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.

Use of contingency management incentives to improve completion of hepatitis B vaccination in people undergoing treatment for heroin dependence: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to treatment diminishes its individual and public health benefit. Financial incentives, provided on the condition of treatment attendance, could address this problem. Injecting drug users are a high-risk group for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and transmission, but adherence to vaccination programmes is poor. We aimed to assess whether contingency management delivered in routine clinical practice increased the completion of HBV vaccination in individuals receiving opioid substitution therapy. METHODS: In our cluster randomised controlled trial, we enrolled participants at 12 National Health Service drug treatment services in the UK that provided opioid substitution therapy and nurse-led HBV vaccination with a super-accelerated schedule (vaccination days 0, 7, and 21). Clusters were randomly allocated 1:1:1 to provide vaccination without incentive (treatment as usual), with fixed value contingency management (three £10 vouchers), or escalating value contingency management (£5, £10, and £15 vouchers). Both contingency management schedules rewarded on-time attendance at appointments. The primary outcome was completion of clinically appropriate HBV vaccination within 28 days. We also did sensitivity analyses that examined vaccination completion with full adherence to appointment times and within a 3 month window. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72794493. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2011, and April 26, 2012, we enrolled 210 eligible participants. Compared with six (9%) of 67 participants treated as usual, 35 (45%) of 78 participants in the fixed value contingency management group met the primary outcome measure (odds ratio 12·1, 95% CI 3·7-39·9; p<0·0001), as did 32 (49%) of 65 participants in the escalating value contingency management group (14·0, 4·2-46·2; p<0·0001). These differences remained significant with sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: Modest financial incentives delivered in routine clinical practice significantly improve adherence to, and completion of, HBV vaccination programmes in patients receiving opioid substitution therapy. Achievement of this improvement in routine clinical practice should now prompt actual implementation. Drug treatment providers should employ contingency management to promote adherence to vaccination programmes. The effectiveness of routine use of contingency management to achieve long-term behaviour change remains unknown. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (RP-PG-0707-10149).

Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of the effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment compared with oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction, the additional cost of injectable treatment is considerable, and cost-effectiveness uncertain. AIMS: To compare the cost-effectiveness of supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone with optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. METHOD: Multisite, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Economic perspective included health, social services and criminal justice resources. RESULTS: Intervention costs over 26 weeks were significantly higher for injectable heroin (mean £8995 v. £4674 injectable methadone and £2596 oral methadone; P<0.0001). Costs overall were highest for oral methadone (mean £15 805 v. £13 410 injectable methadone and £10 945 injectable heroin; P = n.s.) due to higher costs of criminal activity. In cost-effectiveness analysis, oral methadone was dominated by injectable heroin and injectable methadone (more expensive and less effective). At willingness to pay of £30 000 per QALY, there is a higher probability of injectable methadone being more cost-effective (80%) than injectable heroin. CONCLUSIONS: Injectable opioid treatments are more cost-effective than optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. The choice between supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone is less clear. There is currently evidence to suggest superior effectiveness of injectable heroin but at a cost that policy makers may find unacceptable. Future research should consider the use of decision analytic techniques to model expected costs and benefits of the treatments over the longer term.

Supervised injectable heroin or injectable methadone versus optimised oral methadone as treatment for chronic heroin addicts in England after persistent failure in orthodox treatment (RIOTT): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Some heroin addicts persistently fail to benefit from conventional treatments. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of supervised injectable treatment with medicinal heroin (diamorphine or diacetylmorphine) or supervised injectable methadone versus optimised oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction. METHODS: In this multisite, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled chronic heroin addicts who were receiving conventional oral treatment (>or=6 months), but continued to inject street heroin regularly (>or=50% of days in preceding 3 months). Randomisation by minimisation was used to assign patients to receive supervised injectable methadone, supervised injectable heroin, or optimised oral methadone. Treatment was provided for 26 weeks in three supervised injecting clinics in England. Primary outcome was 50% or more of negative specimens for street heroin on weekly urinalysis during weeks 14-26. Primary analysis was by intention to treat; data were adjusted for centre, regular crack use at baseline, and treatment with optimised oral methadone at baseline. Percentages were calculated with Rubin's rules and were then used to estimate numbers of patients in the multiple imputed samples. This study is registered, ISRCTN01338071. FINDINGS: Of 301 patients screened, 127 were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive injectable methadone (n=42 patients), injectable heroin (n=43), or oral methadone (n=42); all patients were included in the primary analysis. At 26 weeks, 80% (n=101) patients remained in assigned treatment: 81% (n=34) on injectable methadone, 88% (n=38) on injectable heroin, and 69% (n=29) on oral methadone. Patients on injectable heroin were significantly more likely to have achieved the primary outcome (72% [n=31]) than were those on oral methadone (27% [n=11], OR 7.42, 95% CI 2.69-20.46, p<0.0001; adjusted: 66% [n=28] vs 19% [n=8], 8.17, 2.88-23.16, p<0.0001), with number needed to treat of 2.17 (95% CI 1.60-3.97). For injectable methadone (39% [n=16]; adjusted: 30% [n=14]) versus oral methadone, the difference was not significant (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.66-4.60, p=0.264; adjusted: 1.79, 0.67-4.82, p=0.249). For injectable heroin versus injectable methadone, a significant difference was recorded (4.26, 1.63-11.14, p=0.003; adjusted: 4.57, 1.71-12.19, p=0.002), but the study was not powered for this comparison. Differences were evident within the first 6 weeks of treatment. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with supervised injectable heroin leads to significantly lower use of street heroin than does supervised injectable methadone or optimised oral methadone. UK Government proposals should be rolled out to support the positive response that can be achieved with heroin maintenance treatment for previously unresponsive chronic heroin addicts. FUNDING: Community Fund (Big Lottery) Research section, through Action on Addiction.

