Patients' satisfaction with heroin-assisted treatment: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) involves supervised dispensing of medical heroin (diacetylmorphine) for people with opioid use disorder. Clinical evidence has demonstrated the effectiveness of HAT, but little is known about the self-reported satisfaction among the patients who receive this treatment. This study presents the first empirical findings about the patients' experiences of, and satisfaction with, HAT in the Norwegian context.

METHODS

Qualitative in-depth interviews with 26 patients in HAT were carried out one to two months after their enrollment. Analysis sought to identify the main benefits and challenges that the research participants experienced with this treatment. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted to identify the main areas of benefits and challenges. The benefits were weighed against the challenges in order to assess the participants' overall level of treatment satisfaction.

RESULTS

Analysis identified three different areas of experienced benefits and three areas of challenges of being in this treatment. It outlines how the participants' everyday lives are impacted by being in the treatment and how this, respectively, results from the treatment's medical, relational, or configurational dimensions. We found an overall high level of treatment satisfaction among the participants. The identification of experienced challenges reveals factors that reduce satisfaction and thus may hinder treatment retention and positive treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates a novel approach to qualitatively investigate patients' treatment satisfaction across different treatment dimensions. The findings have implications for clinical practice by pointing out key factors that inhibit and facilitate patients' satisfaction with HAT. The identified importance of the socio-environmental factors and relational aspect of the treatment has further implications for the provision of opioid agonist treatment in general.

Changes in daily dose in open-label compared to double-blind: The role of clients' expectations in injectable opioid agonist treatment

Introduction

Though double-blind studies have indicated that hydromorphone and diacetylmorphine produce similar effects when administered through injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) programs, participant preference may influence some aspects of medication dispensation such as dose.

Methods

 This is a retrospective longitudinal analysis. Participants (n = 131) were previously enrolled in a double-blind clinical trial for iOAT who continued to receive treatment in an open-label follow up study. Data included medication dispensation records from 2012 to 2020. Using linear regression and paired t-tests, average daily dose totals of hydromorphone and diacetylmorphine were examined comparatively between double-blind and open-label periods. A subgroup analysis explored dose difference by preference using the proxy, blinding guess, a variable used to facilitate the measurement of treatment masking during the clinical trial by asking which medication the participant thought they received.

Results

During the open-label period, participants prescribed diacetylmorphine received 49.5 mg less than during the double-blind period (95% CI -12.6,-86.4). Participants receiving hydromorphone did not see a significant dose decrease. Participants who guessed they received hydromorphone during the clinical trial, but learned they were on diacetylmorphine during the open-label period, saw a decrease in total daily dose of 78.3 mg less (95% CI -134.3,-22.4) during the open-label period.

Conclusion

If client preference is considered in the treatment of chronic opioid use disorder, clients may be able to better moderate their dose to suit their individual needs. Together with their healthcare providers, clients can participate in their treatment trajectories collaboratively to optimize client outcomes and promote person-centered treatment options.

Feasibility, safety, and acceptability of intranasal heroin-assisted treatment in Switzerland: protocol for a prospective multicentre observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) is a proven effective treatment option for individuals with severe opioid use disorder (OUD). In Switzerland, pharmaceutical heroin (diacetylmorphine, DAM) is available in tablet form or as injectable liquid. This creates a large barrier for individuals who require the rapid onset of effect but are either unable or do not want to inject, or who primarily snort opioids. Early experimental data has demonstrated that intranasal DAM administration can be a viable alternative to the intravenous or intramuscular route of administration. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of intranasal HAT.

METHODS

This study will assess intranasal DAM using a prospective multicentre observational cohort study design in HAT clinics across Switzerland. Patients will be offered to switch from oral or injectable DAM to intranasal DAM. Participants will be followed-up over 3 years, with assessments at baseline, and after 4, 52, 104 and 156 weeks. The primary outcome measure (POM) is retention in treatment. Secondary outcomes (SOM) include prescriptions and routes of administration of other opioid agonists, illicit substance use, risk behaviour, delinquency, health and social functioning, treatment adherence, opioid craving, satisfaction, subjective effects, quality of life, physical health, and mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

The results derived from this study will generate the first major body of clinical evidence on the safety, acceptability, and feasibility of intranasal HAT. If proven to be safe, feasible and acceptable, this study would increase the accessibility of intranasal OAT for individuals with OUD globally as a critical improvement in risk reduction.

