The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) prisons project: a randomised controlled trial comparing dihydrocodeine and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many opiate users entering British prisons require prescribed medication to help them achieve abstinence. This commonly takes the form of a detoxification regime. Previously, a range of detoxification agents have been prescribed without a clear evidence base to recommend a drug of choice. There are few trials and very few in the prison setting. This study compares dihydrocodeine with buprenorphine.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Open label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in a large remand prison in the North of England. Ninety adult male prisoners requesting an opiate detoxification were randomised to receive either daily sublingual buprenorphine or daily oral dihydrocodeine, given in the context of routine care. All participants gave written, informed consent. Reducing regimens were within a standard regimen of not more than 20 days and were at the discretion of the prescribing doctor. Primary outcome was abstinence from illicit opiates as indicated by a urine test at five days post detoxification. Secondary outcomes were collected during the detoxification period and then at one, three and six months post detoxification. Analysis was undertaken using relative risk tests for categorical data and unpaired t-tests for continuous data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>64% of those approached took part in the study. 63 men (70%) gave a urine sample at five days post detoxification. At the completion of detoxification, by intention to treat analysis, a higher proportion of people allocated to buprenorphine provided a urine sample negative for opiates (abstinent) compared with those who received dihydrocodeine (57% vs 35%, RR 1.61 CI 1.02–2.56). At the 1, 3 and 6 month follow-up points, there were no significant differences for urine samples negative for opiates between the two groups. Follow up rates were low for those participants who had subsequently been released into the community.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These findings would suggest that dihydrocodeine should not be routinely used for detoxification from opiates in the prison setting. The high relapse rate amongst those achieving abstinence would suggest the need for an increased emphasis upon opiate maintenance programmes in the prison setting.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07752728</p

Health impact assessment of waste management facilities in three European countries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Policies on waste disposal in Europe are heterogeneous and rapidly changing, with potential health implications that are largely unknown. We conducted a health impact assessment of landfilling and incineration in three European countries: Italy, Slovakia and England.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 49 (Italy), 2 (Slovakia), and 11 (England) incinerators were operating in 2001 while for landfills the figures were 619, 121 and 232, respectively. The study population consisted of residents living within 3 km of an incinerator and 2 km of a landfill. Excess risk estimates from epidemiological studies were used, combined with air pollution dispersion modelling for particulate matter (PM₁₀) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂). For incinerators, we estimated attributable cancer incidence and years of life lost (YoLL), while for landfills we estimated attributable cases of congenital anomalies and low birth weight infants.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>About 1,000,000, 16,000, and 1,200,000 subjects lived close to incinerators in Italy, Slovakia and England, respectively. The additional contribution to NO₂levels within a 3 km radius was 0.23, 0.15, and 0.14 μg/m³, respectively. Lower values were found for PM₁₀. Assuming that the incinerators continue to operate until 2020, we are moderately confident that the annual number of cancer cases due to exposure in 2001-2020 will reach 11, 0, and 7 in 2020 and then decline to 0 in the three countries in 2050. We are moderately confident that by 2050, the attributable impact on the 2001 cohort of residents will be 3,621 (Italy), 37 (Slovakia) and 3,966 (England) YoLL. The total exposed population to landfills was 1,350,000, 329,000, and 1,425,000 subjects, respectively. We are moderately confident that the annual additional cases of congenital anomalies up to 2030 will be approximately 2, 2, and 3 whereas there will be 42, 13, and 59 additional low-birth weight newborns, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The current health impacts of landfilling and incineration can be characterized as moderate when compared to other sources of environmental pollution, e.g. traffic or industrial emissions, that have an impact on public health. There are several uncertainties and critical assumptions in the assessment model, but it provides insight into the relative health impact attributable to waste management.</p

UNderstanding uptake of Immunisations in TravellIng aNd Gypsy communities (UNITING): a qualitative interview study

