Waiting list eradication in secondary care psychology: Addressing a National Health Service blind spot.

OBJECTIVES: Waiting times for secondary care psychological therapy remain a 'blind spot' in serious mental illness (SMI) provision, and their reduction is a priority within the National Health Service (NHS) Five Year Forward View. The paper describes the eradication of waiting times within a community-based NHS service and the effectiveness of strategies whilst examining help-seeking behaviour, compliance and therapeutic need. METHODS: Analyses are reported for treatment compliance and therapeutic outcomes for 208 waiting-list cohort individuals seen by the SMI psychology service over an 18-month period between October 2014 and March 2016. RESULTS: No significant clinical or demographic differentiation between individuals who successfully completed therapy compared to those who disengaged was observed. Despite an average 2.20-year waiting time, this alone did not significantly impact engagement with psychological treatment and all psychological therapies provided led to a significant clinical improvement and no individuals who completed therapy required re-referral at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: If imposed appropriately over a suitable time frame evidence-based practice coupled with effective operationalization can result in efficient needs-led psychological provision within SMI and secondary care. Potentially debilitating waiting times for service users and other referring professionals can be avoided, whilst psychology provision retains a flexible, formulation-based and person-centred approach.

Supporting research readiness in social enterprise health services.

Health-based social enterprises are spun out of the NHS, yet continue to provide NHS-funded services. With the spin-out, however, formal processes for research governance were lost. Patients have a right to take part in research, regardless of where they access healthcare. This paper discusses the barriers to social enterprises undertaking applied health research and makes recommendations to address the need for equivalence of governance processes with NHS trusts.

A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer education and peer support in prisons.

BACKGROUND: Prisoners experience significantly worse health than the general population. This review examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer interventions in prison settings. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, including qualitative and quantitative synthesis was conducted. In addition to grey literature identified and searches of websites, nineteen electronic databases were searched from 1985 to 2012. Study selection criteria were: POPULATION: Prisoners resident in adult prisons and children resident in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs). INTERVENTION: Peer-based interventions. COMPARATORS: Review questions 3 and 4 compared peer and professionally led approaches. OUTCOMES: Prisoner health or determinants of health; organisational/process outcomes; views of prison populations. STUDY DESIGNS: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed method evaluations. RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies were included in the effectiveness review and one study in the cost-effectiveness review; most were of poor methodological quality. Evidence suggested that peer education interventions are effective at reducing risky behaviours, and that peer support services are acceptable within the prison environment and have a positive effect on recipients, practically or emotionally. Consistent evidence from many, predominantly qualitative, studies, suggested that being a peer deliverer was associated with positive effects. There was little evidence on cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent evidence from a large number of studies that being a peer worker is associated with positive health; peer support services are also an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and can have a positive effect on recipients. Research into cost-effectiveness is sparse. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ref: CRD42012002349.

The safe implementation of a prison-based methadone maintenance programme: 7 year time-series analysis of primary care prescribing data.

BACKGROUND: Internationally there is policy support for the introduction of methadone maintenance programmes into prison settings. Increasingly GPs are encouraged to undertake this work although concerns remain regarding the safety of such programmes. This study sought to evaluate the impact and safety of the introduction of a general practitioner with a special interest (GPsi) in substance misuse led methadone prescribing service into a UK prison between 2003 and 2010. METHODS: Time series analysis of secondary prescribing data pertaining to opiate maintenance therapies, opiate detoxification therapies and opiate related deaths for the time period 2003 to 2010. RESULTS: Results show that following introduction of a GPsi in substance misuse there was a statistically significant increase in both methadone maintenance and detoxification treatments. Over time the rate of methadone maintenance prescribing plateaued with a corresponding decrease in the rate of methadone detoxification prescribing. There were no methadone related deaths in prison over the study period. CONCLUSION: The phased introduction of opiate replacement therapies into a busy remand prison did not result in any deaths within the prison for which opiate replacement was identified as the cause. GPsi led opiate prescribing programmes can be introduced safely into secure environments.

