Overdose Detection Among High-Risk Opioid Users Via a Wearable Chest Sensor in a Supervised Injecting Facility: Protocol for an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdose is a global health crisis, affecting over 27 million individuals worldwide, with more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in 2022-2023. This protocol outlines the development of the PneumoWave chest biosensor, a wearable device being designed to detect respiratory depression in real time through chest motion measurement, intending to enhance early intervention and thereby reduce fatalities. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to (1) differentiate opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) from nonfatal opioid use patterns to develop and refine an overdose detection algorithm and (2) examine participants' acceptability of the chest biosensor. METHODS: The study adopts an observational design over a 6-month period. The biosensor, a small device, will be worn by consenting participants during injecting events to capture chest motion data. Safe injecting facilities (SIF) in Melbourne, Victoria (site 1), and Sydney, New South Wales (site 2), which are legally sanctioned spaces where individuals can use preobtained illicit drugs under medical supervision. Each site is anticipated to recruit up to 100 participants who inject opioids and attend the SIF. Participants will wear the biosensor during supervised injecting events at both sites. The biosensor will attempt to capture data on an anticipated 40 adverse drug events. The biosensor's ability to detect OIRD will be compared to the staff-identified events that use standard protocols for managing overdoses. Measurements will include (1) chest wall movement measured by the biosensor, securely streamed to a cloud, and analyzed to refine an overdose detection algorithm and (2) acute events or potential overdose identified by site staff. Acceptability will be measured by a feedback questionnaire as many times as the participant is willing to throughout the study. RESULTS: As of April 2024, a total of 47 participants have been enrolled and data from 1145 injecting events have already been collected, including 10 overdose events. This consists of 17 females and 30 males with an average age of 45 years. Data analysis is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol establishes a foundation for advancing wearable technology in opioid overdose prevention within SIFs. The study will provide chest wall movement data and associated overdose data that will be used to train an algorithm that allows the biosensor to detect an overdose. The study will contribute crucial insights into OIRD, emphasizing the biosensor's potential step forward in real-time intervention strategies. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/57367.

Changes in Australians' attitudes towards supervised injecting facilities.

INTRODUCTION: Supervised injecting facilities (SIF) have been shown to reduce negative outcomes experienced by people who inject drugs. They are often subject to intense public and media scrutiny. This article aimed to explore population attitudes to SIFs and how these changed over time in Australia. METHODS: Data were drawn from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, a national sample collecting data on illicit drug use and attitudes towards drug policy among Australians (2001-2019). Ordinal logistic regression assessed sociodemographic characteristics associated with different attitudes to SIFs and binary logistic regression assessed trends over time and by jurisdiction. RESULTS: In 2019, 54% of respondents (95% CI 52.9, 55.1) supported SIFs, 27.5% (95% CI 26.6, 28.4) opposed and 18.4% (95% CI 17.7, 19.2) were ambivalent. Support for SIFs correlated with having a university degree (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.58, 1.94), non-heterosexual identity (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.51, 2.17) and recent illicit drug use (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.55, 1.94). Male respondents or those living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas had lower odds of supporting SIFs (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85, 1.00; OR 0.64-0.80, respectively). Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased modestly by 3.3%, those who 'don't know' by 7.4%, whereas opposition decreased by 11.7%. Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased in NSW and Queensland, whereas opposition decreased in all jurisdictions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Opposition to SIFs declined over the past 20 years, but a substantial proportion of respondents are ambivalent or 'don't know enough to say'. Plain language information about SIFs and their potential benefits, targeted to those who are ambivalent/'don't know' may further increase public support.

Implementation of time-limited parenteral hydromorphone in people with treatment-resistant injecting opioid use disorder: a protocol for a single-site, uncontrolled, open-label study to assess feasibility, safety and cost.

