The UK National Recovery Survey: nationally representative survey of people overcoming a drug or alcohol problem.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol or drug (AOD) problems are a significant health burden in the UK population, and understanding pathways to remission is important. AIMS: To determine the UK population prevalence of overcoming an AOD problem and the prevalence and correlates of 'assisted' pathways to problem resolution. METHOD: Stage 1: a screening question was administered in a national telephone survey to provide (a) an estimate of the UK prevalence of AOD problem resolution; and (b) a demographic profile of those reporting problem resolution. Stage 2: social surveying organisation YouGov used the demographic data from stage 1 to guide the administration of the UK National Recovery Survey to a representative subsample from its online panel. RESULTS: In stage 1 (n = 2061), 102 (5%) reported lifetime AOD problem resolution. In the weighted sample (n = 1373) who completed the survey in stage 2, 49.9% reported 'assisted' pathway use via formal treatment (35.0%), mutual help (29.7%) and/or recovery support services (22.6%). Use of an assisted pathway was strongly correlated with lifetime AOD diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 9.54) and arrest in the past year (AOR = 7.88) and inversely correlated with absence of lifetime psychiatric diagnosis (AOR = 0.17). Those with cocaine (AOR = 2.44) or opioid problems (AOR = 3.21) were more likely to use assisted pathways compared with those with primary alcohol problems. CONCLUSION: Nearly three million people have resolved an AOD problem in the UK. Findings challenge the therapeutic pessimism sometimes associated with these problems and suggest a need to learn from community-based self-change that can supplement and enhance existing treatment modalities.

A UK national study of prevalence and correlates of adopting or not adopting a recovery identity among individuals who have overcome a drug or alcohol problem.

BACKGROUND: The concept of recovery has increasingly become an organizing paradigm in the addiction field in the past 20 years, but definitions of the term vary amongst interested groups (e.g. researchers, clinicians, policy makers or people with lived experience). Although professional groups have started to form a consensus, people with lived experience of alcohol or drug (AOD) problems use the term in a different way, leading to confusion in policy making in the UK. Greater knowledge about the prevalence and correlates of adopting a recovery identity amongst those who have overcome an AOD problem would inform clinical, public health, and policy communication efforts. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional nationally representative survey of individuals resolving a significant AOD problem (n = 1,373). Weighted analyses estimated prevalence and tested correlates of label adoption. Qualitative analyses summarized reasons for adopting or not adopting a recovery identity. RESULTS: The proportion of individuals currently identifying as being in recovery was 52.4%, never in recovery 28.6%, and no longer in recovery 19.0%. Predictors of identifying as being in recovery included current abstinence from AOD, formal treatment, recovery support service or mutual-help participation, and history of being diagnosed with AOD or other psychiatric disorders. Qualitative analyses found themes around not adopting a recovery identity related to low AOD problem severity, viewing the problem as resolved, or having little difficulty in stopping. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing use of the recovery label and concept in clinical and policy contexts, many resolving AOD problems do not identify in this manner. These are most likely to be individuals with less significant histories of impairment secondary to AOD and who have not engaged with formal or informal treatment systems. The understanding of the term recovery in this UK population did not completely align with abstinence from alcohol or drugs.

A study protocol for a European, mixed methods, prospective, cohort study of the effectiveness of naloxone administration by community members, in reversing opioid overdose: NalPORS.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, opioid use causes more than 100,000 overdose deaths annually. Naloxone has proven efficacy in reversing opioid overdoses and is approved as an emergency antidote to opioid overdose. Take home naloxone (THN) programmes have been introduced to provide 'community members', who are likely to observe opioid overdoses, with naloxone kits and train them to recognise an overdose and administer naloxone. The acceptability and feasibility of THN programmes has been demonstrated, but the real-life effectiveness of naloxone administration by community members is not known. In recent years, the approval of several concentrated naloxone nasal-spray formulations (in addition to injectable formulations, eg.prenoxad) potentially increases acceptability and scope for wider provision. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of THN (all formulations) in real-world conditions. METHODS: A European, multi-country, prospective cohort study, to assess the use of THN by community members to reverse opioid overdoses in a six-month, follow-up period. Participants provided with THN from participating harm reduction and drug treatment sites will be recruited to the study and followed-up for six months. We are particularly interested in the experiences of community members who have been provided with THN and have witnessed an opioid overdose. All participants who witness an opioid overdose during the six-month period (target approx. 600) will be asked to take part in a structured interview about this event. Of these, 60 will be invited to participate in a qualitative interview. A Post Authorisation Efficacy Study (PAES) for the concentrated nasal naloxone, Nyxoid, has been integrated into the study design. DISCUSSION: There are many challenges involved in evaluating the real-life effectiveness of THN. It is not possible to use a randomised trial design, recruitment of community members provided with THN will depend upon recruitment sites distributing THN kits, and the type of THN received by participants will depend on regulations and on local clinical and policy decision-makers. Following up this population, some of whom may be itinerant, over the 6-month study period will be challenging, but we plan to maintain contact with participants through regular text message reminders and staff contact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05072249. Date of Registration: 8.10.2021.