Assessing the predictability of self-harm in a high-risk adult prisoner population: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Prisoners are at increased risk of self-harm and when either intent is expressed, or an act of self-harm carried out, prisoners in the UK are subject to self-harm/suicide monitoring (referred to as "open ACCT" monitoring). However, there is a paucity of validated instruments to identify risk of self-harm in prisoner populations. In response to the need to support prison staff to determine who is at increased risk of self-harm or repeat self-harm, the aim of this study was to determine whether any pre-existing, standardised instruments could usefully identify future self-harm events in prisoners undergoing ACCT monitoring. METHODS: A multi-stage prospective cohort study was conducted, where the Prison Screening Questionnaire (PriSnQuest), a modified Borderline Symptom List-23 (BSL-23), Self-Harm Inventory (SHI), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) instruments were administered to prisoners aged 18 and above, who were judged to be at an increased risk of self-harm (on open ACCT monitoring) during the recruitment phase. A 6-month follow-up determined self-harm occurrence since baseline, and Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) analysis examined the ability of the instruments to predict future self-harm. RESULTS: Prison records established that 29.1% self-harmed during the follow up period, involving a total of 423 self-harm events reported from 126 individuals, followed up for 66,789 prisoner days (median 167 days; IQR 71-207.5 days). This translated to an 'event incidence' of 6.33 per 1000 prisoner days of those who had been placed upon an ACCT, or 'prisoner incidence' of 1.89 per 1000 days, with considerable variation for both gender and participating prisons. None of the summary scores derived from the selected instruments showed a meaningful ability to predict self-harm, however, exploratory logistic regression analysis of individual background and instrument items revealed gender-specific item sets which were statistically significant in predicting future self-harm. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective self-harm was not predicted by any of the pre-existing instruments that were under consideration. Exploratory logistic regression analysis did reveal gender-specific item sets, producing predictive algorithms which were statistically significant in predicting future self-harm; however, the operational functionality of these item sets may be limited.

Buprenorphine versus dihydrocodeine for opiate detoxification in primary care: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many drug users present to primary care requesting detoxification from illicit opiates. There are a number of detoxification agents but no recommended drug of choice. The purpose of this study is to compare buprenorphine with dihydrocodeine for detoxification from illicit opiates in primary care. METHODS: Open label randomised controlled trial in NHS Primary Care (General Practices), Leeds, UK. Sixty consenting adults using illicit opiates received either daily sublingual buprenorphine or daily oral dihydrocodeine. Reducing regimens for both interventions were at the discretion of prescribing doctor within a standard regimen of not more than 15 days. Primary outcome was abstinence from illicit opiates at final prescription as indicated by a urine sample. Secondary outcomes during detoxification period and at three and six months post detoxification were recorded. RESULTS: Only 23% completed the prescribed course of detoxification medication and gave a urine sample on collection of their final prescription. Risk of non-completion of detoxification was reduced if allocated buprenorphine (68% vs 88%, RR 0.58 CI 0.35-0.96, p = 0.065). A higher proportion of people allocated to buprenorphine provided a clean urine sample compared with those who received dihydrocodeine (21% vs 3%, RR 2.06 CI 1.33-3.21, p = 0.028). People allocated to buprenorphine had fewer visits to professional carers during detoxification and more were abstinent at three months (10 vs 4, RR 1.55 CI 0.96-2.52) and six months post detoxification (7 vs 3, RR 1.45 CI 0.84-2.49). CONCLUSION: Informative randomised trials evaluating routine care within the primary care setting are possible amongst drug using populations. This small study generates unique data on commonly used treatment regimens.

Is peer injecting a form of intimate partner abuse? A qualitative study of the experiences of women drug users.