INTRODUCTION: Supervised injectable opioid treatment (SIOT) is an evidence-based intervention targeting opioid-dependent people for whom existing treatments have been ineffective. This project will primarily assess the feasibility and the acceptability of time-limited SIOT using injectable hydromorphone delivered in an existing Australian public opioid treatment programme, with secondary outcomes of safety, cost, changes in drug use and other health outcomes. If feasible, the goal is to scale up the intervention to be more widely available in Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Between 20 and 30 participants will be offered two times per day hydromorphone to inject under direct observation, in addition to their current opioid agonist treatment (OAT), for up to 2 years. At the end of 2 years of supervised hydromorphone treatment, participants will be continued on standard OAT only. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants included in the study. This is a single-site, uncontrolled, open-label study where quantitative and qualitative interview data will be collected at baseline, 12 months and lastly at 3 months following their final hydromorphone dose. The main outcome measures are feasibility, as assessed by recruitment, retention and participation in treatment, and acceptability to participants, clinic staff and other stakeholders assessed by qualitative interviews. Secondary outcome measures of safety, as assessed by adverse events, and cost will also be assessed, as well as a range of other drug and health outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the St Vincent's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH00418). This will be the first study of time-limited SIOT in the Australian setting. All results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences and local practice meetings. A preliminary report on outcomes will also be presented to local health policy makers. A consumer and community forum will also be held to feedback results to a broader audience. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001729819.

The role of on-site drug analysis within supervised injecting facilities: A case presentation of an adverse event highlighting need.

INTRODUCTION: The Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre provides a safe, non-judgemental space where people can inject pre-obtained substances under the supervision of trained staff. This article describes an unusual incident occurring at the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre in January 2023. CASE PRESENTATION: Two regular male clients attending the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre injected a substance they believed to be cocaine. Both clients experienced adverse reactions; one was transported to hospital, while the other became extremely distressed and agitated. Paraphernalia sent for testing returned a result of tiletamine (a dissociative used in veterinary medicine) and no cocaine, 30 h after the incident. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Where substances are novel or unknown, adverse events are often unexpected and may be more difficult to prepare for. Substance-induced acute agitation can be alarming and hazardous for people consuming drugs and those around them and may pose challenges for staff. There is a substantial evidence base for the benefits of on-site drug analysis and drug checking in reducing harms related to drug use, and in enhancing drug market monitoring. This incident was successfully managed by Medically Supervised Injecting Centre and hospital staff, with no major consequence, however clinical management could have been improved using point of care drug testing.

Improving assessment and management of suicide risk among people who inject drugs: A mixed methods study conducted at the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, Sydney.

INTRODUCTION: People who inject drugs are 13 times more likely to die by suicide than the general population. Guidelines for responding to risk in this population are limited. Harm reduction services attended by people who inject drugs require targeted strategies to address the complexities of suicide risk among this population. METHODS: Co-design, engaging health professionals and people with lived experience informed the study. Mixed methods were used to understand the experience of managing suicide risk among clients attending the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) in Sydney. A survey was administered to assess staff confidence in managing risk. Focus groups were conducted with health professionals and MSIC clients to explore experiences of suicide management, response and opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: Half (N = 17) the MSIC staff surveyed reported over 10 years' experience working with this population. Confidence in managing suicide risk was low. Three key themes emerged from focus groups (N = 17): (i) Autonomy and the need to involve clients in the assessment process; (ii) Trust between clients and health professionals, and transparency in decision-making; and (iii) System barriers, described by health professionals as inadequate referral pathways for clients in distress, and by clients as negative experiences of care, including involuntary admission and not receiving medication (e.g. methadone). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Revised assessment guidelines and a tailored safety plan were developed. These resources are also suitable for other alcohol and other drug services. The challenge in managing suicide risk in harm reduction services is balancing duty of care with staff-client relationships and client engagement.

Outrage and algorithms: Shifting drug-related stigma in a digital world.

