Search

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. Measurements 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: HCV (hepatitis C) treatment uptake among the population most affected – people who inject drugs – is suboptimal. Hospital based treatment provision is one evidenced barrier to HCV treatment uptake. In response, HCV treatment is increasingly located in treatment settings seen as more amenable to people who inject drugs, such as drug and alcohol services. We explored the accessibility of HCV treatment provision at two such partnerships. Data collection comprised qualitative interviews collected in 2011 and 2012 with 35 service users and 14 service providers of HCV treatment in London, United Kingdom. We draw here primarily on thematic analyses of service provider accounts, yet narratives relating to trust and environment emerged unsolicited in both user and provider accounts of negotiated HCV treatment access. A key theme in service provider accounts were strategies they deployed to ‘tame’ the treatment system so as to create an ‘enabling environment’ of care, in which trust was a critical feature. This ‘taming’ of the system was enacted through practices of ‘negotiated flexibility’, including in relation to appointments, eligibility, and phlebotomy. Service user accounts accentuated familiar environments and known health providers as those most trusted, and the potentially stigmatising effects of negotiating treatment in unfamiliar territory, especially hospital settings. Whilst noting the effects of provider strategies to negotiate flexibility on behalf of would-be patients seeking treatment, we conclude by noting the limits of trust relations in settings of constrained choice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)