Women are over-represented as the recipients of injections of illicit drugs and are often injected by their intimate partners. This study used qualitative research to explore women drug users' experiences of abuse from intimate partners when being injected with illicit drugs. In-depth interviews were conducted with 45 women drug users in the city of Leeds and the area of North Nottinghamshire, UK. The practice of peer injecting illicit drugs places women recipients at risk of physical, economic and emotional abuse from their male intimate partner injectors. However, this was not a universal feature. In trusting, supportive intimate partner relationships peer injecting took place through reciprocal arrangements. Moving away from peer injecting was technically and emotionally difficult for women and rarely straightforward. The implications of the work are discussed as clinicians and wider drug service staff should be aware of the possibility of abuse and enquire about peer injecting when consulting with women injecting drug users. However, clinicians should avoid working within a simplistic clinical framework that views all peer injecting as intrinsically abusive. More research is needed to provide evidence for best practice. Until then, generic principles of best practice management of intimate partner abuse could apply, including enhancing women's motivation to effect change in an abusive situation.

How can health services effectively meet the health needs of homeless people?

BACKGROUND: Homelessness affects many people in contemporary society with consequences for individuals and the wider community. Homeless people experience poorer levels of general physical and mental health than the general population and there is a substantial international evidence base which documents multiple morbidity. Despite this, they often have problems in obtaining suitable health care. AIM: To critically examine the international literature pertaining to the health care of homeless people and discuss the effectiveness of treatment interventions. DESIGN OF STUDY: Review and synthesis of current evidence. METHOD: Medline (1966-2003), EMBASE (1980-2003), PsycINFO (1985-2003), CINAHL (1982-2003), Web of Science (1981-2003) and the Cochrane Library (Evidence Based Health) databases were reviewed using key terms relating to homelessness, intervention studies, drug misuse, alcohol misuse and mental health. The review was not limited to publications in English. It included searching the internet using key terms, and grey literature was also accessed through discussion with experts. RESULTS: Internationally, there are differing models and services aimed at providing health care for homeless people. Effective interventions for drug dependence include adequate oral opiate maintenance therapy, hepatitis A, B and tetanus immunisation, safer injecting advice and access to needle exchange programmes. There is emerging evidence for the effectiveness of supervised injecting rooms for homeless injecting drug users and for the peer distribution of take home naloxone in reducing drug-related deaths. There is some evidence that assertive outreach programmes for those with mental ill health, supportive programmes to aid those with motivation to address alcohol dependence and informal programmes to promote sexual health can lead to lasting health gain. CONCLUSIONS: As multiple morbidity is common among homeless people, accessible and available primary health care is a pre-requisite for effective health interventions. This requires addressing barriers to provision and multi-agency working so that homeless people can access the full range of health and social care services. There are examples of best practice in the treatment and retention of homeless people in health and social care and such models can inform future provision.

A review of the evidence for the effectiveness of primary prevention interventions for hepatitis C among injecting drug users.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C (HCV) prevalence is most common amongst injecting drug users where up to 98% of the population can be infected despite a low prevalence of HIV. This review considers the evidence for the effectiveness of primary prevention interventions to reduce incidence or prevalence of hepatitis C. METHODS: Systematic review of the major electronic medical databases: Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library (Evidence Based Health). Either intervention or observational studies were included if they described an intervention targeting injecting drug using populations with the outcome to reduce either the prevalence or incidence of hepatitis C infection. RESULTS: 18 papers were included in the final review from 1007 abstracts. Needle exchange programmes reduce the prevalence of HCV though prevalence remains high. Similarly the effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment is only marginally effective at reducing HCV incidence. There is limited evidence evaluating either the effectiveness of behavioural interventions, bleach disinfectants, or drug consumption rooms. CONCLUSION: Primary prevention interventions have led to a reduction in HIV incidence, have been less effective at reducing HCV incidence. Global prevalence of HCV remains disturbingly high in injecting drug users. A robust response to the global health problem of HCV will require provision of new interventions. Behavioural interventions; distribution of bleach disinfectant; other injecting paraphernalia alongside sterile needle distribution; and evaluation of drug consumption rooms merit further expansion internationally and research activity to contribute to the emerging evidence base. Whilst the prevalence of HCV remains high, nevertheless many current interventions aimed at primary HCV prevention have been shown to be cost-effective due to their significant positive impact upon prevalence of HIV.