Illicit drug dependence is one of the most stigmatised health conditions worldwide and the harmful impacts of stigma for people who use drugs are well documented. The use of stigmatising language about drugs in traditional media is also well documented. The increasing use of digital media platforms has revolutionised the way we communicate, and extended the reach of our messages. However, there are issues specific to the ways in which these platforms operate that have the potential to increase drug-related stigma. This paper outlines the importance of language, narrative, and imagery in reducing this stigma. It discusses the challenges digital media platforms present to achieving this goal, including the use of engagement strategies that trigger fear and increase stigma, the potential for amplifying stigmatising messages by using algorithms, and the potential for dissemination of misinformation. Key strategies to frame conversations about drug use are presented including 1) appeal to values of fairness and equity rather than scaring people; 2) avoid correcting misinformation as it strengthens unhelpful stigmatising frames of drug use; and 3) create a new narrative, focusing on the diversity of experiences of people who use drugs. Internationally we are at a critical juncture with respect to drug policy reform, and efforts to reduce drug-related stigma are central to building support for these reforms. The extensive reach of digital media platforms represents an important opportunity to communicate about illicit drug use. The challenge is to do so in a way that minimises stigma. If we are to achieve change, a narrative that puts values, people, health care and equity at the centre of the conversation is critical.

Monitoring for fentanyl within Australian supervised injecting facilities: Findings from feasibility testing of novel methods and collaborative workshops.

BACKGROUND: Australia is yet to see widespread fentanyl-contaminated heroin, despite the established presence of fentanyl in other countries. International mortality trends alongside a local cluster of fentanyl-related deaths prompted interest in developing methods to monitor for fentanyl and other potentially harmful novel psychoactive substances (NPS) in Australia. METHODS: We tested novel methods to monitor for fentanyl and other NPS. From 2017-2021, clients from supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia, contributed urine screens (UDS) with BTNX Rapid Response™ fentanyl test strips (FTS) paired with surveys, and injecting equipment associated with opioid overdoses for laboratory analysis. A single site piloted drug checking using FTS with laboratory confirmation. Two workshops were conducted with SIF staff, content experts and people with lived experience to determine how results can inform practices within SIFs. RESULTS: Of the 911 UDS with FTS conducted, less than 1% (n=8) yielded positive results that were not explained by self-reported pharmaceutical fentanyl use, with two laboratory confirmed fentanyl positive results. Injecting equipment from 59 overdoses was tested and neither fentanyl nor other NPS were identified. Drug checking with FTS (n=34) indicated the presence of fentanyl on three tests. Two specimens were subsequently sent for laboratory testing and classified as false positives as the presence of fentanyl was not confirmed. Workshop participants (n=21) felt routine monitoring with FTS currently had limited value. A process for using pre-defined signals to trigger surveillance was developed. CONCLUSION: The high false positive rates with FTS, relative to the small number of positive results and potential for them to undermine confidence in FTS emphasised the need for confirmatory testing. The role of routine surveillance was unclear within the current low-fentanyl context, however, a process was developed to upscale testing should signals of increased fentanyl prevalence in the Australian heroin market emerge.

Infrequent detection of unintentional fentanyl use via urinalysis among people who regularly inject opioids in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The current phase of the North American 'opioid crisis' is characterised by illicit fentanyl use; however, the presence of illicit fentanyl in Australia is unknown. This study aimed to monitor unintentional fentanyl consumption in Australia. DESIGN: Rapid urine drug screens (UDS) paired with surveys conducted within supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) and confirmatory laboratory testing. SETTING: Sydney and Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Clients who used heroin within the past 2 days (n = 911 tests, 2017-2021). Participants were demographically similar to the overall client base (median age 43, 72% male). MEASUREMENTS: UDS were conducted using BTNX Rapid Response fentanyl urine strip tests with cross-reactivity to numerous fentanyl analogues. Positive urine samples were analysed using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. Surveys covered past 3 day drug use and lifetime report of fentanyl in heroin. FINDINGS: Two percent of participants reported intentional use of fentanyl, mostly through fentanyl patches. Of the 911 rapid UDS conducted, 17 (1.9%) yielded positive results. Eight of these (all from Melbourne) were not explained by survey-reported fentanyl use in the past 3 days. Of these 8 unexplained positives, confirmatory laboratory analysis was conducted on 6, with 4 deemed to be false positives, and 2 confirmed for the presence of fentanyl. This represents the first confirmation of unintended use of fentanyl type substances in this population. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence of unintentional fentanyl use among people in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia who regularly inject heroin, suggesting that, currently, there is very little illicit fentanyl in Australian drug markets accessed by supervised injecting facilities attendees. This study demonstrates the feasibility of quick onsite testing to cost-effectively screen large samples for fentanyl; however, the high false positive rate emphasises the need for confirmation of positive tests through advanced analytical techniques.