Identifying the most important research, policy and practice questions for substance use, problematic alcohol use and behavioural addictions in autism (SABA-A): A priority setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Autistic people are more likely to report problematic alcohol and other substance use when compared to the general population. Evidence suggests that up to one in three autistic adults may have an alcohol or other substance use disorder (AUD/SUD), although the evidence base for behavioural addictions is less clear. Autistic people may use substances or engage in potentially addictive behaviours as a means of coping with social anxiety, challenging life problems, or camouflaging in social contexts. Despite the prevalence and detrimental effects of AUD, SUD and behavioural addictions in community samples, literature focusing on the intersection between autism and these conditions is scarce, hindering health policy, research, and clinical practice. METHODS: We aimed to identify the top 10 priorities to build the evidence for research, policy, and clinical practice at this intersection. A priority-setting partnership was used to address this aim, comprising an international steering committee and stakeholders from various backgrounds, including people with declared lived experience of autism and/or addiction. First, an online survey was used to identify what people considered key questions about Substance use, alcohol use, or behavioural addictions in autistic people (SABA-A). These initial questions were reviewed and amended by stakeholders, and then classified and refined to form the final list of top priorities via an online consensus process. OUTCOMES: The top ten priorities were identified: three research, three policy, and four practice questions. Future research suggestions are discussed.

Illicit drug use in university students in the UK and Ireland: a PRISMA-guided scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Interest in the health and well-being of university students has increased in the UK and Ireland in the past two decades as their numbers have grown. Recent high-profile deaths of students after using illicit drugs have highlighted the importance of the topic for policy makers. This scoping review maps the state of the existing literature evaluating use of illicit drugs in university students in the UK and Ireland. It aims to highlight research gaps and inform policy. METHOD: We conducted a systematic search of papers related to psychoactive drug use in university students in the UK and Ireland published before August 2021. The 18 extracted study characteristics included author(s); year of publication; journal; location of data collection; study design; delivery method (e.g., online survey, in-person, postal survey); number of participants; response rate; participant course of study, year of study, degree level (i.e., undergraduate, postgraduate), gender and age; time-period assessed (e.g., lifetime, current use, past 12 months); primary aim; primary outcome; ethical approval; and funding source. RESULTS: The PRISMA-guided search strategy identified 1583 papers for abstract review; of 110 papers retained for full-text review, 54 studies met criteria for inclusion for this paper. Primary outcomes were coded into five groups: prevalence and patterns of drug use; factors associated with drug use; attitudes and knowledge about, and motivation for, drug use; supply of drugs; consequences of drug use. The results show that there is no coherent body of research in this area. The prevalence of reported drug use has crept up and the range of substances reported has broadened over time, and attitudes to drugs on average have normalised. However, there are significant methodological limitations that limit the utility of these findings. There was little evidence of published work on prevention of, or intervention to reduce, drug-related harms. CONCLUSION: The domains identified offer a framework for university administrators, researchers and policy makers to understand the potential response to drug use in university students in the UK and Ireland. Recommendations are made to fill the gaps in the research evidence base.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Financial Incentives to Achieve Heroin Abstinence in Individuals With Heroin Use Disorder Starting New Treatment Episodes: A Cluster Randomized Trial-Based Economic Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analysis of two 12-week contingency management (CM) schedules targeting heroin abstinence or attendance at weekly keyworker appointments for opioid agonist treatment compared with treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a cluster randomized trial of 552 patients from 34 clusters (drug treatment clinics) randomly allocated 1:1:1 to opioid agonist treatment plus weekly keyworker appointments with (1) CM targeted at heroin abstinence (CM abstinence), (2) CM targeted at on-time attendance at weekly appointments (CM attendance), or (3) no CM (TAU). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis at 24 weeks after randomization took a societal cost perspective with effects measured in heroin-negative urine samples. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, mean differences in weekly heroin-negative urine results compared with TAU were 0.252 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.397 to 0.901) for CM abstinence and 0.089 (95% CI -0.223 to 0.402) for CM attendance. Mean differences in costs were £2562 (95% CI £32-£5092) for CM abstinence and £317 (95% CI -£882 to £1518) for CM attendance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £10 167 per additional heroin-free urine for CM abstinence and £3562 for CM attendance with low probabilities of cost-effectiveness of 3.5% and 36%, respectively. Results were sensitive to timing of follow-up for CM attendance, which dominated TAU (better outcomes, lower costs) at 12 weeks, with an 88.4% probability of being cost-effective. Probability of cost-effectiveness remained low for CM abstinence (8.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives targeted toward heroin abstinence and treatment attendance were not cost-effective over the 24-week follow-up. Nevertheless, CM attendance was cost-effective over the treatment period (12 weeks), when participants were receiving keyworker appointments and incentives.

