Estimating the number of people who inject drugs in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Injecting drug use is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Estimates of the size of the population of people who inject drugs are critical to inform service planning and estimate disease burden due to injecting drug use. We aimed to estimate the size of the population of people who inject drugs in Australia. METHODS: We applied a multiplier method which used benchmark data (number of people in opioid substitution therapy (OST) on a snapshot day in 2014) and multiplied it by a factor derived from the prevalence of current OST among people who inject drugs participating in the Australian Needle and Syringe Program Survey in 2014. Estimates of the total population of people who inject drugs were calculated in each state and territory and summed to produce a national estimate. We used the sex and age group distribution seen in datasets relating to people who inject drugs to derive sex- and age-stratified estimates, and calculated prevalence per 1000 population. RESULTS: Between 68,000 and 118,000 people aged 15-64 years inject drugs in Australia. The population prevalence of injecting drug use was 6.0 (lower and upper uncertainty intervals of 4.3 and 7.6) per 1000 people aged 15-64 years. Injecting drug use was more common among men than women, and most common among those aged 35-44 years. Comparison of expected drug-related deaths based on these estimates to actual deaths suggest that these figures may be underestimates. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first indirect prevalence estimates of injecting drug use in Australia in over a decade. This work has identified that there are limited data available to inform estimates of this population. These estimates can be used as a basis for further work estimating injecting drug use in Australia.

Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine maintenance treatment has been evaluated in randomised controlled trials against placebo medication, and separately as an alternative to methadone for management of opioid dependence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate buprenorphine maintenance compared to placebo and to methadone maintenance in the management of opioid dependence, including its ability to retain people in treatment, suppress illicit drug use, reduce criminal activity, and mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to January 2013: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, PsycLIT, CORK, Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia, Australian Drug Foundation, Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol, Library of Congress, reference lists of identified studies and reviews. We sought published/unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of buprenorphine maintenance treatment versus placebo or methadone in management of opioid-dependent persons. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane Collaboration methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We include 31 trials (5430 participants), the quality of evidence varied from high to moderate quality.There is high quality of evidence that buprenorphine was superior to placebo medication in retention of participants in treatment at all doses examined. Specifically, buprenorphine retained participants better than placebo: at low doses (2 - 6 mg), 5 studies, 1131 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.88; at medium doses (7 - 15 mg), 4 studies, 887 participants, RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.87; and at high doses (≥ 16 mg), 5 studies, 1001 participants, RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.90. However, there is moderate quality of evidence that only high-dose buprenorphine (≥ 16 mg) was more effective than placebo in suppressing illicit opioid use measured by urinanalysis in the trials, 3 studies, 729 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.17; 95% CI -1.85 to -0.49, Notably, low-dose, (2 studies, 487 participants, SMD 0.10; 95% CI -0.80 to 1.01), and medium-dose, (2 studies, 463 participants, SMD -0.08; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.62) buprenorphine did not suppress illicit opioid use measured by urinanalysis better than placebo.There is high quality of evidence that buprenorphine in flexible doses adjusted to participant need,was less effective than methadone in retaining participants, 5 studies, 788 participants, RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95. For those retained in treatment, no difference was observed in suppression of opioid use as measured by urinalysis, 8 studies, 1027 participants, SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.02 or self report, 4 studies, 501 participants, SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07, with moderate quality of evidence.Consistent with the results in the flexible-dose studies, in low fixed-dose studies, methadone (≤ 40 mg) was more likely to retain participants than low-dose buprenorphine (2 - 6 mg), (3 studies, 253 participants, RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.87). However, we found contrary results at medium dose and high dose: there was no difference between medium-dose buprenorphine (7 - 15 mg) and medium-dose methadone (40 - 85 mg) in retention, (7 studies, 780 participants, RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.10) or in suppression of illicit opioid use as measured by urines, (4 studies, 476 participants, SMD 0.25; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.58) or self report of illicit opioid use, (2 studies, 174 participants, SMD -0.82; 95% CI -1.83 to 0.19). Similarly, there was no difference between high-dose buprenorphine (≥ 16 mg) and high-dose methadone (≥ 85 mg) in retention (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.20 to 3.16) or suppression of self-reported heroin use (SMD -0.73; 95% CI -1.08 to -0.37) (1 study, 134 participants).Few studies reported adverse events ; two studies compared adverse events statistically, finding no difference between methadone and buprenorphine, except for a single result indicating more sedation among those using methadone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine is an effective medication in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, retaining people in treatment at any dose above 2 mg, and suppressing illicit opioid use (at doses 16 mg or greater) based on placebo-controlled trials.However, compared to methadone, buprenorphine retains fewer people when doses are flexibly delivered and at low fixed doses. If fixed medium or high doses are used, buprenorphine and methadone appear no different in effectiveness (retention in treatment and suppression of illicit opioid use); however, fixed doses are rarely used in clinical practice so the flexible dose results are more relevant to patient care. Methadone is superior to buprenorphine in retaining people in treatment, and methadone equally suppresses illicit opioid use.