Adapting harm reduction services during COVID-19: lessons from the supervised injecting facilities in Australia.

The COVID-19 crisis has had profound impacts on health service provision, particularly those providing client facing services. Supervised injecting facilities and drug consumption rooms across the world have been particularly challenged during the pandemic, as have their client group-people who consume drugs. Several services across Europe and North America closed due to difficulties complying with physical distancing requirements. In contrast, the two supervised injecting facilities in Australia (the Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Centre-MSIC-in Sydney and the North Richmond Community Health Medically Supervised Injecting Room-MSIR-in Melbourne) remained open (as at the time of writing-December 2020). Both services have implemented a comprehensive range of strategies to continue providing safer injecting spaces as well as communicating crucial health information and facilitating access to ancillary services (such as accommodation) and drug treatment for their clients. This paper documents these strategies and the challenges both services are facing during the pandemic. Remaining open poses potential risks relating to COVID-19 transmission for both staff and clients. However, given the harms associated with closing these services, which include the potential loss of life from injecting in unsafe/unsupervised environments, the public and individual health benefits of remaining open are greater. Both services are deemed 'essential health services', and their continued operation has important benefits for people who inject drugs in Sydney and Melbourne.

Substances injected at the Sydney supervised injecting facility: A chemical analysis of used injecting equipment and comparison with self-reported drug type.

Providing information about substances injected can reduce the negative impact of illicit drug consumption and support people who inject drugs to make informed decisions. In Australia, information about drugs injected relies largely on periodic self-report surveys. For the first time, the analysis of the residual content of used injecting equipment was conducted in a supervised injecting facility (SIF) located in Sydney, Australia. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the substances injected by clients through: (1) chemical analyses of the content of used syringes; (2) comparison of these results with clients' self-reported drug use; and (3) assessing the usefulness of analysing other injecting equipment to detect substances used. During one week in February 2019, syringes and other injecting equipment were collected at the Sydney SIF. Their residual content was analysed by gas-chromatography/mass-spectrometry. Heroin was the most commonly detected substance (present in 51% of syringes), followed by methamphetamine (22%) and oxycodone (10%). In addition to the main psychoactive substance, cutting agents reported in the literature were also detected in used syringes. The main psychoactive substance identified by laboratory analysis reliably corresponded with users' self-reported drug type. Analytical confirmation of substances injected allows for the provision of better targeted harm reduction messaging based on timely and objective data. The approach used is amenable to clients and feasible in the Australian SIF context. Upscaling and wider implementation could be done through Needle and Syringe Programs, and would support the early detection of harmful substances entering drug markets and better inform harm reduction strategies.

Designing, implementing and evaluating the overdose response with take-home naloxone model of care: An evaluation of client outcomes and perspectives.

INTRODUCTION AND DESIGNS: Take-home naloxone (THN) interventions are an effective response to preventing overdose deaths, however uptake across Australia remains limited. This project designed, implemented and evaluated a model of care targeting opioid users attending alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment, needle and syringe programs (NSP) and related health services targeting people who inject drugs. DESIGN AND METHODS: Service providers, consumers and regulators collaboratively designed a THN brief intervention (ORTHN, Overdose Response with Take-Home Naloxone) involving client education and supply of naloxone in pre-filled syringes, delivered by nursing, allied health and NSP workers. ORTHN interventions were implemented in over 15 services across New South Wales, Australia. The evaluation included client knowledge, attitudes, substance use and overdose experiences immediately before and 3 months after ORTHN intervention in a subsample of participants. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixteen interventions were delivered, with 145 participants recruited to the research subsample, of whom 95 completed the three-month follow up. Overdose-related attitudes amongst participants improved following ORTHN, with no evidence of increased substance use or failure to implement other 'first responses' (e.g. calling an ambulance). Nine participants (10%) reversed an overdose using THN in the follow-up period. Participants identified a willingness to access THN from a range of services. While a minority (16%) indicated they were unwilling to pay for THN, the median price that participants were willing to pay was $AUD20 (IQR $10.40). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The ORTHN model of care for THN appears an effective way to disseminate THN to people who use opioids attending AOD, NSP and related health-care settings.