Associations between injecting illicit drugs into the femoral vein and deep vein thrombosis: A case control study.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Injecting drug use is a risk factor for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and people who inject drugs commonly report injecting into the femoral vein. However, it is unclear whether the act of inserting a needle into the femoral vein or the pharmacodynamic properties of the injected drug increases DVT risk. We aimed to quantify the strength of association between injecting illicit drugs into the femoral vein and the odds of acquiring ileo-femoral DVT. DESIGN AND METHODS: We used case control methodology. The study took place in Leeds, UK. A total of 313 people who inject drugs (112 'cases' with a diagnosis of DVT from hospital accident and emergency departments and 201 'controls' with no DVT from needle exchanges) completed a questionnaire about their drug use and administration routes. RESULTS: The act of injecting into the femoral vein was strongly associated with DVT (χ(2) (1) = 53.453, P < 0.001), a finding that remained significant after adjusting for the type of illicit drug injected, age, gender, smoking status and history of clotting disorder. Independent of the act of femoral vein injecting, after adjusting for the effects of potential confounders, crack cocaine use was significantly associated with DVT, whereas amphetamine and heroin use were negatively independently associated with DVT. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of injecting into the femoral vein in the groin and the practice of injecting crack cocaine are associated with the odds of acquiring ileo-femoral DVT. [Wright NMJ, Allgar V, Tompkins CNE. Associations between injecting illicit drugs into the femoral vein and deep vein thrombosis: A case control study. Drug Alcohol Rev 2016;35:605-610].

Exploring risk perception and behaviour of homeless injecting drug users diagnosed with hepatitis C.

Injecting drug users (IDUs) are at the greatest risk of hepatitis C infection by using any item of injecting equipment that has come into contact with contaminated blood. Alongside this, homeless IDUs have been identified as being at increased risk of harm in their illicit drug taking behaviour. This study interviewed 17 hepatitis C positive homeless IDUs about their injecting practices. In-depth interviews explored the impact of a positive hepatitis C diagnosis on their injecting and identified their risk behaviours and perceptions. The interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the framework approach. Homeless IDUs engaged in both high risk and unhygienic injecting practices, such as using drugs outside and in public places, sharing injecting equipment and re-using cleaned needles. Excessive needle reuse whilst in prison was also identified. However, the findings were not universally bleak as a positive diagnosis of hepatitis C did lead to some behaviour change towards safer injecting and some adopted other lifestyle and behaviour changes. It was, however, common for homeless people to devolve responsibility for preventing hepatitis C transmission to their peers, especially when injecting with others. Knowledge regarding possible transmission through injecting paraphernalia appeared to make users more careful to reduce it through these routes. Placing a continuous emphasis on health promotion is therefore important in educating IDUs about the hepatitis C transmission risks associated with injecting drug use. Information regarding safer and hygienic use, including accurate information regarding the most effective methods to clean used equipment, must be re-enforced by people working with homeless injecting drug users.

Injecting drug use in prison: prevalence and implications for needle exchange policy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to explore prison drug injecting prevalence, identify any changes in injecting prevalence and practice during imprisonment and explore views on prison needle exchange. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: An empirical prospective cohort survey conducted between 2006 and 2008. The study involved a random sample of 267 remand and sentenced prisoners from a large male category B prison in England where no prison needle exchange operates. Questionnaires were administered with prisoners on reception and, where possible, at one, three and six months during their sentence. FINDINGS: In total, 64 per cent were injecting until admission into prison. The majority intended to stop injecting in prison (93 per cent), almost a quarter due to the lack of needle exchange (23 per cent). Yet when hypothetically asked if they would continue injecting in prison if needle exchange was freely available, a third of participants (33 per cent) believed that they would. Injecting cessation happened on prison entry and appeared to be maintained during the sentence. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Not providing sterile needles may increase risks associated with injecting for prisoners who continue to inject. However, providing such equipment may prolong injecting for other prisoners who currently cease injecting on account of needle exchange programmes (NEPs) not being provided in the UK prison setting. Practical implications - Not providing sterile needles may increase risks associated with injecting for prisoners who continue to inject. However, providing such equipment may prolong injecting for other prisoners who currently cease injecting on account of NEPs not being provided in the UK prison setting. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This survey is the first to question specifically regarding the timing of injecting cessation amongst male prisoners and explore alongside intention to inject should needle exchange facilities be provided in prison.