Associations between primary care recorded cannabis use and mental ill health in the UK: a population-based retrospective cohort study using UK primary care data.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use is a global public health issue associated with increased risks of developing mental health disorders, especially in young people. We aimed to investigate the relationships between cannabis exposure and risks of receiving mental illness diagnoses or treatment as outcomes. METHODS: A population based, retrospective, open cohort study using patients recorded in 'IQVIA medical research data', a UK primary care database. Read codes were used to confirm patients with recorded exposure to cannabis use who were matched up to two unexposed patients. We examined the risk of developing three categories of mental ill health: depression, anxiety or serious mental illness (SMI). RESULTS: At study entry, the exposed cohort had an increased likelihood of having experienced mental ill health [odds ratio (OR) 4.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.99-4.27] and mental ill health-related prescription (OR 2.95; 95% CI 2.86-3.05) compared to the unexposed group. During the study period we found that exposure to cannabis was associated with an increased risk of developing any mental disorder [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.73; 95% CI 2.59-2.88], also noted when examining by subtype of disorder: anxiety (aHR 2.46; 95% CI 2.29-2.64), depression (aHR 2.34; 95% CI 2.20-2.49) and SMI (aHR 6.41; 95% CI 5.42-7.57). These results remained robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: These findings point to the potential need for a public health approach to the management of people misusing cannabis. However, there is a gross under-recording of cannabis use in GP records, as seen by the prevalence of recorded cannabis exposure substantially lower than self-reported survey records.

A rapid assessment of take-home naloxone provision during COVID-19 in Europe.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. In the following weeks, most European countries implemented national lockdowns to mitigate viral spread. Services for people who use drugs had to quickly revise their operating procedures to rearrange service provision while adhering to lockdown requirements. Given the scarcity of literature published on overdose prevention during COVID-19 in Europe, we aimed to examine how these changes to service provision affected take-home naloxone (THN) programmes and naloxone availability across Europe. METHODS: Between November 2020 and January 2021, we conducted a rapid assessment with country experts from European countries that provide THN. We sent country experts a template to report monthly THN distribution data (January 1, 2019-October 31, 2020) and a structured 6-item survey for completion. RESULTS: Responses were received from 14 of the 15 European countries with THN provision of which 11 participated in the rapid assessment: Austria, Denmark, England, Estonia, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Spain (Catalonia only), Sweden, and Wales. All reported reduced organisational capacity during COVID-19, and some put into place a range of novel approaches to manage the restrictions on face-to-face service provision. In six countries, the introduction of programme innovation occurred alongside the publication of government guidelines recommending increased THN provision during COVID-19. Eight of the eleven participating countries managed to maintain 2019-level monthly THN distribution rates or even increase provision during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Through programme innovation supported by public guidelines, many European THN programmes managed to ensure stable or even increased THN provision during the pandemic, despite social distancing and stay-at-home orders affecting client mobility.