Offending, custody and opioid substitution therapy treatment utilisation among opioid-dependent people in contact with the criminal justice system: comparison of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

BACKGROUND: Although Indigenous Australians are over-represented among heroin users, there has been no study examining offending, time in custody, and opioid substitution therapy (OST) treatment utilisation among Indigenous opioid-dependent (including heroin) people at the population level, nor comparing these to non-Indigenous opioid-dependent people. The aims of this study were to compare the nature and types of charges, time in custody and OST treatment utilisation between opioid-dependent Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in contact with the criminal justice system. METHODS: This was a population-based, retrospective data linkage study using records of OST entrants in New South Wales, Australia (1985-2010), court appearances (1993-2011) and custody episodes (2000-2012). Charge rates per 100 person-years were compared between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by sex, age and calendar year. Statistical comparisons were made for variables describing the cumulative time and percentage of follow-up time spent in custody, as well as characteristics of OST initiation and overall OST treatment utilisation. RESULTS: Of the 34,962 people in the cohort, 6,830 (19.5%) were Indigenous and 28,132 (80.5%) non-Indigenous. Among the 6,830 Indigenous people, 4,615 (67.6%) were male and 2,215 (32.4%) female. The median number of charges per person against Indigenous people (25, IQR 31) was significantly greater than non-Indigenous people (9, IQR 16) (p < 0.001). Overall, Indigenous people were charged with 33.2% of the total number of charges against the cohort and 44.0% of all violent offences. The median percentage of follow-up time that Indigenous males and females spent in custody was twice that of non-Indigenous males (21.7% vs. 10.1%, p < 0.001) and females (6.0% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001). The percentage of Indigenous people who first commenced OST in prison (30.2%) was three times that of non-Indigenous people (11.2%) (p < 0.001). Indigenous males spent less time in OST compared to non-Indigenous males (median percentage of follow-up time in treatment: 40.5% vs. 43.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to non-Indigenous opioid-dependent people, Indigenous opioid-dependent people in contact with the criminal justice system are charged with a greater number of offences, spend longer in custody and commonly initiate OST in prison. Hence, contact with the criminal justice system provides an important opportunity to engage Indigenous people in OST.

Buprenorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid dependence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Opioid dependence is associated with substantial health and social burdens, and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is highly effective in improving multiple outcomes for people who receive this treatment. Methadone and buprenorphine are common medications provided as OAT. We aimed to examine buprenorphine compared with methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence across a wide range of primary and secondary outcomes. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with GATHER and PRISMA guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO from database inception to Aug 1, 2022; clinical trial registries and previous relevant Cochrane reviews were also reviewed. We included all RCTs and observational studies of adults (aged ≥18 years) with opioid dependence comparing treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Primary outcomes were retention in treatment at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, treatment adherence (measured through doses taken as prescribed, dosing visits attended, and biological measures), or extra-medical opioid use (measured by urinalysis and self-report). Secondary outcomes were use of benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, and alcohol; withdrawal; craving; criminal activity and engagement with the criminal justice system; overdose; mental and physical health; sleep; pain; global functioning; suicidality and self-harm; and adverse events. Single-arm cohort studies and RCTs that collected data on buprenorphine retention alone were also reviewed. Data on study, participant, and treatment characteristics were extracted. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional data when required. Comparative estimates were pooled with use of random-effects meta-analyses. The proportion of individuals retained in treatment across multiple timepoints was pooled for each drug. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020205109). FINDINGS: We identified 32 eligible RCTs (N=5808 participants) and 69 observational studies (N=323 340) comparing buprenorphine and methadone, in addition to 51 RCTs (N=11 644) and 124 observational studies (N=700 035) that reported on treatment retention with buprenorphine. Overall, 61 studies were done in western Europe, 162 in North America, 14 in north Africa and the Middle East, 20 in Australasia, five in southeast Asia, seven in south Asia, two in eastern Europe, three in central Europe, one in east Asia, and one in central Asia. 1 040 827 participants were included in these primary studies; however, gender was only reported for 572 111 participants, of whom 377 991 (66·1%) were male and 194 120 (33·9%) were female. Mean age was 37·1 years (SD 6·0). At timepoints beyond 1 month, retention was better for methadone than for buprenorphine: for example, at 6 months, the pooled effect favoured methadone in RCTs (risk ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·67-0·85]; I·=74·2%; 16 studies, N=3151) and in observational studies (0·77 [0·68-0·86]; I·=98·5%; 21 studies, N=155 111). Retention was generally higher in RCTs than observational studies. There was no evidence suggesting that adherence to treatment differed with buprenorphine compared with methadone. There was some evidence that extra-medical opioid use was lower in those receiving buprenorphine in RCTs that measured this outcome by urinalysis and reported proportion of positive urine samples (over various time frames; standardised mean difference -0·20 [-0·29 to -0·11]; I·=0·0%; three studies, N=841), but no differences were found when using other measures. Some statistically significant differences were found between buprenorphine and methadone among secondary outcomes. There was evidence of reduced cocaine use, cravings, anxiety, and cardiac dysfunction, as well as increased treatment satisfaction among people receiving buprenorphine compared with methadone; and evidence of reduced hospitalisation and alcohol use in people receiving methadone. These differences in secondary outcomes were based on small numbers of studies (maximum five), and were often not consistent across study types or different measures of the same constructs (eg, cocaine use). INTERPRETATION: Evidence from trials and observational studies suggest that treatment retention is better for methadone than for sublingual buprenorphine. Comparative evidence on other outcomes examined showed few statistically significant differences and was generally based on small numbers of studies. These findings highlight the imperative for interventions to improve retention, consideration of client-centred factors (such as client preference) when selecting between methadone and buprenorphine, and harmonisation of data collection and reporting to strengthen future syntheses. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

The Edinburgh Addiction Cohort: recruitment and follow-up of a primary care based sample of injection drug users and non drug-injecting controls.

BACKGROUND: Injection drug use is an important public health problem. Epidemiological understanding of this problem is incomplete as longitudinal studies in the general population are difficult to undertake. In particular little is known about early life risk factors for later drug injection or about the life course of injection once established including the influence of medical and social interventions. METHODS: Individuals thought to be drug injectors were identified through a single primary medical care facility in Edinburgh between 1980 and 2006 and flagged with the General Registry Office. From October 2005 - October 2007, these cases were traced and invited to undergo interview assessment covering early life experience, substance use, health and social histories. Age and sex matched controls for confirmed cases (alive and dead) were later recruited through the same health facility. Controls for living cases completed the same structured interview schedule. Data were also collected on cases and controls through linkage to routine primary care records, death registrations, hospital contact statistics and police and prison records. All interviews were conducted with the knowledge and permission of the current GP. RESULTS: The initial cohort size was 814. At start of follow up 227 had died. Of the remaining 587: 20 had no contact details and 5 had embarked from the UK; 40 declined participation; 38 did not respond to invitations; 14 were excluded by their GP on health or social grounds and 22 had their contact details withheld by administrative authorities. 448 were interviewed of whom 16 denied injection and were excluded. Of 191 dead cases with medical records 4 were excluded as their records contained no evidence of injection. 5 interviewed cases died before follow up was concluded though these individuals were counted as "live" cases. 1 control per case (dead and alive) was recruited. Linkage to Scottish Morbidity Records data (available from 1981 onwards) on general acute inpatient and day cases, mental health inpatient and day cases and cancer was provided by Information Services, NHS Scotland, for all cases interviewed and all dead cases. The Scottish Prison Service provided records for 198 (46%) of cases interviewed, 48 cases not interviewed and 34 (18%) of dead cases. For a sub-sample of 100 interviewees a search of the Lothian and Borders police database was made for official criminal records and 94 had criminal records. Data linkage for controls is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Injecting drug users recruited from a community setting can be successfully followed-up through interviews and record linkage. Information from injecting cases is being analysed in terms of injecting patterns and possible influences on these. Comparisons between cases and controls will allow identification of possibly modifiable early life risk factors for drug injection and will also clarify the burden of disease associated with injection and the influence on this of different health and social interventions.

Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Methadone maintenance was the first widely used opioid replacement therapy to treat heroin dependence, and it remains the best-researched treatment for this problem. Despite the widespread use of methadone in maintenance treatment for opioid dependence in many countries, it is a controversial treatment whose effectiveness has been disputed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) compared with treatments that did not involve opioid replacement therapy (i.e., detoxification, offer of drug-free rehabilitation, placebo medication, wait-list controls) for opioid dependence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to Dec 2008: the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, EMBASE, PubMED, CINAHL, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF-VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), and Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews; authors of identified RCTs were asked about other published or unpublished relevant RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled clinical trials of methadone maintenance therapy compared with either placebo maintenance or other non-pharmacological therapy for the treatment of opioid dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of sequence generation, concealment of allocation and bias. Data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review, all were randomised clinical trials, two were double-blind. There were a total number of 1969 participants. The sequence generation was inadequate in one study, adequate in five studies and unclear in the remaining studies. The allocation of concealment was adequate in three studies and unclear in the remaining studies. Methadone appeared statistically significantly more effective than non-pharmacological approaches in retaining patients in treatment and in the suppression of heroin use as measured by self report and urine/hair analysis (6 RCTs, RR = 0.66 95% CI 0.56-0.78), but not statistically different in criminal activity (3 RCTs, RR=0.39; 95%CI: 0.12-1.25) or mortality (4 RCTs, RR=0.48; 95%CI: 0.10-2.39). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Methadone is an effective maintenance therapy intervention for the treatment of heroin dependence as it retains patients in treatment and decreases heroin use better than treatments that do not utilise opioid replacement therapy. It does not show a statistically significant superior effect on criminal activity or mortality.

Mortality among people who inject drugs: Ten-year follow-up of the hepatitis C virus cohort.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Mortality studies of people who inject drugs (PWID) are mostly of older people and drug treatment cohorts. We estimate mortality rates, describe causes of death, and years of potential life lost in a community-recruited cohort of young PWID characterised by high incidence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. DESIGN AND METHODS: Participant identifiers of 215 PWID from the south-western Sydney sub-cohort of the HCV Cohort were linked to National Death Index records from 1999 to 2010 and crude mortality rates and standardised mortality ratios estimated. Australian life tables were used to calculate years of potential of life lost. RESULTS: Fifteen participants died (7.0%) in 2095 person years (PY) of follow-up. Median age at death was 30.6 years (interquartile range 24.9-32.2). The crude mortality rate was 0.72 per 100PY (95% confidence interval 0.29-0.79) with a standardised mortality ratio of 11.09 (95% confidence interval 6.68-18.39). One-third of deaths were due to accidental drug overdose (5/15) and one-fifth were suicides (3/15). All deaths from defined causes (13/15) were potentially avoidable. Decedents lost on average 49.8 years of potential life. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Mortality and potential life lost further highlight the impact of accidental overdose deaths and suicide among young PWID. Integration of overdose and suicide prevention into youth-orientated outreach, including innovation in online and mobile technology should be evaluated.

Frequency, factors and costs associated with injection site infections: findings from a national multi-site survey of injecting drug users in England.