Effect of Intranasal vs Intramuscular Naloxone on Opioid Overdose: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Previous unblinded clinical trials suggested that the intranasal route of naloxone hydrochloride was inferior to the widely used intramuscular route for the reversal of opioid overdose. Objective: To test whether a dose of naloxone administered intranasally is as effective as the same dose of intramuscularly administered naloxone in reversing opioid overdose. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind, double-dummy randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Centre in Sydney, Australia. Clients of the center were recruited to participate from February 1, 2012, to January 3, 2017. Eligible clients were aged 18 years or older with a history of injecting drug use (n = 197). Intention-to-treat analysis was performed for all participants who received both intranasal and intramuscular modes of treatment (active or placebo). Interventions: Clients were randomized to receive 1 of 2 treatments: (1) intranasal administration of naloxone hydrochloride 800 µg per 1 mL and intramuscular administration of placebo 1 mL or (2) intramuscular administration of naloxone hydrochloride 800 µg per 1 mL and intranasal administration of placebo 1 mL. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the need for a rescue dose of intramuscular naloxone hydrochloride (800 µg) 10 minutes after the initial treatment. Secondary outcome measures included time to adequate respiratory rate greater than or equal to 10 breaths per minute and time to Glasgow Coma Scale score greater than or equal to 13. Results: A total of 197 clients (173 [87.8%] male; mean [SD] age, 34.0 [7.82] years) completed the trial, of whom 93 (47.2%) were randomized to intramuscular naloxone dose and 104 (52.8%) to intranasal naloxone dose. Clients randomized to intramuscular naloxone administration were less likely to require a rescue dose of naloxone compared with clients randomized to intranasal naloxone administration (8 [8.6%] vs 24 [23.1%]; odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P = .002). A 65% increase in hazard (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.25; P = .002) for time to respiratory rate of at least 10 and an 81% increase in hazard (hazard ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.28-2.56; P = .001) for time to Glasgow Coma Scale score of at least 13 were observed for the group receiving intranasal naloxone compared with the group receiving intramuscular naloxone. No major adverse events were reported for either group. Conclusions and Relevance: This trial showed that intranasally administered naloxone in a supervised injecting facility can reverse opioid overdose but not as efficiently as intramuscularly administered naloxone can, findings that largely replicate those of previous unblinded clinical trials. These results suggest that determining the optimal dose and concentration of intranasal naloxone to respond to opioid overdose in real-world conditions is an international priority. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12611000852954.

Integrating Smoking Cessation Care into a Medically Supervised Injecting Facility Using an Organizational Change Intervention: A Qualitative Study of Staff and Client Views.

Background: Clients accessing supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) smoke at high rates. An SIF piloted an organizational change intervention to integrate smoking cessation care as routine treatment. This study aims to explore staff acceptability, perceived facilitators, and perceived barriers to implementing six core components of an organizational change intervention to integrate smoking cessation care in an SIF. Staff and client views on the acceptability, facilitators, and barriers to the provision of smoking cessation care were also examined. Methods: This paper presents findings from the qualitative component conducted post-intervention implementation. Face-to-face semi-structured staff interviews (n = 14) and two client focus groups (n = 5 and n = 4) were conducted between September and October 2016. Recruitment continued until data saturation was reached. Thematic analysis was employed to synthesise and combine respondent views and identify key themes. Results: Staff viewed the organizational change intervention as acceptable. Commitment from leadership, a designated champion, access to resources, and the congruence between the change and the facility's ethos were important facilitators of organizational change. Less engaged staff was the sole barrier to the intervention. Smoking cessation care was deemed suitable. Key facilitators of smoking cessation care included: Written protocols, ongoing training, and visually engaging information. Key barriers of smoking cessation care included: Lack of access to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) outside of business hours, practical limitations of the database, and concerns about sustainability of NRT. Conclusion: This study develops our understanding of factors influencing the implementation of an organisational change intervention to promote sustainable provision of smoking cessation care in the SIF setting.