Impact of the CSM advice on thioridazine on general practitioner prescribing behaviour in Leeds: time series analysis.

In December 2000, the Committee for Safety of Medicines (CSM) advised that thioridazine may prolong QT intervals risking arrhythmias. We investigated the impact on general practitioner prescribing of thioridazine using a time series analysis. Numbers of items and costs of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines prescribed in Leeds from May 1999 until April 2002 were collated. Post-advice, thioridazine prescriptions dropped by 810 items per month (95% confidence interval = 420 to 1200, P < 0.001) but others increased slightly in response. Costs mimicked these changes. Fresh criteria are proposed for appraising the quality of evidence needed to inform future urgent facsimile transmissions.

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) project: an open-label pragmatic randomised control trial comparing the efficacy of differing therapeutic agents for primary care detoxification from either street heroin or methadone [ISRCTN07752728].

BACKGROUND: Heroin is a synthetic opioid with an extensive illicit market leading to large numbers of people becoming addicted. Heroin users often present to community treatment services requesting detoxification and in the UK various agents are used to control symptoms of withdrawal. Dissatisfaction with methadone detoxification 8 has lead to the use of clonidine, lofexidine, buprenorphine and dihydrocodeine; however, there remains limited evaluative research. In Leeds, a city of 700,000 people in the North of England, dihydrocodeine is the detoxification agent of choice. Sublingual buprenorphine, however, is being introduced. The comparative value of these two drugs for helping people successfully and comfortably withdraw from heroin has never been compared in a randomised trial. Additionally, there is a paucity of research evaluating interventions among drug users in the primary care setting. This study seeks to address this by randomising drug users presenting in primary care to receive either dihydrocodeine or buprenorphine. METHODS/DESIGN: The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) project is a pragmatic randomised trial which will compare the open use of buprenorphine with dihydrocodeine for illicit opiate detoxification, in the UK primary care setting. The LEEDS project will involve consenting adults and will be run in specialist general practice surgeries throughout Leeds. The primary outcome will be the results of a urine opiate screening at the end of the detoxification regimen. Adverse effects and limited data to three and six months will be acquired.

Associations between migrancy, health and homelessness: a cross-sectional study.

There is limited awareness of the link between differing health problems and migrancy of homeless people. The present cross-sectional study sought to quantify the extent of migrancy of homeless people from their place of birth (PLOB) and evaluate whether a history of problematic drug use, alcohol misuse or enduring mental health problems were associated with migrancy from their PLOB. The work was conducted at an inner-city health centre for the homeless in the north of England. Place of birth was created as an entry on the computerised registration records. The PLOB was collected and recorded for each homeless person registering with the service over the study period. Information was also extracted regarding diagnoses of problematic illicit drug use, problematic alcohol use and enduring mental health problems for each homeless person. The study identified statistically significant differences for the migration of homeless people from their PLOB for age, problematic drug use and problematic alcohol use. Problematic alcohol use is independently associated with an increased likelihood of migration from the PLOB. Conversely, a history of illicit drug use is associated with a reduced possibility of migration from the PLOB when accessing primary healthcare services. There was no significant difference for migration from the PLOB for mental health. Not all homeless people migrate from their PLOB and health problems of drug use, mental health or alcohol use are independently associated with different patterns of migration. Understanding the migrancy of homeless people is important when planning and targeting appropriate health and social services to address their varying health, social and psychological needs.

