Psychosocial combined with agonist maintenance treatments versus agonist maintenance treatments alone for treatment of opioid dependence.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of any psychosocial plus any agonist maintenance treatment versus standard agonist treatment for opiate dependence in respect of retention in treatment, use of substances, health and social status. The abuse of opioid drugs and drug dependency are major health and social issues. Maintenance treatments with pharmacological agents can help to reduce the risks associated with the use of street drugs for drug addicts who are unable to abstain from drug use. Methadone is effective in retaining patients in treatment and reducing heroin use but re-addiction remains as a substantial challenge. Opiate addicts often have psychiatric problems such as anxiety and depression and may not be able to cope with stress. Psychosocial interventions including psychiatric care, psychotherapy, counselling, and social work services are commonly offered as part of the maintenance programs. Psychological support varies from structured psychotherapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy and supportive-expressive therapy to behavioural interventions and contingency management. This review addressed whether a specific psychosocial intervention provides any additional benefit to pharmacological maintenance treatment. The control intervention was a maintenance program, which routinely offers counselling sessions in addition to pharmacological treatment. Present evidence suggests that adding psychosocial support does not change the effectiveness of retention in treatment and opiate use during treatment. Findings on retention in treatment were for 12 different psychosocial interventions including contingency management. These conclusions are based on 34 randomised trials involving 3777 opiate addicts, some 73% of whom were male. All but three studies were conducted in the USA. The previous version of this review showed a reduction in opiate use during treatment that was no longer the case with the addition of new studies and the same is for the number of participants abstinent at the end of follow up. The psychosocial interventions are likely to require rigorous assessment of any changes in emotional, interpersonal, vocational and physical health areas of life functioning that may indirectly reduce drug use over longer periods of time

The virtual disappearance of injectable opioids for heroin addiction under the ‘British System’

Aims: Injectable opioids were prescribed unsupervised under the 'British System' for heroin dependence. National guidelines (1999 and 2003) confirmed that injectable opioids have a legitimate 'limited clinical place' and should be dispensed daily, with 'mechanisms for supervision'. This study assesses whether national guidelines impacted on prescriptions of injectable opioids. Methods: A 25 random sample of community pharmacists (n 2473) in England were surveyed by a questionnaire in 2005, with 95 response (n 2349). Opioid maintenance prescription data for anonymous patients (n 9620) were compared to the prescription data in 1995 (n 3721) from a matched survey. Findings: Injectable opioid prescriptions reduced significantly from 10.5 (1995) to 1.8 (2005) of all opioid maintenance prescriptions. Daily doses significantly increased, as did daily dispensing from 28.8 (1995) to 57.8 (2005), whilst weekly dispensing reduced from 39.5 (1995) to 14.5 (2005). In 2005, injectable opioids accounted for 27.2 of private opioid prescriptions, versus 1.5 National Health Service (NHS) prescriptions. Private prescriptions were for larger take-home doses than NHS prescriptions. Regional variation was present. Conclusions: Injectable opioid maintenance treatment for heroin dependence under the unsupervised 'British System' is disappearing, although not extinct. If injectable opioids are prescribed, this is more in line with national guidelines. However, many prescriptions are less than daily instalments.</p

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

Patient experience of telemedicine in addictions

AimsOpioid dependence has high risks and opioid substitution treatment (OST) improves outcomes and reduces deaths. Attendance at addiction specialist prescribers may be limited, particularly in rural areas. Telemedicine, such as videoconferencing, can reduce travel and improve access and attendance. Pre-COVID-19, we started a telemedicine service for patients with opioid dependence, prescribed opioid substitution treatment, requiring addiction specialist prescriber consultations. We present patient experience and assess whether patients recommend telemedicine.MethodHealth Research Authority approval for Randomized Controlled Trial of Telemedicine versus Face-to-Face (control) appointments in large semi-rural community addictions service (2500km2) using a modified Hub-and-Spoke (outreach). Adult opioid dependent patients prescribed OST and attending outreach clinics recruited. Participants received two consultations in group. Telemedicine delivered using Skype-for-business videoconferencing. Patients attended outreach clinic, where an outreach worker undertook drug testing and telemedicine conducted via the outreach workers laptop. Specialist addiction prescribers located remotely, at the Hub. Patients self-completed NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) immediately after appointment, separate from the wider research study. Data collected Sept 2019– March 2020 (pre-COVID-19 lockdown), Microsoft Excel analysis, with qualitative thematic free-text analysis.ResultThirty completed FFTs were received, of which all participants were ‘extremely likely’ (n = 19;67%) or ‘likely’ (n = 11;37%) to recommend the Telemedicine service to friends or family, if they needed similar care. Two themes for reasons for recommending the service were; 1. Convenience (reduced travel, reduced travel time and reduced travel costs) and 2. Supportive Staff (including listening, caring and good support). One patient mentioned ‘it is a convenient way to communicate with medical staff, saving time and effort’. Regarding Telemedicine appointments, most participants responded that the timing of telemedicine appointments was good (n = 26;87%), given enough information (n = 30;100%), enough privacy (n = 28;93%), enough time to talk (n = 30;100%), involved as much as they wanted (n = 25;83%), given advice on keeping well (n = 28;93%), and NHS staff were friendly and helpful (n = 29;97%). No participants thought they were treated unfairly. When asked what went well, patient themes were: 1. Everything and 2. Communication (including listening and explaining). One patient stated ‘Everything better, telemedicing good, heard it well, everything improved this year’. In terms of what the service could do better, there were no issues identified.ConclusionThe Telemedicine in Addictions service was overwhelmingly highly recommended by patients. Patients recommended the service because of convenience and supportive staff. The use of telemedicine is acceptable to patients and could be considered more widely. Due to COVID-19, this technology may be beneficial access to addiction services

Groin injecting in injectable opioid treatment service users in South London

Femoral (or groin) injecting is an emerging public health challenge to all drug-related services within the UK. Recent work in the area has proposed that groin injecting in the UK has moved from being a &lsquo;risk boundary&rsquo; to an &lsquo;acceptable behaviour&rsquo;. This article uses data from 10 in-depth qualitative interviews with service users from a supervised injectable opiate treatment service in South London to report on pathways to, and reasons for, groin injecting. Our findings indicate that even though groin injecting constitutes a risk boundary for some injectors, the practice is no longer heavily stigmatised and is perceived by some to be an acceptable risk. Narratives also pointed to the importance of peers in the initiation of groin injecting. Interviewees described the groin as a site of &lsquo;last resort&rsquo; in contrast to &lsquo;convenience&rsquo; groin injectors described in some previous research. We conclude that it might be helpful to distinguish between convenience and last resort groin injectors and support the call for innovative interventions which aim to reduce modelling of groin injection and which promote social norms supportive of using peripheral injecting sites.<br /