Measuring the preferences of injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) clients: Development of a person-centered scale (best-worst scaling)

BACKGROUND

Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is effective for opioid use disorder (OUD), yet little is known about client preferences for accessing iOAT (e.g., with diacetylmorphine, hydromorphone, buprenorphine, fentanyl, etc.). Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a preference elicitation method from health economics that has never been applied to addiction care broadly, or iOAT specifically. We describe the stages of developing a BWS scale that assesses iOAT clients' treatment delivery preferences to inform program planning and maximize healthcare efficiency.

METHODS

We underwent several steps to reveal the relevant attributes/levels and design the scale structure. An initial list of potential attributes and levels was established from a literature review and prior qualitative data. Then, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with clients (n=21) on their iOAT preferences to confirm the attributes and prioritize/include new ones. Next, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with iOAT experts and stakeholders to receive their input on the draft list of attributes and levels. A BWS profile case design was piloted with iOAT clients (n=18) from different sites during a think aloud interview. After several rounds of revisions, the final version was tested by iOAT clients (n=2) before the scale was launched.

RESULTS

We developed a person-centered scale that assesses current and former iOAT clients' most and least wanted aspects of iOAT delivery. The final version yielded 7 unique attributes: choice of medication, choice of dose, convenience, location & space, scheduling & routines, staff & training, and types of services offered.

CONCLUSION

This scale can help expand iOAT programs in a way that is person-centered, rapid, and affordable. The methodology is a guide for other regions with similar populations who aim to develop strong quantitative methodologies that prioritize client collaboration.

Safety and feasibility of intranasal heroin-assisted treatment: 4-week preliminary findings from a Swiss multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) is effective for individuals with severe opioid use disorder (OUD) who do not respond sufficiently to other opioid agonist treatments. It is mostly offered with injectable diacetylmorphine (DAM) or DAM tablets creating a barrier for individuals who need the rapid onset of action but are either unable or unwilling to inject, or primarily snort opioids. To explore another route of administration, we evaluated the safety and feasibility of intranasal (IN) DAM.

METHODS

This is a multicentre observational cohort study among patients in Swiss HAT. All patients planning to receive IN DAM within the treatment centres were eligible to participate. Participants were either completely switched to IN DAM or received IN DAM in addition to other DAM formulations or opioid agonists. Patients were followed up for four weeks. Sociodemographic characteristics, current HAT regimen, reasons for starting IN DAM, IN DAM doses, number of injection events in the sample, IN DAM continuation rate, and appearance of adverse events and nose-related problems were evaluated.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 52) reported vein damage, preference for nasal route of administration, and desire of a stronger effect or for a less harmful route of administration as primary reasons for switching to IN DAM. After four weeks, 90.4% of participants (n = 47) still received IN DAM. Weekly average realised injection events decreased by 44.4% from the month before IN DAM initiation to the month following. No severe adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

After four weeks, IN DAM was a feasible and safe alternative to other routes of administration for patients with severe OUD in HAT. It addressed the needs of individuals with OUD and reduced injection behaviour. More long-term research efforts are needed to systematically assess efficacy of and patient satisfaction with IN DAM.

Modeling the cost and impact of injectable opioid agonist therapy on overdose and overdose deaths

AIMS

Unsupervised injectable opioid agonist therapy (iOAT) may decrease the unmet treatment needs for people who inject opioids. We aimed to model whether unsupervised iOAT may be effective in reducing fatal and non-fatal overdose, and estimate the cost per life saved.