BACKGROUND: Injection site infections among injecting drug users (IDUs) have been associated with serious morbidity and health service costs in North America. This study explores the frequency, factors and costs associated with injection site infections among IDUs in England. METHODS: Unlinked-anonymous survey during 2003/05 recruiting IDUs from community settings at seven locations across England. Self-reported injecting practice, symptoms of injection site infections (abscess or open wound) and health service utilisation data were collected using a questionnaire, participants also provided dried blood spot samples (tested for markers blood borne virus infections). Cost estimates were obtained by combining questionnaire data with information from national databases and the scientific literature. RESULTS: 36% of the 1,058 participants reported an injection site infection in the last year. Those reporting an injection site infection were more likely to be female and aged over 24, and to have: injected into legs, groin, and hands in last year; injected on 14 or more days during the last four weeks; cleaned needles/syringes for reuse; injected crack-cocaine; antibodies to hepatitis C; and previously received prescribed substitute drug. Two-thirds of those with an injection site infection reported seeking medical advice; half attended an emergency department and three-quarters of these reported hospital admission. Simple conservative estimates of associated healthcare costs range from pound 15.5 million per year to as high as pound 30 million; though if less conservative unit costs assumptions are made the total may be much higher (pound 47 million). The vast majority of these costs are due to hospital admissions and the uncertainty is due to little data on length of hospital stays. CONCLUSION: Symptoms of injection site infections are common among IDUs in England. The potential costs to the health service are substantial, but these costs need more accurate determination. Better-targeted interventions to support safer injection need to be developed and evaluated. The validity of self-reported symptoms, and the relationship between symptoms, infection severity, and health seeking behaviour require further research.

Process and predictors of drug treatment referral and referral uptake at the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Low-threshold drug services such as drug consumption rooms (DCRs) have been posited as referral gateways to drug treatment for injecting drug users (IDUs). We examined the process and predictors of drug treatment referral and referral uptake at an Australian DCR. DESIGN AND METHODS: We undertook behavioural surveillance of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) client cohort between May 2001 and October 2002. Data were collected for 3715 IDUs on demographics, injecting and drug use behaviours at registration and all subsequent MSIC service utilisation, including referrals. Referral uptake (defined as presentation for assessment at the relevant agency) was traced via reply-paid postcards included with written referrals. RESULTS: Sixteen per cent of clients who received written referrals to drug treatment had confirmed drug treatment referral uptake. Factors associated with drug treatment referral were frequent MSIC attendance [adjusted odds ratios (AOR = 9.4], receipt of written health (AOR = 4.8) or psychosocial (AOR = 4.3) referrals, heroin as main drug injected (AOR = 1.9) and completion of high school education (AOR = 1.6). Factors associated positively with drug treatment referral uptake were recent sex work (AOR = 2.6) and at least daily injection (AOR = 2.3). Previous psychiatric illness or self-harm was associated negatively with drug treatment referral uptake (AOR = 0.2). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: MSIC engaged IDUs successfully in drug treatment referral and this was associated with presentation for drug treatment assessment and other health and psychosocial services. To improve rates of drug treatment referral and uptake, those with a history of mental health issues may require more intensive referral and case management.

Crack-heroin speedball injection and its implications for vein care: qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: We report on an exploratory qualitative study investigating drug injectors' narratives of vein damage and groin (femoral vein) injection associated with the injection of crack-heroin speedball. METHODS: We undertook 44 in-depth qualitative interviews among injectors of crack-heroin speedball in Bristol and London, England, in 2006. FINDINGS: The data suggest an emerging culture of crack-based speedball injection. Injectors' narratives link speedball injection with shifts towards groin injection articulated as an acceptable risk, and not merely as a last resort in the face of increased vein deterioration associated with speedball. Accounts of vein damage linked to speedball emphasize 'missed hits' related to the local anaesthetic action of crack, the excess use of citric in the preparation of speedball injections and 'flushing' when making a hit. We find that groin injection persists despite an awareness of health risks and medical complications. CONCLUSIONS: We emphasize an urgent need for reviewing harm reduction in relation to vein care in the context of shifts to crack-based speedball injection, and the use of the femoral vein, among UK injectors. There is an additional need for interventions to promote safer groin and speedball injecting as well as to prevent transitions toward groin and crack injection.

Public injecting and the need for 'safer environment interventions' in the reduction of drug-related harm.