Comparative prices of diverted buprenorphine/naloxone and buprenorphine in a UK prison setting: a cross-sectional survey of drug using prisoners.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence regarding the abuse potential of buprenorphine in prison settings. There is also emerging evidence from community settings that buprenorphine/naloxone is less amenable to abuse than the single preparation buprenorphine hydrochloride as evidenced by cost-differentials of diverted medication. This study sought to explore cost-differentials within a prison setting of diverted buprenorphine/naloxone medication relative to either single preparation buprenorphine hydrochloride or methadone. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey in one remand prison. RESULTS: A total of 85 prisoners participated in the survey. Prisoners estimated buprenorphine to have a significantly (p<0.001) higher cost than buprenorphine/naloxone both inside and outside of prison. This finding was supported when the analysis was restricted to both the prisoners with a longer-term experience of taking opioid substitution drugs during their current prison stay and those with a longer-term experience prior to reception. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration should be given to the recommendation that buprenorphine/naloxone medication is the prescribed buprenorphine preparation of choice for clinicians offering opiate substitution therapy to prisoners, pending developments of buprenorphine preparations that have less abuse potential than sublingual preparations.

Comparison of methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification (LEEDS trial): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many opiate users require prescribed medication to help them achieve abstinence, commonly taking the form of a detoxification regime. In UK prisons, drug users are nearly universally treated for their opiate use by primary care clinicians, and once released access GP services where 40% of practices now treat drug users. There is a paucity of evidence evaluating methadone and buprenorphine (the two most commonly prescribed agents in the UK) for opiate detoxification. AIM: To evaluate whether buprenorphine or methadone help to achieve drug abstinence at completion of a reducing regimen for heroin users presenting to UK prison health care for detoxification. DESIGN: Open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in three prison primary healthcare departments in the north of England. METHOD: Prisoners (n = 306) using illicit opiates were recruited and given daily sublingual buprenorphine or oral methadone, in the context of routine care, over a standard reduced regimen of not more than 20 days. The primary outcome measure was abstinence from illicit opiates at 8 days post detoxification, as indicated by urine test (self-report/clinical notes where urine sample was not feasible). Secondary outcomes were also recorded. RESULTS: Abstinence was ascertained for 73.7% at 8 days post detoxification (urine sample = 52.6%, self report = 15.2%, clinical notes = 5.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in the odds of achieving abstinence between methadone and buprenorphine (odds ratio [OR] = 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81 to 3.51; P = 0.163). Abstinence was associated solely with whether or not the participant was still in prison at that time (15.22 times the odds; 95% CI = 4.19 to 55.28). The strongest association for lasting abstinence was abstinence at an earlier time point. CONCLUSION: There is equal clinical effectiveness between methadone and buprenorphine in achieving abstinence from opiates at 8 days post detoxification within prison.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07752728.

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) Prisons Project Study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom (UK), there is an extensive market for the class 'A' drug heroin and many heroin users spend time in prison. People addicted to heroin often require prescribed medication when attempting to cease their drug use. The most commonly used detoxification agents in UK prisons are currently buprenorphine and methadone, both are recommended by national clinical guidelines. However, these agents have never been compared for opiate detoxification in the prison estate and there is a general paucity of research evaluating the most effective treatment for opiate detoxification in prisons. This study seeks to address this paucity by evaluating the most routinely used interventions amongst drug users within UK prisons. METHODS/DESIGN: This study uses randomised controlled trial methodology to compare the open use of buprenorphine and methadone for opiate detoxification, given in the context of routine care, within three UK prisons. Prisoners who are eligible and give informed consent will be entered into the trial. The primary outcome will be abstinence status eight days after detoxification, as determined by a urine test. Secondary outcomes will be recorded during the detoxification and then at one, three and six months post-detoxification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58823759.