Service Users' Views and Experiences of Alcohol Relapse Prevention Treatment and Adherence: New Role for Pharmacists?

AIMS: To understand service users' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, views of a telephone behavioural modification intervention delivered by pharmacists and the use of Contingency Management (CM) to support acamprosate adherence following assisted alcohol withdrawal. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted within four alcohol treatment and recovery groups across England (UK), with service users with lived experience of alcohol dependence (26 participants). Semi-structured topic guide was used to explore participants' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, a telephone behavioural modification medication intervention delivered by pharmacists, and the use of CM to support acamprosate adherence. These were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed inductively and deductively. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: concerns about support and availability of alcohol relapse prevention medication; lack of knowledge and understanding about acamprosate treatment; positive perceptions of acamprosate adherence telephone support from pharmacists; and negative perceptions of CM to support acamprosate adherence. There were misunderstandings about acamprosate's mode of action and strong negative beliefs about CM. However, most were positive about pharmacists' new role to support acamprosate adherence. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted challenges service users face to commence alcohol relapse prevention medication. It appears service users could benefit from a pharmacist-led telephone intervention to improve understanding about acamprosate medication, particularly, if delivered in an engaging and motivating way.

Take-Home Naloxone Kits: Attitudes and Likelihood-Of-Use Outcomes from a European Survey of Potential Overdose Witnesses.

BACKGROUND: Injectable naloxone is already provided as take-home naloxone (THN), and new concentrated intranasal naloxone is now being introduced in Europe. Despite evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of THN, little is known about the attitudes of key target populations: people who use opioids (PWUO), family/friends, and staff. We examined the acceptability of different naloxone devices (ampoule, prefilled syringe, and concentrated nasal spray) across 5 European countries. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare THN target groups (PWUO vs. family/friends vs. staff) in their past rates of witnessed overdose and THN administration (as indicators of future use), current THN device preference, and THN carriage on the day of survey. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey of respondents (age ≥18) in addiction treatment, harm reduction, and recovery services in Denmark, England, Estonia, Norway, and Scotland. A purpose-developed questionnaire (59 items) was administered in the local language electronically or in a pen-and-paper format. RESULTS: Among n = 725 participants, 458 were PWUO (63.2%), 214 staff (29.5%), and 53 (7.3%) family members. The groups differed significantly in their likelihood-of-future THN use (p < 0.001): PWUO had the highest rate of previously witnessing overdoses (352; 77.7%), and staff members reported the highest past naloxone use (62; 30.1%). Across all groups, most respondents (503; 72.4%) perceived the nasal spray device to be the easiest to use. Most reported willingness to use the spray in an overdose emergency (508; 73.5%), followed by the prefilled syringe (457; 66.2%) and ampoules (64; 38.2%). Average THN carriage was 18.6%, ranging from 17.4% (PWUO) to 29.6% (family members). CONCLUSION: Respondents considered the concentrated naloxone nasal spray the easiest device to use. Still, most expressed willingness to use the nasal spray as well as the prefilled syringe in an overdose emergency. Carriage rates were generally low, with fewer than 1 in 5 respondents carrying their THN kit on the day of the survey.

Clinical management of the alcohol withdrawal syndrome.

Up to half of individuals with a history of long-term, heavy alcohol consumption will experience the alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) when consumption is significantly decreased or stopped. In its most severe form, AWS can be life-threatening. Medically assisted withdrawal (MAW) often forms the first part of a treatment pathway. This clinical review discusses key elements of the clinical management of MAW, necessary adjustments for pregnancy and older adults, likely outcome of an episode of MAW, factors that might prevent completion of the MAW process and ways of overcoming barriers to ongoing treatment of alcohol use disorder. The review also discusses the use of benzodiazepines in MAW. Although there is clear evidence for their use, benzodiazepines have been associated with abuse liability, blunting of cognition, interactions with depressant drugs, craving, delirium, dementia and disrupted sleep patterns. Because glutamatergic activation and glutamate receptor upregulation contribute to alcohol withdrawal, anti-glutamatergic strategies for MAW and other potential treatment innovations are also considered.