Using a pragmatically adapted, low-cost contingency management intervention to promote heroin abstinence in individuals undergoing treatment for heroin use disorder in UK drug services (PRAISE): a cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Most individuals treated for heroin use disorder receive opioid agonist treatment (OAT)(methadone or buprenorphine). However, OAT is associated with high attrition and persistent, occasional heroin use. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of contingency management (CM), a behavioural intervention involving modest financial incentives, in encouraging drug abstinence when applied adjunctively with OAT. UK drug services have a minimal track record of applying CM and limited resources to implement it. We assessed a CM intervention pragmatically adapted for ease of implementation in UK drug services to promote heroin abstinence among individuals receiving OAT. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 552 adults with heroin use disorder (target 660) enrolled from 34 clusters (drug treatment clinics) in England between November 2012 and October 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Clusters were randomly allocated 1:1:1 to OAT plus 12× weekly appointments with: (1) CM targeted at opiate abstinence at appointments (CM Abstinence); (2) CM targeted at on-time attendance at appointments (CM Attendance); or (3) no CM (treatment as usual; TAU). Modifications included monitoring behaviour weekly and fixed incentives schedule. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome: heroin abstinence measured by heroin-free urines (weeks 9-12). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: heroin abstinence 12 weeks after discontinuation of CM (weeks 21-24); attendance; self-reported drug use, physical and mental health. RESULTS: CM Attendance was superior to TAU in encouraging heroin abstinence. Odds of a heroin-negative urine in weeks 9-12 was statistically significantly greater in CM Attendance compared with TAU (OR=2.1; 95% CI 1.1 to 3.9; p=0.030). CM Abstinence was not superior to TAU (OR=1.6; 95% CI 0.9 to 3.0; p=0.146) or CM Attendance (OR=1.3; 95% CI 0.7 to 2.4; p=0.438) (not statistically significant differences). Reductions in heroin use were not sustained at 21-24 weeks. No differences between groups in self-reported heroin use. CONCLUSIONS: A pragmatically adapted CM intervention for routine use in UK drug services was moderately effective in encouraging heroin abstinence compared with no CM only when targeted at attendance. CM targeted at abstinence was not effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 01591254.

Researching the intoxicated: informed consent implications for alcohol and drug research.

This article considers the informed consent process in relation to carrying out research with intoxicated participants in 'field' research settings. There is little discussion in the literature of the potential problems that the intoxication of research participants may pose to research. Intoxication is a potential problem for all researchers but is heightened in field research that takes place in settings where participants are likely to be intoxicated, such as licensed venues, in drug consumption rooms, or police custody suites. The risks to research participants that intoxication poses should not be resolved by electing not to do research with intoxicated participants; it is argued that these risks can be managed to some extent, and are offset by the benefits of such research. Moreover, intoxication (and the impairment of cognitive functions relevant to valid informed consent) may not always be identifiable through behavioural or biochemical methods of detection. The search for accurate and field-practical methods for identifying intoxication amongst participants is useful, but not the only strategy for researchers who want to ensure the validity of the consent process. Suggestions are provided for devising research protocols that acknowledge and accept intoxication of research participants and attempt to protect them. One solution is to side-step identification of intoxication per se as a strategic objective in the consent process, and turn instead to established methods for ensuring that information has been understood by potential research participants.

Drug use, health and social outcomes of hard-to-treat heroin addicts receiving supervised injectable opiate treatment: secondary outcomes from the Randomized Injectable Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT).