BACKGROUND: One key structural dimension in the distribution of drug-related harm associated with injecting drug use is the injecting environment. Epidemiological evidence associates elevated blood-borne viral risk with injecting in 'public' and 'semipublic' environments. Yet the quality of evidence on public injecting and related viral risk is variable, and is lacking in many countries such as the United Kingdom. AIM: This commentary considers the micro-injecting environment as a critical dimension of risk, exploring the need for 'safer injecting environment interventions'. METHODS: We draw upon published research evidence and qualitative case examples. RESULTS: We note the limits in epidemiological evidence on public injecting and emphasize the need for ethnographic research to determine the 'social relations' of how drug users and risk practices interact with injecting environments. We identify three main forms of 'safer environment intervention': purpose-built drug consumption rooms; interventions within existing spatial relations; and spatial programming and urban design. While drug consumption rooms find evidence-based support, they are not a panacea. We emphasize the potential of interventions embedded within existing spatial and social relations. These include low-cost pragmatic interventions enhancing facilities and safety at public and semipublic injecting sites and, primarily, peer-based interventions, including peer-supervised injecting sites. We caution against spatial programming and urban design interventions which can cause the displacement of socially marginalized populations and the redistribution of harm. CONCLUSIONS: Public health interventions in the addictions field have in the past focused upon individual behavioural change at the cost of social interventions and environmental change. We wish to focus greater attention on reducing risks related to public injecting and encourage greater debate on 'safer environment interventions' in harm reduction.

Short-term outcomes of five heroin detoxification methods in the Australian NEPOD Project.

This study included 380 participants in five heroin detoxification trials whose data were pooled to enable direct comparison of five detoxification methods in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD). Rapid detoxification achieved similar initial abstinence rates with either anaesthesia or sedation (average 59%), which were higher than was achieved by inpatient detoxification using clonidine plus other symptomatic medications (24%), which in turn was higher than outpatient detoxification using either buprenorphine (12%) or clonidine plus other symptomatic medications (4%). Older participants and those using more illicit drugs were more likely to achieve abstinence. Entry rates into ongoing postdetoxification treatment were as follows: buprenorphine outpatient (65%), sedation (63%), anaesthesia (42%), symptomatic outpatient (27%), and symptomatic inpatient (12%). Postdetoxification treatment with buprenorphine or methadone was preferred over naltrexone. Participants with more previous detoxification attempts were more likely to enter postdetoxification treatment. Given that outpatient detoxification was more effective with buprenorphine than with symptomatic medications and that rapid detoxification was more effective than the symptomatic inpatient method, the roles of the symptomatic methods should be reconsidered.

Survey of drug consumption rooms: service delivery and perceived public health and amenity impact.

Drug consumption rooms (DCRs) have operated in Europe for more than 20 years. At the time of this study three Australian jurisdictions were considering trials of DCRs and little information about these services was available in the English literature. We surveyed 39 DCRs in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Spain in 1999-2000 regarding service delivery and perceived public health and amenity impact and 15 (40%) responded. The DCRs surveyed were professionally staffed, low threshold services which provided a range of health, psych-social, drug treatment and welfare services and referrals. No overdose deaths were reported and the estimated rate of non-fatal overdose ranged from 1 to 36 per 10,000 visits. These DCRs appeared to be achieving their service delivery objectives with few negative consequences.

