Reducing opioid-related deaths in the UK

This independent report by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs investigates the increase of drug-related deaths in the UK. It looks at: - patterns and trends in opioid-related deaths - causes and drivers of trends in opioid-related deaths - policy and treatment responses to prevent opioid-related death

Ranking the harm of non-medically used prescription opioids in the UK

A panel of nine experts applied multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to determine the relative overall harm to users and harms to others of street heroin (injected and smoked) and eleven non-medically used prescription opioids. The experts assessed harm scores for each of the 13 opioids on each of 20 harm criteria, weighted the criteria and explored the resulting weighted harm scores for each opioid. Both forms of heroin scored very high: overall harm score of 99 for injected heroin and 72 for smoked heroin on a scale of 0–100. The main feature that distinguishes both forms of street heroin use is that their harm to others is more than five times that of the other eleven opioids. The overall harm score of fentanyl (including injection of fentanyl extracted from patches) and diamorphine (medically prescribed form of heroin) was 54 and 51, respectively, whereas that of orally used opioids ranged from 32 (pethidine) to 11 (codeine-containing pharmaceuticals). Injected street heroin, fentanyl and diamorphine emerged as most harmful to users, with the latter two very low in harm to others. Pethidine, methadone, morphine and oxycodone are also low in harm to others, while moderate in harm to users. We conclude that the overall harms of non-medically used prescription opioids are less than half that of injected street heroin. These data may give a basis for precautionary regulatory measures that should be considered if the rising trend in non-medical use of prescription opioids were to become evident in the UK

Overview of some international initiatives on quality in treatment.

A 30 minute YouTube lecture giving an overview of some International initiatives on quality in drug use disorder treatment services and systems. The lecture is given by Annette Dale-Perera and was filmed in Autumn 2020 by UNOD

Quality in drug use disorder treatment.

Treatment of drug use disorders needs to be available, accessible, affordable, diversified and evidence-based. UNODC in coordination with the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a set of Quality Assessment and Quality Assurance Tools for drug use disorder treatment services as part of the implementation package of the International Standards for the Treatment of Drug Use Disorders (UNODC/WHO, 2020). National Quality Assurance mechanisms and institutions in a country can play an important role in the monitoring and assessment of drug use disorder treatment services against an agreed upon standard and help ensure that persons with drug use disorders have access to treatment that meets the same quality standards. Here International Expert Annette Dale-Perera talks about quality in treatment [29.07 minutes]

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field