Liver transplantation for alcohol-related liver disease in the UK: revised UK Liver Advisory Group recommendations for referral.

Liver disease, of which liver cirrhosis is the most advanced stage, constitutes the fourth most common cause of life-years lost in men and women younger than 75 years in England, where mortality rates from liver disease have increased by 25% in the past decade. Alcohol consumption is the most common modifiable risk factor for disease progression in these individuals, but within the UK, there is substantial variation in the distribution, prevalence, and outcome of alcohol-related liver disease, and no equity of access to tertiary transplantation services. These revised recommendations were agreed by an expert panel convened by the UK Liver Advisory Group, with the purpose of providing consensus on referral for transplant assessment in patients with alcohol-related disease, and clarifying the terminology and definitions of alcohol use in liver injury. By standardising clinical management in these patients, it is hoped that there will be an improvement in the quality of care and better access to liver transplant assessment for patients with alcohol-related liver disease in the UK.

A view from the acute hospital: managing patients with alcohol problems.

Regular heavy consumption of alcohol is associated with a wide range of physical, psychological and social problems. All health-care clinicians should be able to screen for and detect problematic levels of alcohol consumption in their patients, and deliver an effective brief intervention. When patients with alcohol dependence are admitted to hospital there must be an assessment of whether medication is required to prevent withdrawal symptoms and potential delirium tremens and withdrawal seizures. Medically assisted alcohol withdrawal using a long-acting benzodiazepine such as chlordiazepoxide should be carefully monitored and titrated to effect, and the clinician should be aware of the risk of Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome and other complications. Abstinence from alcohol is usually only the first step in treatment, and effective linkage to community alcohol services is an important step.

Alcohol use disorders and the heart.

Alcohol use is an important preventable and modifiable cause of non-communicable disease, and has complex effects on the cardiovascular system that vary with dose. Observational and prospective studies have consistently shown a lower risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in people with low levels of alcohol consumption when compared to abstainers (the 'J'-shaped curve). Maximum potential benefit occurs at 0.5 to one standard drinks (7-14 g pure ethanol) per day for women (18% lower all-cause mortality, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 13-22%) and one to two standard drinks (14-28 g ethanol) per day for men (17% lower all-cause mortality, 95% CI = 15-19%). However, this evidence is contested, and overall the detrimental effects of alcohol far outweigh the beneficial effects, with the risk of premature mortality increasing steadily after an average consumption of 10 g ethanol/day. Blood pressure (BP) is increased by regular alcohol consumption in a dose-dependent manner, with a relative risk for hypertension (systolic BP > 140 mm Hg or diastolic > 90 mm Hg) of 1.7 for 50 g ethanol/day and 2.5 at 100 g/day. Important reductions in BP readings can be expected after as little as 1 month of abstinence from alcohol. Heavy alcohol consumption in a binge pattern is associated with the development of acute cardiac arrhythmia, even in people with normal heart function. Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia associated with chronic high-volume alcohol intake, and above 14 g alcohol/day the relative risk increases 10% for every extra standard drink (14 g ethanol). Ethanol and its metabolites have toxic effects on cardiac myocytes, and alcoholic cardiomyopathy (ACM) accounts for a third of all cases of non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Screening people drinking alcohol above low-volume levels and delivering a brief intervention may prevent the development of cardiovascular complications. Although people with established cardiovascular disease show improved outcomes with a reduction to low-volume alcohol consumption, there is no safe amount of alcohol to drink and patients with ACM should aim for abstinence in order to optimize medical treatment.