Mortality risk of opioid substitution therapy with methadone versus buprenorphine: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Opioid dependence increases risk of premature mortality. Opioid substitution therapy with methadone or buprenorphine reduces mortality risk, especially for drug-related overdose. Clinical guidelines recommend methadone as the first line of opioid substitution therapy. We aimed to test whether buprenorphine treatment has a lower mortality risk than does methadone treatment by comparing all-cause mortality and drug-related overdose mortality at treatment induction, after in-treatment medication switches, and following treatment cessation. METHODS: We did a retrospective cohort study of all patients with opioid dependency (n=32,033) in New South Wales, Australia, who started a methadone or buprenorphine treatment episode from Aug 1, 2001, to Dec 31, 2010, including 190,232·6 person-years of follow-up. We compared crude mortality rates (CMRs) for all-cause and drug-related overdose mortality, and mortality rate ratios (MRRs) according to age, sex, period in or out of treatment, medication type, and in-treatment switching. FINDINGS: Patients who initiated with buprenorphine had reduced all-cause and drug-related mortality during the first 4 weeks of treatment compared with those who initiated with methadone (adjusted all-cause MRR 2·17, 95% CI 1·29-3·67; adjusted drug-related MRR 4·88, 1·73-13·69). For the remaining time on treatment, drug-related mortality risk did not differ (adjusted MRR 1·18, 95% CI 0·89-1·56), but weak evidence suggested that all-cause mortality was lower for buprenorphine than methadone (1·66, 1·40-1·96). In the 4 weeks after treatment cessation, all-cause mortality did not differ, but drug-related mortality was lower for methadone (adjusted all-cause MRR 1·12, 0·79-1·59; adjusted drug-related MRR 0·50, 0·29-0·86). Patients who switched from buprenorphine to methadone during treatment had lower mortality in the first 4 weeks of methadone treatment than matched controls who received methadone only (CMR difference 7·1 per 1000 person-years, 95% CI 0·1-14·0); no mortality difference was noted for switches from buprenorphine to methadone or for switches to either medication beyond the first 4 weeks of treatment. INTERPRETATION: In a setting with high risk of death in the first 4 weeks of opioid substitution therapy, buprenorphine seemed to reduce mortality in this period, but little difference between buprenorphine and methadone was noted thereafter or for in-treatment switching of medications. Cross-cohort corroboration of our findings and further assessment of the stepped treatment model is warranted. FUNDING: Australian National Health & Medical Research Council.

Excess mortality among opioid-using patients treated with oral naltrexone in Australia.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: To estimate the number of deaths that would have occurred among patients receiving oral naltrexone for opioid use under the Special Access Scheme if these patients had received methadone. DESIGN AND METHODS: We analysed mortality in cohorts treated with oral naltrexone and methadone. Data were from 1097 patients of in WA providing oral naltrexone for opioid use under the SAS,1998-2000, and all participants in WA (n = 2520) and New South Wales (NSW) (n = 11,174) methadone programs over the same period. We calculated mortality rates among patients receiving naltrexone and methadone, and excess mortality among patients receiving naltrexone. RESULTS: Oral naltrexone patients had higher mortality than those treated with methadone, even when favourable assumptions were made about the effects of naltrexone on mortality. Total oral naltrexone mortality was significantly greater than for methadone in WA (rate ratio 3.5; 95% confidence interval 2.2-5.8) and NSW (rate ratio 3.5; 95% confidence interval 2.4-5.0). Among 1097 oral naltrexone patients we estimate that there were 25-29 deaths over two years that would probably not have occurred if these patients had received methadone. The major reason was higher mortality rate post-treatment cessation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale use of oral naltrexone to treat opioid users may not have, as intended, saved lives. Implant naltrexone continues to be prescribed under the SAS in the absence of reliable efficacy and safety data. There is a need to review widespread use of unregistered medications under the SAS, particularly with vulnerable patient groups.

A longitudinal comparison of retention in buprenorphine and methadone treatment for opioid dependence in New South Wales, Australia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To examine characteristics of first-time methadone and buprenorphine clients and factors associated with risk of leaving first treatment in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. DESIGN: Retrospective linkage study of opioid substitution therapy (OST) treatment, court, custody and mortality data. SETTING: NSW, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: First-time OST entrants (August 2001-December 2010). MEASUREMENTS: Characteristics of clients were examined. Time-dependent Cox models examined factors associated with the risk of leaving first treatment, with demographic, criminographic and treatment variables jointly considered. Interactions between medication and other variables upon risk of leaving treatment were examined. FINDINGS: There were 15 600 treatment entrants: 7183 (46%) commenced buprenorphine, 8417 (54%) commenced methadone; the proportion entering buprenorphine increased over time. Those starting buprenorphine switched medications more frequently and had more subsequent treatment episodes. Buprenorphine retention was also poorer. On average, 44% spent 3+ months in treatment compared with 70% of those commencing methadone; however, buprenorphine retention for first-time entrants improved over time, whereas methadone retention did not. Multivariable Cox models indicated that in addition to sex, age, treatment setting and criminographic variables, the risk of leaving a first treatment episode was greater on any given day for those receiving buprenorphine, and was dependent on the year treatment was initiated. There was no interaction between any demographic variables and medication received, suggesting no clear evidence of any particular groups for whom each medication might be better suited in terms of improving retention. CONCLUSIONS: Although retention rates for buprenorphine treatment have improved in New South Wales, Australia, individuals starting methadone treatment still show higher retention rates.