METHODS

The study used a decision tree model based on Australian and international parameters for overdose risk in people who inject opioids who are: not on OAT; new/stable to methadone/buprenorphine treatment; on iOAT; or on unsupervised iOAT. We modeled scenarios of (1) current OAT only (status quo), or current OAT plus either (2) 5% supervised iOAT, (3) 5% supervised or 5.69% unsupervised iOAT (based on willingness to enroll), OR (4) 1.2% supervised and 10% unsupervised iOAT (the same cost as scenario 2). The study measured overdoses (fatal and nonfatal) and treatment costs per 10,000 people who inject opioids per annum, and cost-per deaths averted on implementation of iOAT.

RESULTS

With current OAT, the study found an estimated 1655.5 (1552.7-1705.3) overdoses, 19.3 (17.9-20.3) overdose deaths and AUD 23,335,081 in treatment costs per 10,000 people per annum. Implementation of 5% enrollment in supervised iOAT costs an additional AUD 14,807,855 and showed a reduction of 122.9 (95% UI 114.2-130.5) overdoses and 2.0 (1.8-2.0) overdose deaths per 10,000 people per annum ($7,774,172 [7,283,182-8,146,989] per death averted). For the same treatment costs, additional coverage of 10% unsupervised iOAT and 1.2% supervised iOAT could be achieved, which the study estimated to prevent 269.0 (95% UI 250.0-278.7) overdoses and 4.0 (3.7-4.2) overdose deaths per 10,000 people per annum ($3,723,340 (3,385,878-3,894,379) per death averted), alongside further benefits of treatment unaccounted for in this study.

CONCLUSION

An implementation scenario with greater unsupervised iOAT compared to supervised iOAT allows for an increased reduction in overdose and overdose deaths per annum at the same cost, with the additional benefit of increased treatment coverage among people who inject opioids.

Nasal Opioid Agonist Treatment in Patients with Severe Opioid Dependence: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is the first-line treatment for opioid dependence. Currently available OAT options comprise oral (methadone and morphine) and sublingual (buprenorphine) routes of administration. In Switzerland and some other countries, severely opioid-dependent individuals with insufficient response to oral or sublingual OAT are offered heroin-assisted treatment (HAT), which involves the provision of injected or oral medical heroin (diacetylmorphine [DAM]). However, many patients on treatment with injectable DAM (i-HAT) suffer from injection-related problems such as deteriorated vein status, ulcerations, endocarditis, and abscesses. Other patients who do not respond to oral OAT do not inject but snort opioids, and are not eligible for i-HAT. For this population, there is no other short-acting OAT with rapid onset of action available unless they switch to injecting, which is associated with higher risks. Nasal DAM (n-HAT) could be an alternative treatment option suitable for both populations of patients.

METHODS

We present a case series of 3 patients on i-HAT who successfully switched to n-HAT.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

This is the first description of the clinical use of the nasal route of administration for HAT. n-HAT may constitute an important risk-reduced rapid-onset alternative to i-HAT. In particular, it may be suited for patients with injection-related complications, or noninjecting opioid-dependent patients failing to respond to oral OAT.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Take home injectable opioids for opioid use disorder during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic is in urgent need: a case study

Background

In North America the opioid poisoning crisis currently faces the unprecedented challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, further straining people and communities already facing structural and individual vulnerabilities. People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are facing unique challenges in response to COVID-19, such as not being able to adopt best practices (e.g., physical distancing) if they’re financially insecure or living in shelters (or homeless). They also have other medical conditions that make them more likely to be immunocompromised and at risk of developing COVID-19. In response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, national and provincial regulatory bodies introduced guidance and exemptions to mitigate the spread of the virus. Among them, clinical guidance for prescribers were issued to allow take home opioid medications for opioid agonist treatment (OAT). Take Home for injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is only considered within a restrictive regulatory structure, specific to the pandemic. Nevertheless, this risk mitigation guidance allowed carries, mostly daily dispensed, to a population that would not have access to it prior to the pandemic. In this case it is presented and discussed that if a carry was possible during the pandemic, then the carry could continue post COVID-19 to address a gap in our approach to individualize care for people with OUD receiving iOAT.