Perceptions of people who inject drugs towards HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in Australia.

Background People who inject drugs (PWID) are a priority for HIV prevention. This study aimed to determine perceptions, potential eligibility and willingness to use PrEP among PWID in Sydney. METHODS: Clients completed a cross-sectional survey to collect data on demographics, perceived risk of HIV and willingness to use PrEP, which were then analysed. RESULTS: Twelve (7%) of 172 HIV-negative participants were eligible for PrEP under current guidelines for injecting reasons, of whom three would also be eligible for sexual risk, leaving nine (5%) eligible for injecting reasons alone. Half had heard of PrEP and, of these, 65% would consider taking it. Most (88%) thought they would continue using needle syringe program services. A minority (8%) indicated they may be likely to share needles and syringes or be less concerned about injecting partners' HIV status (26%). CONCLUSIONS: Although PrEP will benefit a small proportion of PWID, this may equate to a significant number nationally. Policy development around PrEP incorporating affected populations will best support the community of people currently injecting to keep rates of HIV low.

"Beyond Safer Injecting"-Health and Social Needs and Acceptance of Support among Clients of a Supervised Injecting Facility.

Health and social issues in aging populations of people who inject drugs (PWID) tend to aggregate, despite risky injecting practices decreasing with age. Identifying needs and avenues of support is becoming increasingly important. We described the health and social situation among clients of a long-running supervised injecting facility (SIF) in Sydney, Australia. An interviewer-administered survey (n = 182) assessed current housing status, employment, physical and mental health, incarceration history, drug use, engagement in drug treatment, health service utilization, and willingness to accept support. Results were compared to the information provided at initial visit. Up to half of the participants transitioned between lower- and higher-risk health and social indicators over time. Willingness to accept support was greatest amongst those with higher self-perceived need. Support for mental health was a low priority, despite the high self-reporting of mental health issues. SIF clients are open to support for health and social issues, despite ongoing active drug use. Lower-threshold services such as SIFs are well-positioned to recognize and respond to deteriorating health and social issues for PWID. Facilitating care and treatment remains a challenge when the services to which people are being referred are higher-threshold with a more rigid approach.

Learning from the past, looking to the future - Is there a place for injectable opioid treatment among Australia's responses to opioid misuse?

In the 1990s, a trial of prescribing pharmaceutical heroin for people with opioid-dependence had support from Australian State Health Ministers. However, in 1997 the proposal was vetoed by the federal Prime Minister in face of a negative tabloid media campaign. The debate then shifted to abstinence-orientated treatments. Later on, reduced heroin availability took opioid-related harms away from public sight. In this commentary, we aimed to explore the current need and the options to implement such program, lately referred to as supervised injectable opioid treatment (SIOT), in Australia. We argue that with the aging populations of opioid-dependent people who have not benefited from existing treatment options, increased misuse of prescription opioids, rising overdose rates, and the risk of unfolding overdose crisis, it seems timely to pilot SIOT here. Since the 1990s, seven RCTs as summarised in two systematic literature reviews, demonstrated that SIOT is effective for treatment-resistant opioid dependence. A sustainable SIOT model should, however, respond to key concerns related to its delivery, such as the lack of a patient exit strategy and the high cost of indefinite treatment. Evidence from long-term studies seem to support the notion that SIOT could be provided as a medium duration treatment (as opposed to short-term or indefinite), with the clear aim to stabilise patients, gradually wean them off injectable medication and transfer to opioid assisted treatment (OAT). Also, SIOT could be integrated into the existing public OAT clinics in Australia. This would reduce costs, but also provide a more patient-centred response to opioid dependence and further improve the acceptability and efficiency of OAT. The controversy that developed in the past should be mitigated by advances in research since the first Australian enquiry, use of a registered medication (open-label hydromorphone) rather than pharmaceutical heroin, and setting up clear treatment aims.