly income generation, 198 (47%) reported a willingness to forgo these income sources if given opportunities for low-threshold employment, with sex workers being most willing to engage in alternative employment.

CONCLUSION

Engagement in disorderly street-based income generation activities was associated with high intensity stimulant drug use and various markers of risk. We found that a high proportion of illicit drug users were willing to cease engagement in these activities if they had options for causal low-threshold employment. These findings indicate that there is a high demand for low-threshold employment that may offer important opportunities to reduce drug-related street disorder and associated harms.

Methadone use in relation to hepatitis C virus testing in British Columbia

OBJECTIVE

We examined methadone use among a large cohort of individuals undergoing serologic testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

METHODS

In British Columbia, community pharmacy methadone dispensations are recorded in the PharmaNet database and HCV antibody (anti-HCV) test results are recorded by the Provincial Public Reference Laboratory. Provincial HCV laboratory testing records from 1992 to 2004 were linked to methadone dispensation records from 1995-2006. We describe methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) among individuals undergoing anti-HCV testing between 1992 and 2004.

RESULTS

Between 1992 and 2004, 404,941 individuals were tested for anti-HCV in BC; 32,918 (8%) were positive. Overall, methadone was dispensed to 10,314 (2.5%) of individuals tested for anti-HCV; 1% of negative testers and 21% of positive testers. Of 10,314 individuals receiving methadone, 6732 (65%) had a positive anti-HCV test during the study period. Laboratory anti-HCV serostatus was known at MMT initiation in 70%; of these, 2596 (36%) were anti-HCV negative and 4638 (64%) were anti-HCV positive at first methadone dispensation. Seroconversion from anti-HCV negative to positive following MMT initiation was confirmed in 288 persons.

CONCLUSION

Methadone used in conjunction with other harm reduction initiatives can reduce the transmission of blood-borne infections among individuals who inject opiates, however many who enter the BC Methadone Program are already anti-HCV positive and others seroconvert after MMT initiation. Our data suggest there are missed prevention opportunities for MMT and other harm reduction services. Linkage of laboratory and health service data can provide a population lens to identify and evaluate potential prevention strategies.

Long-acting injectable naltrexone for the management of patients with opioid dependence

Opioid dependence is a condition with serious clinical ramifications. Treatment has focused on detoxification, agonist therapy with methadone or buprenorphine, or remission maintenance with the opioid antagonist, naltrexone. Treatment with oral naltrexone has been limited by poor treatment adherence and relapse. Studies with long-acting formulations have shown increased treatment adherence. Extended-release injectable naltrexone has been used for the treatment of alcohol dependence, and has recently received an indication for treatment of opioid dependence from the US Food and Drug Administration. Dosing occurs once monthly and existing data with long-acting naltrexone supports efficacy of treatment for opioid dependence; however published data is sparse. Treatment with long-acting naltrexone should be monitored for hepatotoxicity, and patients should be made aware of increased risk of overdose with administration of opioids during and immediately after discontinuation of long-acting naltrexone.

Medication-assisted treatment for opioid dependence: making a difference in prisons

This article explores the evolving evidence supporting the provision of opioid maintenance therapies to incarcerated populations.

Methadone use among HIV-positive injection drug users in a Canadian setting

We examined methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) use among HIV-positive injection drug users (IDU) in Vancouver. Among 353 participants, 199 (56.3%) were on MMT at baseline, and 48 initiated MMT during follow-up. Female gender (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14-2.62) and antiretroviral therapy use (AOR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.46-2.86) were positively associated with MMT use, whereas frequent heroin injection (AOR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.23-0.50), public injection (AOR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.59-0.97), syringe borrowing (AOR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.32-0.90), and nonfatal overdose (AOR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.36-0.92) were negatively associated with MMT use. The rate of discontinuation of MMT was 12.46 (95% CI = 8.28-18.00) per 100 person years. Frequent heroin use (adjusted hazards ratio = 4.49, 95%CI = 1.81-11.13) was positively associated with subsequent discontinuation of MMT. These findings demonstrate the benefits of MMT among HIV-positive IDU and the need to improve access to and retention in MMT.

Efficacy of psychostimulant drugs for cocaine dependence

BACKGROUND

Cocaine dependence is an increasingly prevalent disorder for which no medication is approved yet. Likewise opioid for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulant could be efficacious for cocaine dependence.

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the efficacy of psychostimulants for cocaine dependence on cocaine use, sustained cocaine abstinence and retention in treatment. The influence of type of drug, comorbid disorders and clinical trial reporting quality over psychostimulants efficacy has also been studied.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, references of obtained articles and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized parallel group controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of a psychostimulant against placebo have been included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors evaluated and extracted data. The Relative Risk (RR) was used to assess dichotomous outcomes except for adverse event (AE) induced dropouts for which the risk difference (RD) was preferred. The Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) was used to assess continuous outcomes. To determine the influence of moderating variables, a stratified analysis was conducted. Funnel plots were drawn to investigate the possibility of publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen studies have been included, which have enrolled 1,345 patients. Seven drugs with psychostimulant effect or metabolized to a psychostimulant have been investigated: bupropion, dexamphetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil, mazindol, methamphetamine and selegiline. Psychostimulants did not reduce cocaine use (SMD 0.11, 95%CI: -0.07 to 0.29), showed a statistical trend over improving sustained cocaine abstinence (RR 1.41, 95%CI: 0.98 to 2.02, p=0.07) and did not improve retention in treatment (RR 0.97, 95%CI: 0.89 to 1.05). The proportion of AE induced dropouts was similar for psychostimulants and placebo (RD 0.01, 95%CI: -0.02 to 0.03). When the type of drug was included as a moderating variable, it was shown that the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine abstinence was higher with bupropion and dextroamphetamine, and also with modafinil, at a statistical trend of significance, than with placebo. Nevertheless, no studied drug was efficacious on any of the remaining outcomes. Besides, psychostimulants appeared to increase the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine and heroin abstinence amongst methadone maintained dual heroin-cocaine addicts. The main findings did not seem to be influenced by clinical trial reporting quality. No evidence of publication bias was found.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found mixed results, therefore evidence of the efficacy of psychostimulants for cocaine dependence is inconclusive. Nevertheless promising results exist for methadone maintained dual heroin-cocaine addicts and for some specific drugs such as dexamphetamine and bupropion.