AIMS: The Randomized Injectable Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT) compared supervised injectable heroin (SIH) and supervised injectable methadone (SIM) with optimized oral methadone (OOM) (ISRCTN0133807). Heroin addicts (previously unresponsive to treatment) made significant reductions in street heroin use at 6 months when treated with SIH. We now examine secondary outcomes. DESIGN: Multi-site randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing SIH versus OOM and SIM versus OOM. SETTING: Three supervised injectable opiate clinics in England. PARTICIPANTS: Chronic refractory heroin addicts continuing to inject street heroin virtually daily despite oral substitution treatment (n = 127), randomized to either SIH(n = 43), SIM(n = 42) or OOM(n = 42). All received high levels of medical and psychosocial support. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: wider drug use, crime, health and social functioning at 6 months. FINDINGS: At 6 months, no significant differences were found between treatment groups in wider drug use (crack/cocaine, benzodiazepines, alcohol), physical and mental health (SF-36) or social functioning. Within each treatment group, significant reductions were observed in crime [SIH = odds ratio (OR) 0.05; P < 0.001; SIM = OR 0.11; P = 0.002; OOM = OR 0.11; P = 0.003] and money spent per week on illicit drugs (SIH = mean change £-289.43; P < 0.001; SIM = mean change £-183.41; P < 0.001; OOM = mean change £-162.80; P < 0.001), with SIH significantly more likely to have reduced money spent on illicit drugs versus OOM (mean difference £-92.04; P < 0.001). Significant improvements were seen in physical health for SIH and SIM (SIH = mean change 3.97; P = 0.008; SIM = mean change 4.73; P = 0.002) and mental health for OOM (mean change 6.04; P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Supervised injectable heroin treatment and supervised injectable methadone treatment showed no clearly identified benefit over optimized oral methadone in terms of wider drug use, crime, physical and mental health within a 6-month period, despite reducing street heroin use to a greater extent. However, all interventions were associated with improvements in these outcomes.

Treatment expectations and satisfaction of treatment-refractory opioid-dependent patients in RIOTT, the Randomised Injectable Opiate Treatment Trial, the UK's first supervised injectable maintenance clinics.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The study investigates patients' pre-treatment expectations of, and post-treatment satisfaction with, supervised injectable opiate treatment delivered within UK's first such clinics within the Randomised Injectable Opiate Treatment Trial (RIOTT) (ISRCTN0133807). DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected from 127 chronic heroin addicts recruited to RIOTT and randomised to receive supervised injectable (heroin or methadone) treatment or optimised oral maintenance treatment at supervised injectable maintenance clinics in London, Darlington and Brighton. RESULTS: Of 127 RIOTT patients, 113 (89%) provided responses to structured enquiry about treatment expectations, and 94 (74%) subsequent responses about treatment satisfaction (at six months). Patients were hoping that injectable heroin treatment would: reduce substance misuse (81%); help achieve normality, routine and structure (16%); and increase education and work prospects (15%). At six months, an area of treatment satisfaction most commonly reported by all three trial groups was reduced substance misuse (supervised injectable heroin 59%, supervised injectable methadone 56%, optimised oral methadone 54%). Most found supervision acceptable, but some desired modifications were also identified. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Patients previously considered non-responsive to treatment appear to have similar treatment expectations and aspirations as other drug users in treatment. Supervised injectable opioid treatment patients consistently reported treatment satisfaction but also that more could be done to optimise aspects of current arrangement. This raised the challenging issue of the extent to which opinions of patients need to be taken into consideration in shaping future treatment provision. Future research may need to examine the extent of expectations 'fit' and the relationship between treatment sought and received.

A qualitative study of illicit and non-prescribed drug use amongst people with psychotic disorders.

BACKGROUND: The reasons for drug use amongst people with psychosis are poorly understood. AIMS: To investigate patterns of drug use and self-reported reasons for drug use amongst people with psychosis. METHOD: Qualitative interviews with 14 patients with psychosis who misuse drugs. RESULTS: Most participants felt drug use was implicated in the development or exacerbation of psychosis. Most changed their pattern of drug use post-onset, reported transient motivation to abstain from drug use but became discerning drug users. Despite awareness of the negative physical and mental health consequences of drug use participants reported that drugs were used for social reasons, to achieve pleasurable intoxication, to relieve dysphoria or the side effects of anti-psychotic medication and to enhance or modify mood. Self-medication in response to psychotic symptoms was not reported. CONCLUSIONS: Participants described reasons for drug use that were consistent with those previously reported, but we found no strong evidence that patients self-medicated in response to their psychotic symptoms. Transient motivation to abstain from drug use may provide opportunities for intervention but psychiatric professionals need to assess each patient's motivations for use to intervene effectively.