Case presentation

Here we present the first case of a patient in Canada with long-term OUD that received take home injectable diacetylmorphine to self-isolate in an approved site after being diagnosed with COVID-19 during a visit to the emergency room where he was diagnosed with cellulitis and admitted to receive antibiotics.

Conclusion

In the present case we demonstrated that it is feasible to provide iOAT outside the community clinic with no apparent negative consequences. Improving upon and making permanent these recently introduced risk mitigating guidance during COVID-19, have the potential not just to protect during the pandemic, but also to address long-overdue barriers to access evidence-based care in addiction treatment.

Integrating injectable opioid agonist treatment into a drug treatment court program: A case study

BACKGROUND

A substantial proportion of individuals involved with the North American criminal justice system are convicted for drug-related activities. Drug treatment court (DTC) programs were developed as an alternative to incarceration for drug-related offences and aim to prioritize addiction treatment and improve health and social outcomes; however, only a fraction of DTC participants have access to first-line medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). Further, despite emerging evidence for the efficacy of injectable opioid agonist therapy (OAT) in treating individuals with severe OUD where past treatment attempts with first-line therapies have been unsuccessful, this treatment has never, to our knowledge, been implemented in correctional settings.

CASE

An individual in their 50s with a history of severe OUD, multiple interactions with the criminal justice system, and prior unsuccessful treatment attempts with methadone was initiated on injectable treatment with diacetylmorphine. The patient received 300 mg of diacetylmorphine witnessed 3 times daily at a supervised injection clinic. During a 1.5-year stabilization phase, the patient's illicit opioid use significantly reduced. They subsequently enrolled in a DTC program for drug-related charges preceding initiation on injectable OAT and remained on this therapy during 16 months in DTC. Following graduation from DTC, the patient continued to receive treatment and returned to gainful employment in the community, with no further charges or episodes of incarceration.

DISCUSSION

This case describes the successful completion of a DTC program by an individual prescribed injectable OAT for severe OUD. The patient's treatment plan played an integral role in DTC graduation and long-term adherence, leading to improved health and social outcomes, including cessation of illicit drug use, enhanced quality of life, and improved social functioning. The case highlights the potential benefits of a stepped and integrated approach to addiction treatment in DTC programs.

Epigenetic Regulation of the Promotor Region of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-A and Nerve Growth Factor in Opioid-Maintained Patients

AIMS

The nerve growth factor (NGF) and the vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) may be of importance for psychiatric diseases including substance use disorders. The aim of the study was to identify differences in the regulation of both neuropeptides via the DNA-methylation status of the promotor regions of NGF and VEGF-A in different forms of maintenance therapy for opioid dependence and the related stress regulation via the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

METHODS

We compared methylation levels of opioid-dependent patients receiving treatment with diamorphine (n = 28) or levomethadone (n = 54) and similar levels in a healthy control group (n = 72).

RESULTS

There was a significantly higher methylation of VEGF-A in opioid-maintained patients with levomethadone compared to that in the control group (estimated marginal means [EMM] [SE]): 0.036 [0.003] vs. 0.020 [0.003]; p < 0.001). We performed a cluster analysis for NGF, splitting up the results in 4 clusters. We found significant changes in methylation rates of the opioid-maintained patients compared to the controls in cluster I ([EMM] [SE]: 0.064 [0.005] vs. 0.084 [0.006]; p = 0.03), cluster II ([EMM] [SE]: 0.133 [0.013] vs. 0.187 [0.014]; p < 0.001) and cluster III ([EMM] [SE]: 0.190 [0.014] vs. 0.128 [0.016]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results are of importance, as they indicate that long-term changes in stress regulation regulated by neurotrophines are a crucial part of the symptomatology of opioid dependence, thus influencing drug consumption and the different forms of opioid-maintenance therapies.