Extended-release naltrexone versus standard oral naltrexone versus placebo for opioid use disorder: the NEAT three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: People recovering from heroin addiction need better treatments than are currently offered. The chronic relapsing nature of drug dependence means that helping a patient to achieve abstinence is often difficult. Naltrexone blocks the effects of ingested heroin; however, evidence is conflicting regarding the best delivery method. OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of the trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus standard oral naltrexone versus relapse prevention therapy without medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). DESIGN: This was a 3-year, definitive, three-centre, three-arm, parallel group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two specialist NHS outpatient addiction clinics: one in London and one in Birmingham. PARTICIPANTS: Planned study sample - 300 adult patients with OUD who had completed detoxification. INTERVENTIONS: One iGen/Atral-Cipan Extended Release Naltrexone device (iGen/Atral-Cipan, Castanheira do Ribatejo, Portugal) (765 mg naltrexone or placebo) at day 0 of study week 1. Three weekly directly observed active or placebo oral naltrexone tablets (2 × 50 mg, Monday and Wednesday; 3 × 50 mg, Friday) at day 0 of study week 1 (for 4 weeks) and then an 8-week regimen of patient-administered dosing at the same dosing level. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of heroin-negative urine drug screen (UDS) results at the end of the 12-week post-randomisation time point. RESULTS: Six patients were recruited and randomised to receive study interventions. Two patients had no positive UDS samples for heroin during the 12-week treatment period, one patient had only one positive UDS sample and the remaining patients had two, six and eight positive UDS results for heroin. All patients had at least one missed clinic visit (range 1-14). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable problems were encountered with (1) the stipulated requirement of a validated 'detoxified' status prior to the initiation of the study naltrexone, (2) the requirement for a consent cooling-off period and (3) delays awaiting the surgical implant procedure. Major upheaval to the organisation and delivery of NHS community treatment services across England led to extremely poor levels of actual entry of patients into the trial. Research-vital clinical and procedural requirements were, therefore, more challenging to implement. The potential therapeutic value of the opioid antagonist naltrexone still needs clear investigation, including comparison of the established oral form with the new ultra-long-acting depot implant formulations (for which no licensed products exist in Europe). Despite the small number of study participants, some tentative conclusions can be reached, relevant to potential future work. The blinding of the active/placebo medications appeared to be good. Self-report was not sufficient to detect instances of heroin use. Self-report plus UDS information provided a fuller picture. Instances of lapsed heroin use were not necessarily followed by full relapse, and future work should consider the lapse-relapse relationship. The prison release setting also warrants special consideration. In future, investigators should consider seeking ethics approval for studies in which clinical procedures to accelerate the treatment process are permitted, even if outside orthodox clinical practice, if they address a clinical need at the time of challenge and clinical risk. In addition, it may be appropriate to seek exemption from the ordinary requirement of a cooling-off period after securing consent because it is often essential to initiate treatment promptly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95809946. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Predicting health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and capability wellbeing (ICECAP-A) in the context of opiate dependence using routine clinical outcome measures: CORE-OM, LDQ and TOP.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation normally requires information to be collected on outcome improvement using utility values. This is often not collected during the treatment of substance use disorders making cost-effectiveness evaluations of therapy difficult. One potential solution is the use of mapping to generate utility values from clinical measures. This study develops and evaluates mapping algorithms that could be used to predict the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5 L) and the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) from the three commonly used clinical measures; the CORE-OM, the LDQ and the TOP measures. METHODS: Models were estimated using pilot trial data of heroin users in opiate substitution treatment. In the trial the EQ-5D-5 L, ICECAP-A, CORE-OM, LDQ and TOP were administered at baseline, three and twelve month time intervals. Mapping was conducted using estimation and validation datasets. The normal estimation dataset, which comprised of baseline sample data, used ordinary least squares (OLS) and tobit regression methods. Data from the baseline and three month time periods were combined to create a pooled estimation dataset. Cluster and mixed regression methods were used to map from this dataset. Predictive accuracy of the models was assessed using the root mean square error (RMSE) and the mean absolute error (MAE). Algorithms were validated using sample data from the follow-up time periods. RESULTS: Mapping algorithms can be used to predict the ICECAP-A and the EQ-5D-5 L in the context of opiate dependence. Although both measures can be predicted, the ICECAP-A was better predicted by the clinical measures. There were no advantages of pooling the data. There were 6 chosen mapping algorithms, which had MAE scores ranging from 0.100 to 0.138 and RMSE scores ranging from 0.134 to 0.178. CONCLUSION: It is possible to predict the scores of the ICECAP-A and the EQ-5D-5 L with the use of mapping. In the context of opiate dependence, these algorithms provide the possibility of generating utility values from clinical measures and thus enabling economic evaluation of alternative therapy options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN22608399 . Date of registration: 27/04/2012. Date of first randomisation: 14/08/2012.