Perceptions of injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) among people who regularly use opioids in Australia: findings from a cross-sectional study in three Australian cities.
Consumer perceptions
heroin
injectable opioid agonist treatment
medication assisted treatment
opioid dependence
opioid-related disorders
Journal
Addiction (Abingdon, England)
ISSN: 1360-0443
Titre abrégé: Addiction
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9304118
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
revised:
03
08
2020
received:
06
05
2020
accepted:
13
10
2020
pubmed:
18
10
2020
medline:
24
9
2021
entrez:
17
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Not all people experiencing opioid dependence benefit from oral opioid agonist treatment. The aim of this study was to examine perceptions of (supervised) injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) (described as 'an opioid similar to heroin self-injected at a clinic several times a day') among people who regularly use opioids and determine how common iOAT eligibility criteria accord with interest in iOAT. Cross-sectional survey SETTING: Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, Australia PARTICIPANTS: A total of 344 people (63% male) who use opioids regularly and had ever injected opioids, interviewed December 2017-March 2018. The mean age of participants was 41.5 years [standard deviation (SD) = 8.5]. Primary outcome measures were interest in iOAT, factors associated with interest and the proportion of participants who would be eligible using common criteria from trials and guidelines. We examined willingness to travel for iOAT, medication preferences and perspectives on whom should receive iOAT. Overall, 53% of participants (n = 182) believed that iOAT would be a good treatment option for them. Participants who believed that iOAT was a good treatment option for them were more likely to be male [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-2.82], have used heroin in the past month (aOR = 6.03, 95% CI = 2.86-12.71), currently regularly inject opioids (aOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.16-2.91) and have met ICD-10 criteria for opioid dependence (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.65-7.24). Those interested in iOAT had commenced more treatment episodes (aOR =1.06, 95% CI = 1.00-1.12). Among those interested in iOAT (n = 182), 26% (n = 48) met common eligibility criteria for iOAT. Interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment does not appear to be universal among people who regularly use opioids. Among study participants who expressed interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment, most did not meet common eligibility criteria.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Not all people experiencing opioid dependence benefit from oral opioid agonist treatment. The aim of this study was to examine perceptions of (supervised) injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) (described as 'an opioid similar to heroin self-injected at a clinic several times a day') among people who regularly use opioids and determine how common iOAT eligibility criteria accord with interest in iOAT.
DESIGN
Cross-sectional survey SETTING: Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, Australia PARTICIPANTS: A total of 344 people (63% male) who use opioids regularly and had ever injected opioids, interviewed December 2017-March 2018. The mean age of participants was 41.5 years [standard deviation (SD) = 8.5].
MEASUREMENTS
Primary outcome measures were interest in iOAT, factors associated with interest and the proportion of participants who would be eligible using common criteria from trials and guidelines. We examined willingness to travel for iOAT, medication preferences and perspectives on whom should receive iOAT.
FINDINGS
Overall, 53% of participants (n = 182) believed that iOAT would be a good treatment option for them. Participants who believed that iOAT was a good treatment option for them were more likely to be male [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-2.82], have used heroin in the past month (aOR = 6.03, 95% CI = 2.86-12.71), currently regularly inject opioids (aOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.16-2.91) and have met ICD-10 criteria for opioid dependence (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.65-7.24). Those interested in iOAT had commenced more treatment episodes (aOR =1.06, 95% CI = 1.00-1.12). Among those interested in iOAT (n = 182), 26% (n = 48) met common eligibility criteria for iOAT.
CONCLUSIONS
Interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment does not appear to be universal among people who regularly use opioids. Among study participants who expressed interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment, most did not meet common eligibility criteria.
Substances chimiques
Analgesics, Opioid
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1482-1494Informations de copyright
© 2020 Society for the Study of Addiction.
Références
Mattick R. P., Breen C., Kimber J., Davoli M. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 3: CD002207.
Gowing L. R. The role of opioid substitution treatment in reducing HIV transmission. BMJ 2012; 345: e6425.
Sordo L., Barrio G., Bravo M. J., Indave B. I., Degenhardt L., Wiessing L., et al. Mortality risk during and after opioid substitution treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. BMJ 2017; 357: j1550.
Bao Y. P., Liu Z. M., Epstein D. H., Du C., Shi J., Lu L. A meta-analysis of retention in methadone maintenance by dose and dosing strategy. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2009; 35: 28-33.
Van Den Brink W., Hendriks V. M., Van Ree J. M. Medical co-prescription of heroin to chronic, treatment-resistant methadone patients in the Netherlands. J Drug Issues 1999; 29: 587-607.
Lintzeris N. Prescription of heroin for the management of heroin dependence: current status. CNS Drugs 2009; 23: 463-476.
Strang L., Taylor B. Heroin-Assisted Treatment and Supervised Drug Consumption Sites: Experience from Four Countries. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2018.
British Columbia Center on Sustance Use (BCCSU). Supervised Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment Guidance Committee Guidance for Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder. Vancouver, Canada: BCCSU; 2017.
Fischer B., Rehm J., Kirst M., Casas M., Hall W., Krausz M., et al. Heroin-assisted treatment as a response to the public health problem of opiate dependence. Eur J Public Health 2002; 12: 228-234.
Bell J., Waal R. V., Strang J. Supervised injectable heroin: a clinical perspective. Can J Psychiatry 2017; 62: 451-456.
Fischer B., Pang M., Tyndall M. The opioid death crisis in Canada: crucial lessons for public health. Lancet Public Health 2019; 4: e81-e82.
Tyndall M. An emergency response to the opioid overdose crisis in Canada: a regulated opioid distribution program. Can Med Assoc J 2018; 190: E35.
Bromley L. A. Problems with hydromorphone prescribing as a response to the opioid crisis. Can Med Assoc J 2020; 192: E219-E220.
Strang J., Groshkova T., Uchtenhagen A., van den Brink W., Haasen C., Schechter M. T., et al. Heroin on trial: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of diamorphine-prescribing as treatment for refractory heroin addiction. Br J Psychiatry 2015; 207: 5-14.
Ferri M., Davoli M., Perucci C. A. Heroin maintenance for chronic heroin-dependent individuals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 12: CD003410.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) Opioid Harm in Australia and Comparisons Between Australia and Canada. Cat. no. HSE 210. Canberra: AIHW; 2018.
Scholl L., Seth P., Kariisa M., Wilson N., Baldwin G. Drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths-United States, 2013-2017. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018; 67: 1419-1427.
Belackova V., Salmon A. M., Jauncey M., Bell J. Learning from the past, looking to the future-is there a place for injectable opioid treatment among Australia’s responses to opioid misuse? Int J Drug Policy 2019; 71: 164-168.
Oviedo-Joekes E., Palis H., Guh D., Marsh D. C., MacDonald S., Harrison S., et al. Adverse events during treatment induction with injectable diacetylmorphine and hydromorphone for opioid use disorder. J Addict Med 2019; 13: 354-361.
Nosyk B., Guh D. P., Bansback N. J., Oviedo-Joekes E., Brissette S., Marsh D. C., et al. Cost-effectiveness of diacetylmorphine versus methadone for chronic opioid dependence refractory to treatment. Can Med Assoc J 2012; 184: E317-E328.
Dijkgraaf M. G., van der Zanden B. P., de Borgie C. A., Blanken P., van Ree J. M., van den Brink W. Cost utility analysis of co-prescribed heroin compared with methadone maintenance treatment in heroin addicts in two randomised trials. BMJ 2005; 330: 1297.
Byford S., Barrett B., Metrebian N., Groshkova T., Cary M., Charles V., et al. Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction. Br J Psychiatry 2013; 203: 341-349.
Perneger T. V., Giner F., del Rio M., Mino A. Randomised trial of heroin maintenance programme for addicts who fail in conventional drug treatments. BMJ 1998; 317: 13-18.
Haasen C., Verthein U., Degkwitz P., Berger J., Krausz M., Naber D. Heroin-assisted treatment for opioid dependence. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191: 55-62.
van den Brink W., Hendriks V. M., Blanken P., Koeter M. W., van Zwieten B. J., van Ree J. M. Medical prescription of heroin to treatment resistant heroin addicts: two randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003; 327: 310.
Strang J., Metrebian N., Lintzeris N., Potts L., Carnwath T., Mayet S., et al. 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. Lancet 2010; 375: 1885-1895.
Oviedo-Joekes E., Brissette S., Marsh D. C., Lauzon P., Guh D., Anis A., et al. Diacetylmorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid addiction. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 777-786.
Demaret I., Litran G., Magoga C., Deblire C., Dupont A., De Roubaix J., et al. Why do heroin users refuse to participate in a heroin-assisted treatment trial? Heroin Addict Relat Clin Prob 2014; 16: 41-48.
Lancaster K., Santana L., Madden A., Ritter A. Stigma and subjectivities: examining the textured relationship between lived experience and opinions about drug policy among people who inject drugs, drugs: education. Prev Pol 2015; 22: 224-231.
Lancaster K., Ritter A., Stafford J. Public opinion and drug policy in Australia: engaging the ‘affected community’. Drug Alcohol Rev 2013; 32: 60-66.
Groshkova T., Metrebian N., Hallam C., Charles V., Martin A., Forzisi L., et al. 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. Drug Alcohol Rev 2013; 32: 566-573.
Oviedo-Joekes E., Marchand K., Lock K., Chettiar J., Marsh D. C., Brissette S., et al. A chance to stop and breathe: participants’ experiences in the North American opiate medication initiative clinical trial. Addict Sci Clin Pract 2014; 9: 21.
Palis H., Marchand K., Guh D., Brissette S., Lock K., MacDonald S., et al. Men's and women’s response to treatment and perceptions of outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of injectable opioid assisted treatment for severe opioid use disorder. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 2017; 12: 25.
Sell L., Zador D. Patients prescribed injectable heroin or methadone-their opinions and experiences of treatment. Addiction 2004; 99: 442-449.
Larance B., Degenhardt L., Grebely J., Nielsen S., Bruno R., Dietze P., et al. Perceptions of extended-release buprenorphine injections for opioid use disorder among people who regularly use opioids in Australia. Addiction 2019; 115: 1295-1305.
Chamberlain C., MacKenzie D., Counting the Homeless 2006 Australian Capital Territory. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2008.
Kroenke K., Spitzer R., Williams J. B. W. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 606-613.
Kroenke K., Spitzer R. L., Williams J. B. W., Lowe B. The patient health questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptom scales: a systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2010; 32: 345-359.
McCaffrey N., Kaambwa B., Currow D. C., Ratcliffe J. Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L: South Australian population norms. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016; 14: 133.
Reinert D. F., Allen J. P. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: an update of research findings. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2007; 31: 185-199.
Kessler R. C., Ustun T. B. The World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2004; 13: 93-121.
Strang J., Groshkova T., Metrebian N. New heroin-assisted treatment: recent evidence and current practices of supervised injectable heroin treatment in Europe and beyond Luxembourg: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA); 2012.
Oviedo-Joekes E., Marchand K., Lock K., MacDonald S., Guh D., Schechter M. T. The SALOME study: recruitment experiences in a clinical trial offering injectable diacetylmorphine and hydromorphone for opioid dependency. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 2015; 10: 1-9.
StataCorp Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2019.
Klimas J., Dong H., Fairbairn N., Socías E., Barrios R., Wood E., et al. Eligibility for heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) among people who inject opioids and are living with HIV in a Canadian setting. Addict Sci Clin Pract 2018; 13: 3-3.
Penington Institute Australia’s Annual Overdose Report 2020. Melbourne, Australia: Penington Institute; 2020.
Vorspan F., Hjelmström P., Simon N., Benyamina A., Dervaux A., Brousse G., et al. What place for prolonged-release buprenorphine depot-formulation Buvidal® in the treatment arsenal of opioid dependence? Insights from the French experience on buprenorphine. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2019; 16: 907-914.
Mulvale G., Moll S., Miatello A., Robert G., Larkin M., Palmer V. J., et al. Codesigning health and other public services with vulnerable and disadvantaged populations: insights from an international collaboration. Health Expect 2019; 22: 284-297.
Demaret I., Quertemont E., Litran G., Magoga C., Deblire C., Dubois N., et al. Loss of treatment benefit when heroin-assisted treatment is stopped after 12 months. J Subst Abuse Treat 2016; 69: 72-75.
Bell J., Belackova V., Lintzeris N. Supervised injectable opioid treatment for the management of opioid dependence. Drugs 2018; 78: 1339-1352.
Romo N., Poo M., Ballesta R., Pepsa Team From illegal poison to legal medicine: a qualitative research in a heroin-prescription trial in Spain. Drug Alcohol Rev 2009; 28: 186-195.
Hopwood M., Brender L., Frankland A., Treloar C. Assessing community support for harm reduction services: comparing two measures. Drug Alcohol Rev 2010; 29: 385-391.
Kilmer B., Smart R., Taylor J., Caulkins J. P. Prescribing diamorphine in the United States: insights from a nationally representative survey. Drug Alcohol Depend 2019; 196: 62-65.