Reduced volume of the nucleus accumbens in heroin addiction

The neural mechanisms of heroin addiction are still incompletely understood, even though modern neuroimaging techniques offer insights into disease-related changes in vivo. While changes on cortical structure have been reported in heroin addiction, evidence from subcortical areas remains underrepresented. Functional imaging studies revealed that the brain reward system and particularly the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) play a pivotal role in the pathophysiology of drug addiction. The aim of this study was to investigate whether there was a volume difference of the NAcc in heroin addiction in comparison to healthy controls. A further aim was to correlate subcortical volumes with clinical measurements on negative affects in addiction. Thirty heroin-dependent patients under maintenance treatment with diacetylmorphine and twenty healthy controls underwent structural MRI scanning at 3T. Subcortical segmentation analysis was performed using FMRIB's Integrated Registration and Segmentation Tool function of FSL. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Beck Depression Inventory were used to assess trait anxiety and depressive symptoms, respectively. A decreased volume of the left NAcc was observed in heroin-dependent patients compared to healthy controls. Depression score was negatively correlated with left NAcc volume in patients, whereas a positive correlation was found between the daily opioid dose and the volume of the right amygdala. This study indicates that there might be structural differences of the NAcc in heroin-dependent patients in comparison with healthy controls. Furthermore, correlations of subcortical structures with negative emotions and opioid doses might be of future relevance for the investigation of heroin addiction.

Predictors of non-use of illicit heroin in opioid injection maintenance treatment of long-term heroin dependence

AIMS

To investigate baseline and concurrent predictors of non-use of illicit heroin among participants randomized to injectable opioids in the North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI) clinical trial.

METHODS

NAOMI was an open-label randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of injectable diacetylmorphine and hydromorphone for long-term opioid-dependency. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and during treatment (3, 6, 9, 12months). Days of non-use of illicit heroin in the prior month at each follow-up visit were divided into three categories: Non-use; Low use (1 to 7days) and High use (8days or more). Tested covariates were: Sociodemographics, Health, Treatment, Drug use and illegal activities. Mixed-effect proportional odds models with random intercept for longitudinal ordinal outcomes were used to assess the predictors of the non-use of illicit heroin.

RESULTS

139 participants were included in the present analysis. At each follow-up visit, those with non-use of illicit heroin represented 47.5% to 54.0% of the sample. Fewer days of cocaine use (p=0.074), fewer days engaged in illegal activities at baseline (p<0.01) and at each visit (p<0.01), less money spent on drugs (p<0.001), days with injection opioid or oral methadone treatment (p<0.001) and total mg of injectable opioids taken (p<0.001), independently predicted lower use of illicit heroin.

CONCLUSIONS

The independent effect of several concurrent factors besides the injection of opioid dose suggests benefits from the clinic that go beyond the provision of the medication alone. Thus, this supervised model of care presents an opportunity to maximize the beneficial impact of medical and psychosocial components of the treatment on improving outcomes associated with non-use of illicit heroin.

Treatment or "high": benzodiazepine use in patients on injectable heroin or oral opioids

Benzodiazepine (BZD) use is widespread among opioid-maintained patients worldwide. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to investigate motives and patterns of BZD use and psychiatric comorbidity in a convenience sample of patients (n=193) maintained on oral opioid agonists or diacetylmorphine (DAM). Prolonged BZD use and high-risk behaviors like parenteral use were common. After principal component analysis, motives were divided into those related to negative affect regulation, positive affect regulation (i.e. reward-seeking) and somato-medical problems. Negative affect regulation and somato-medical motives were associated with prolonged use. Psychiatric comorbidity was associated with several self-therapeutic motives, most importantly to lose anxiety. Patients maintained on DAM were more likely to be ex-users of BZD and report high positive affect regulation. Therefore, patients maintained on different agonists may have deviating motives for BZD use, which could be of importance when addressing this issue. Treatment of psychiatric comorbidity, in particular anxiety, depressive and sleeping disorders, may be helpful in reducing BZD use, particularly in patients maintained on oral opioids.