Depressive symptoms are frequent among drug users, but not associated with hepatitis C infection.

AIM: To compare the prevalence and severity of depressive symptoms among drug users with and without hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study carried out at the 2 major drug treatment centres on the island of Funen, Denmark. Participants were drug users presenting to the 2 treatment centres. Individuals with chronic hepatitis B virus or HIV infection were excluded. Participants completed the Major Depression Inventory (MDI) questionnaire when presenting at the centres. Patients with MDI scores indicating severe depression (total MDI score ≥ 35) were referred for treatment evaluation. Hepatitis C status was classified by the presence of anti-HCV as a marker of HCV exposure and HCV-RNA as a marker of ongoing infection. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-eight patients were included, of whom 235 (88%) had complete serological testing; 100 (43%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 36-49%) had chronic hepatitis C. The median MDI score was 22 (interquartile range 12-33); 32% (95% CI 26-39%) had a score compatible with depression and 14% (95% CI 10-19%) were rated as severe depression. Depression was not associated with hepatitis C (HCV-infected 29%, non-infected 35%; p = 0.25). Forty-one percent (11/27) of the evaluated participants started antidepressant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a high prevalence of depressive symptoms among drug users, but this was not more frequent among HCV-infected patients. The high overall prevalence of depression underlines the relevance of screening for depression in patients who are drug users.

Standards for opioid use disorder care: An assessment of Nordic approaches.

AIMS: Outcomes in opioid use disorder (OUD) in Nordic countries have improved with integrated treatment and harm-reduction programmes. Approaches and the standard of care are different across the region. Evidence of treatment needs and current approaches are defined from evidence to inform development of a common standard. METHOD: Evidence of population sizes and treatment approach collected. Common standards for care (harm reduction, pharmacotherapy, psychology/social therapy) defined for each country. RESULTS: Evidence defines number in treatment; potential population needing treatment not defined for all countries. Populations sizes, treatment access (ratio in treatment programme compared to total country population) defined: Sweden 4,000 in OUD care (access ratio 40); Finland 3,000 (55); Norway 8,000 (154); Denmark 7,500 (132). Approach to treatment similar: integrated treatment programmes standard. Care provided by specialists in outpatient clinics/primary care; secondary care/inpatient services are available. Harm reduction is limited in Sweden but available and more accessible elsewhere. Treatment entry criteria: access relatively unlimited in Norway and Denmark, more limited in Finland and Sweden. Standards of care defined: easy access to high-quality services, individual planning, care not limited by time, management of relapse, education for patients, continuous engagement, holistic approach including management of comorbidities, needle equipment programmes without limit, treatment in prisons as community. CONCLUSION: There are opportunities to improve OUD care in the Nordics. Policy makers and clinicians can advance OUD care and share common success factors. Collaborative work across the Nordic countries is valuable. Further research in clinical practice development can yield important results for the benefit of patients with OUD.

Principles for managing OUD related to chronic pain in the Nordic countries based on a structured assessment of current practice.

BACKGROUND: Long-term use of opioid analgesics (OA) for chronic pain may result in opioid use disorder (OUD). This is associated with adverse outcomes for individuals, families and society. Treatment needs of people with OUD related to chronic pain are different compared to dependence related to use, and also injection, of illicit opioids. In Nordic countries, day-to-day practical advice to assist clinical decision-making is insufficient. AIM: To develop principles based on expert clinical insights for treatment of OUD related to the long-term use of OA in the context of chronic pain. METHODS: Current status including an assessment of barriers to effective treatment in Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden was defined using a patient pathway model. Evidence to describe best practice was identified from published literature, clinical guidelines and expert recommendations from practice experience. RESULTS: Availability of national treatment guidelines for OUD related to chronic pain is limited across the Nordics. Important barriers to effective care identified: patients unlikely to present for help, healthcare system set up limits success, diagnosis tools not used, referral pathways unclear and treatment choices not elucidated. Principles include the development of a specific treatment pathway, awareness/ education programs for teams in primary care, guidance on use of diagnostic tools and a flexible treatment plan to encourage best practice in referral, treatment assessment, choice and ongoing management via an integrated care pathway. Healthcare systems and registries in Nordic countries offer an opportunity to further research and identify population risks and solutions. CONCLUSIONS: There is an opportunity to improve outcomes for patients with OUD related to chronic pain by developing and introducing care pathways tailored to specific needs of the population.