An overview of the use of urine, hair, sweat and saliva to detect drug use.

This paper provides a brief overview of qualitative drug testing procedures using urine, hair, saliva and sweat specimens. Issues related to collection, analysis and interpretation of each specimen as well as their advantages and disadvantages are discussed. The biological detection of drug use involves a screening test which, if positive, is followed by a confirmatory test. Urine is the most widely used specimen in the detection of drugs. Urinalysis offers an intermediate window of detection (1-3 days). Hair analysis offers the largest window of detection (7-100+ days). Saliva analysis may be useful in determining very recent drug use (1-36 hours). The analysis of sweat may be useful for continuous monitoring of drug use (1-14 days). Drug testing has become a fast, convenient process with the development of point-of-collection drug testing devices.

A comparative study of opioid substitution therapy utilisation among opioid-dependent men and women.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Few population-based studies have examined differences in opioid substitution therapy (OST) treatment utilisation between men and women. Using a population of opioid-dependent people in New South Wales, Australia, first-episode and long-term OST treatment utilisation profiles were compared between men and women, differentiating between treatment initiation in the community and in custody. DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective data linkage study using records of new OST entrants (2001-2010) and custody episodes (2000-2012). First OST treatment episode and overall treatment utilisation characteristics were compared between men and women initiating treatment in the community or in custody. Treatment retention was evaluated at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after first commencing OST and overall, as the median proportion of follow-up time spent in treatment. RESULTS: There were 15,600 new OST entrants in the cohort--10,930 were men (70.1%) and 4670 women (29.9%); 12,584 (80.7%) initiated treatment in the community and 3016 (19.3%) in custody. More men initiated OST in custody (24.0% vs. 8.3%, P < 0.001) and only received OST in custody (57.5% vs. 41.8%, P < 0.001). Women were retained longer in their first OST treatment episode at all four time points in both treatment settings and in treatment overall (community: 46.6% vs. 39.1%, P < 0.001; custody: 41.3% vs. 30.8%, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of key differences in OST treatment utilisation profiles between men and women. Whereas men commonly initiate and only receive OST in custody, treatment retention is higher among women, independent of the setting treatment is initiated.

Opioid substitution therapy as a strategy to reduce deaths in prison: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe deaths in prison among opioid-dependent people, and examine associations between receipt of opioid substitution therapy (OST) and risk of death in prison. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Adult prisons in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 16 715 opioid-dependent people who were received to prison between 2000 and 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Opioid substitution therapy. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Natural and unnatural (suicide, drug-induced, violent and other injury) deaths in prison. RESULTS: Cohort members were in prison for 30 998 person-years (PY), during which time there were 51 deaths. The all-cause crude mortality rate (CMR) in prison was 1.6/1000 PY (95% CI 1.2 to 2.2/1000 PY), and the unnatural death CMR was 1.1/1000 PY (95% CI 0.8 to 1.6/1000 PY). Compared to time out of OST, the hazard of all-cause death was 74% lower while in OST (adjusted HR (AHR): 0.26; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.50), and the hazard of unnatural death was 87% lower while in OST (AHR: 0.13; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.35). The all-cause and unnatural death CMRs during the first 4 weeks of incarceration were 6.6/1000 PY (95% CI 3.8 to 10.6/1000 PY) and 5.5/1000 PY (95% CI 2.9 to 9.4/1000 PY), respectively. Compared to periods not in OST, the hazard of all-cause death during the first 4 weeks of incarceration was 94% lower while in OST (AHR: 0.06; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.48), and the hazard of unnatural death was 93% lower while in OST (AHR: 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality of opioid-dependent prisoners was significantly lower while in receipt of OST.