Background: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma (referred to as Travellers) are less likely to access health services, including immunisation. To improve immunisation rates, we need to understand what helps and hinders individuals in these communities in taking up immunisations. Aims: (1) Investigate the barriers to and facilitators of acceptability and uptake of immunisations among six Traveller communities across four UK cities; and (2) identify possible interventions to increase uptake of immunisations in these Traveller communities that could be tested in a subsequent feasibility study. Methods: Three-phase qualitative study underpinned by the social ecological model. Phase 1: interviews with 174 Travellers from six communities: Romanian Roma (Bristol); English Gypsy/Irish Traveller (Bristol); English Gypsy (York); Romanian/Slovakian Roma (Glasgow); Scottish Showpeople (Glasgow); and Irish Traveller (London). Focus on childhood and adult vaccines. Phase 2: interviews with 39 service providers. Data were analysed using the framework approach. Interventions were identified using a modified intervention mapping approach. Phase 3: 51 Travellers and 25 service providers attended workshops and produced a prioritised list of potentially acceptable and feasible interventions. Results: There were many common accounts of barriers and facilitators across communities, particularly across the English-speaking communities. Scottish Showpeople were the most similar to the general population. Roma communities experienced additional barriers of language and being in a new country. Men, women and service providers described similar barriers and facilitators. There was widespread acceptance of childhood and adult immunisation, with current parents perceived as more positive than their elders. A minority of English-speaking Travellers worried about multiple/combined childhood vaccines, adult flu and whooping cough. Cultural concerns about vaccines offered during pregnancy and about human papillomavirus were most evident in the Bristol English Gypsy/Irish Traveller community. Language, literacy, discrimination, poor school attendance, poverty and housing were identified by Travellers and service providers as barriers for some. Trustful relationships with health professionals were important and continuity of care was valued. A few English-speaking Travellers described problems of booking and attending for immunisation. Service providers tailored their approach to Travellers, particularly the Roma. Funding cuts, NHS reforms and poor monitoring challenged their work. Five ‘top-priority’ interventions were agreed across communities and service providers to improve the immunisation among Travellers who are housed or settled on an authorised site: (1) cultural competence training for health professionals and frontline staff; (2) identification of Travellers in health records to tailor support and monitor uptake; (3) provision of a named frontline person in general practitioner practices to provide respectful and supportive service; (4) flexible and diverse systems for booking appointments, recall and reminders; and (5) protected funding for health visitors specialising in Traveller health, including immunisation. Limitations: No Travellers living on the roadside or on unofficial encampments were interviewed. We should exert caution in generalising to these groups. Future work: To include development, implementation and evaluation of a national policy plan (and practice guidance plan) to promote the uptake of immunisation among Traveller communities

Twenty years on, the Methadone Treatment Protocol in Ireland: Reflections on General Practice

Background: Opioid dependence, characterised by socio economic disadvantage and significant morbidity and mortality, remains a major public health problem in Ireland. Through the methadone treatment protocol (MTP), Irish general practice has been a leader in the introduction and expansion of Irish harm reduction services, including opioid substitution treatment (OST), needle and syringe programs (NSP) and naloxone provision. These services have been effective in engaging opiate users in treatment, reducing human deficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission and reducing drug related morbidities. Challenges remain in relation to choice of substitution treatments, timely access to OST services, adequate coverage of NSP, naloxone provision and increasing drug related deaths.Methods: A narrative review was conducted and designed to present a broad perspective on the Irish MTP, and to describe its history and development in terms of clinical care, stakeholder views and changing trends.Results: Three themes emerged from the analysis; The History of the Methadone Treatment Protocol, Service User and Provider Views, and Challenges and Developments. Despite initial concern about methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) in Ireland, increased participation by Irish GPs in the treatment of opioid dependence is observed over the last two decades. There are now over 10,000 people on methadone treatment in Ireland, with 40% treated in general practice. The MTP provides structure, remuneration and guidance to GPs and is underpinned by; training, ongoing education and a system of quality assurance provided by the Irish College of General Practice (ICGP). Challenges include the negative views of patients around how methadone services are delivered, the stigma associated with methadone treatment, the lack of choice around substitution medication, waiting lists for treatment in certain areas and rates of fatal overdose.Conclusion: Twenty years of the MTP has been the mainstay of harm reduction services in Ireland. It has provided a network of specially trained GPs who provide methadone to over 10,000 patients across Ireland within a structured framework of training, quality assurance and remuneration. With the ongoing commitment of Irish specialists in the field of addiction medicine, further improvements to support and treat patients can be made

Research summaries Compendium of completed research projects 1992 and 1993

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:OP-IRE/341 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Surveillance of congenital anomalies in the Eastern Health Board Region 1980-1987 EUROCAT

EUROCAT - European registries of congenital anomalies and twinsAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:93/13437 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Trends in treated drug misuse in the Republic of Ireland, 1996 to 2000

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:6217. 2245(no 9) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo