Nicola Metrebian

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 Rubins 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.

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).

Methodology for the Randomised Injecting Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT): evaluating injectable methadone and injectable heroin treatment versus optimised oral methadone treatment in the UK.

Whilst unsupervised injectable methadone and diamorphine treatment has been part of the British treatment system for decades, the numbers receiving injectable opioid treatment (IOT) has been steadily diminishing in recent years. In contrast, there has been a recent expansion of supervised injectable diamorphine programs under trial conditions in a number of European and North American cities, although the evidence regarding the safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of this treatment approach remains equivocal. Recent British clinical guidance indicates that IOT should be a second-line treatment for those patients in high-quality oral methadone treatment who continue to regularly inject heroin, and that treatment be initiated in newly-developed supervised injecting clinics.The Randomised Injectable Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT) is a multisite, prospective open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the role of treatment with injected opioids (methadone and heroin) for the management of heroin dependence in patients not responding to conventional substitution treatment. Specifically, the study examines whether efforts should be made to optimise methadone treatment for such patients (e.g. regular attendance, supervised dosing, high oral doses, access to psychosocial services), or whether such patients should be treated with injected methadone or heroin.Eligible patients (in oral substitution treatment and injecting illicit heroin on a regular basis) are randomised to one of three conditions: (1) optimized oral methadone treatment (Control group); (2) injected methadone treatment; or (3) injected heroin treatment (with access to oral methadone doses). Subjects are followed up for 6-months, with between-group comparisons on an intention-to-treat basis across a range of outcome measures. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who discontinue regular illicit heroin use (operationalised as providing >50% urine drug screens negative for markers of illicit heroin in months 4 to 6). Secondary outcomes include measures of other drug use, injecting practices, health and psychosocial functioning, criminal activity, patient satisfaction and incremental cost effectiveness. The study aims to recruit 150 subjects, with 50 patients per group, and is to be conducted in supervised injecting clinics across England.

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.

The Fine Line between Harm Reduction and Harm Production – Development of a Clinical Policy on Femoral (Groin) Injecting

Background/Aims: The femoral region (‘groin’) appears to be increasingly commonly used by injecting drug users in the UK. With the advent of Britain’s first supervised prescribed injectable opioid treatment clinic, unprecedented decisions and judgements were required about the safe supervision of this practice, or whether to permit this behaviour on site at all. This paper reports the reasons for, and outcome of, development of a clinical policy on injecting into the deep femoral vein (groin injecting). Method: A small in-depth audit of the complications of femoral injecting was undertaken in a supervised injecting clinic. Results: All femoral injectors had had either local site-related medical complications or other health problems which could potentially be worsened by ongoing injection. This finding along with the personal and professional issues raised by staff for supervision of femoral injecting led to a revised policy focussing on achieving a shift towards lower-risk peripheral venous and intramuscular sites. Conclusion: While the clinic staff’s training may be more compatible with professional duties of care by encouraging cessation of femoral injecting, this does not tell us what advice harm reduction workers in the field should offer groin injectors. More research is needed into this high-risk, controversial injecting practice.

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. 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.

Pathways into Receiving a Prescription for Diamorphine (Heroin) for the Treatment of Opiate Dependence in the United Kingdom

In the UK, few doctors prescribe diamorphine for the treatment of opiate dependence to a small number of patients. A retrospective case note review of patients receiving diamorphine in 2000 was conducted in the UK to determine how and why these patients came to receive a prescription for diamorphine. Patient eligibility criteria were examined together with doctors’ stated reasons for initiating a diamorphine (heroin) prescription. Two hundred and ten sets of patients’ case notes were reviewed at 27 of the 42 (64%) drug clinics in England and Wales where diamorphine was prescribed by the doctor. There appeared to be a general consensus among the few doctors who had prescribed diamorphine that it was a treatment of last resort, for those with long histories of heroin use and injecting, and those who had not responded sufficiently well to previous other treatments. However, there was also a small number of patients initiated on diamorphine without ever having previously received opiate treatments and some because they were experiencing problems injecting methadone. This reflects the UK history of the individual doctor’s clinical autonomy in deciding when diamorphine is appropriate and the previous lack of nationally agreed patient eligibility criteria.

An economic evaluation of contingency management for completion of hepatitis B vaccination in those on treatment for opiate dependence.

Abstract Aims To determine whether the provision of contingency management using financial incentives to improve hepatitis B vaccine completion in people who inject drugs entering community treatment represents a cost‐effective use of health‐care resources. Design A probabilistic cost‐effectiveness analysis was conducted, using a decision‐tree to estimate the short‐term clinical and health‐care cost impact of the vaccination strategies, followed by a Markov process to evaluate the long‐term clinical consequences and costs associated with hepatitis B infection. Settings and participants Data on attendance to vaccination from a UK cluster randomized trial. Intervention Two contingency management options were examined in the trial: fixed versus escalating schedule financial incentives. Measurement Life‐time health‐care costs and quality‐adjusted life years discounted at 3.5% annually; incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios. Findings The resulting estimate for the incremental life‐time health‐care cost of the contingency management strategy versus usual care was £21.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) = –£12.20 to 39.86] per person offered the incentive. For 1000 people offered the incentive, the incremental reduction in numbers of hepatitis B infections avoided over their lifetime was estimated at 19 (95% CI = 8–30). The probabilistic incremental cost per quality adjusted life‐year gained of the contingency management programme was estimated to be £6738 (95% CI = £6297–7172), with an 89% probability of being considered cost‐effective at a threshold of £20 000 per quality‐adjusted life years gained (97.60% at £30 000). Conclusions Using financial incentives to increase hepatitis B vaccination completion in people who inject drugs could be a cost‐effective use of health‐care resources in the UK as long as the incidence remains above 1.2%.

Positive reinforcement targeting abstinence in substance misuse (PRAISe): Study protocol for a Cluster RCT & process evaluation of contingency management

There are approximately 256,000 heroin and other opiate users in England of whom 155,000 are in treatment for heroin (or opiate) addiction. The majority of people in treatment receive opiate substitution treatment (OST) (methadone and buprenorphine). However, OST suffers from high attrition and persistent heroin use even whilst in treatment. Contingency management (CM) is a psychological intervention based on the principles of operant conditioning. It is delivered as an adjunct to existing evidence based treatments to amplify patient benefit and involves the systematic application of positive reinforcement (financial or material incentives) to promote behaviours consistent with treatment goals. With an international evidence base for CM, NICE recommended that CM be implemented in UK drug treatment settings alongside OST to target attendance and the reduction of illicit drug use. While there was a growing evidence base for CM, there had been no examination of its delivery in UK NHS addiction services. The PRAISe trial evaluates the feasibility, acceptability, clinical and cost effectiveness of CM in UK addiction services. It is a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness trial of CM (praise and financial incentives) targeted at either abstinence from opiates or attendance at treatment sessions versus no CM among individuals receiving OST. The trial includes an economic evaluation which explores the relative costs and cost effectiveness of the two CM intervention strategies compared to TAU and an embedded process evaluation to identify contextual factors and causal mechanisms associated with variations in outcome. This study will inform UK drug treatment policy and practice. Trial registration ISRCTN 01591254.