Differential long-term outcomes for voluntary and involuntary transition from injection to oral opioid maintenance treatment

Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes, Daphne Guh, Kirsten Marchand, David C Marsh, Kurt Lock, Suzanne Brissette, Aslam H Anis, Martin T Schechter, Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes, Daphne Guh, Kirsten Marchand, David C Marsh, Kurt Lock, Suzanne Brissette, Aslam H Anis, Martin T Schechter

Abstract

Background: The most widely used maintenance treatment for opioid dependency is substitution with long-acting oral opioids. Treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine provides an opportunity for patients to stabilize and possibly transition to oral treatment, if clinically indicated. The aim of this study was to explore outcomes of individuals that received injectable diacetylmorphine and voluntarily transitioned to oral methadone.

Design and methods: The North American Opiate Medication Initiative was a randomized controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of injectable diacetylmorphine (or hydromorphone) to oral methadone for long-term opioid-dependency. Treatment was provided for 12-months with an additional 3 months for transition and weaning. Participants were followed until 24-months from randomization. Among the participants randomized to injectable treatments, a sub-group voluntarily chose to transition to oral methadone (n = 16) during the treatment period. Illicit heroin use and treatment retention were assessed at 24-months for those voluntarily and involuntarily transitioning (n = 95) to oral methadone.

Results: At 24-months, the group that voluntarily transitioned to oral methadone had higher odds of treatment retention (adjusted odds ratio = 5.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11, 27.81; Chi-square = 4.33, df = 1, p-value = 0.037) than the involuntary transition group. At 24-months, the adjusted mean difference in prior 30 days of illicit heroin use for the voluntary, compared to the involuntary group was -5.58 (95% CI = -11.62, 0.47; t-value = -1.83, df = 97.4, p-value = 0.070).

Conclusions: Although the results of this study were based on small groups of self-selected (i.e., non-randomized) participants, our data underlines the critical importance of voluntary and patient-centered decision making. If we had continued offering treatment with diacetylmorphine, those retained to injectable medication may have sustained the achieved improvements in the first 12 months. Diversified opioid treatment should be available so patients and physicians can flexibly choose the best treatment at the time.

Clinical trial registration: NCT00175357.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Days of illicit heroin use from baseline to 24-months follow-up for voluntary, involuntary and oral treatment groups.

References

    1. Degenhardt L, Hall W, Warner-Smith M. Using cohort studies to estimate mortality among injecting drug users that is not attributable to AIDS. Sex Transm Infect. 2006;82(Suppl 3):iii56–63.
    1. Rogne Gjeruldsen S, Myrvang B, Opjordsmoen S. Criminality in drug addicts: a follow-up study over 25 years. Eur Addict Res. 2004;10:49–55. doi: 10.1159/000076113.
    1. Green TC, McGowan SK, Yokell MA, Pouget ER, Rich JD. HIV infection and risk of overdose: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS. 2012;26:403–417. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32834f19b6.
    1. Van den Brink W, Haasen C. Evidenced-based treatment of opioid-dependent patients. Can J Psychiatry. 2006;51:635–646.
    1. Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, Davoli M. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3:CD002209.
    1. Ferri M, Davoli M, Perucci CA. Heroin maintenance for chronic heroin-dependent individuals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12:CD003410.
    1. Strang J, Groshkova T, Metrebian N. EMCDDA Insights. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2012. New heroin-assisted treatment. Recent evidence and current practices of supervised injectable heroin treatment in Europe and beyond.
    1. Verthein U, Bonorden-Kleij K, Degkwitz P, Dilg C, Kohler WK, Passie T, Soyka M, Tanger S, Vogel M, Haasen C. Long-term effects of heroin-assisted treatment in Germany. Addiction. 2008;103:960–966. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02185.x. discussion 967–968.
    1. Publique OFdlS. Traitement avec prescription d’héroïne (HeGeBe) en 2009 et 2010. Swiss: Office Fédéral de la Santé Publique; 2011.
    1. Clark N. Commentary: Injectable diacetylmorphine is more effective than oral methadone in the treatment of chronic relapsing opioid dependence. Mental Health: Evidence Based; 2010. p. 13.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes E, Brissette S, Marsh DC, Lauzon P, Guh D, Anis A, Schechter MT. Diacetylmorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid addiction. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:777–786. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810635.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes E, Nosyk B, Marsh D, Guh D, Brissette S, Gartry C, Krausz M, Anis A, Schechter MT. Scientific and political challenges in North America’s first randomized controlled trial of heroin-assisted treatment for severe heroin addiction: Rationale and design of the NAOMI Study. Clin Trials. 2009;6:261–271. doi: 10.1177/1740774509105222.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes E, Krausz M, Marsh D, Brissette S, Lauzon P, Anis A, Schechter MT. Profile of participants in the Canadian heroin trial: the NAOMI study. 19th International Harm Reduction Conference, Barcelona, Spain. 2008. Poster presentation.
    1. Association AP. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
    1. Kokkevi A, Hartgers C. EuropASI: European adaptation of a multidimensional assessment instrument for drug and alcohol dependence. Eur Addict Res. 1995;1:208–210. doi: 10.1159/000259089.
    1. Marsden J, Gossop M, Stewart D, Best D, Farrell M, Lehmann P, Edwards C, Strang J. The Maudsley Addiction Profile (MAP): a brief instrument for assessing treatment outcome. Addiction. 1998;93:1857–1867. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.9312185711.x.
    1. van der Zanden BP, Dijkgraaf MG, Blanken P, de Borgie CA, van Ree JM, van den Brink W. Validity of the EQ-5D as a generic health outcome instrument in a heroin-dependent population. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;82:111–118. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.08.012.
    1. Oviedo-Joekes E, Guh D, Brissette S, Marsh DC, Nosyk B, Krausz M, Anis A, Schechter MT. Double-blind injectable hydromorphone versus diacetylmorphine for the treatment of opioid dependence: a pilot study. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;38:408–411. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2010.03.003.
    1. Barnard J, Rubin DB. Small-sample degrees of freedom with multiple imputation. Biometrika. 1999;86:948–955. doi: 10.1093/biomet/86.4.948.
    1. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT® 9.2 user’s guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2008.
    1. Gartry CC, Oviedo-Joekes E, Laliberte N, Schechter MT. NAOMI: the trials and tribulations of implementing a heroin assisted treatment study in North America. Harm Reduct J. 2009;6:2. doi: 10.1186/1477-7517-6-2.
    1. Verthein U, Schafer I, Degkwitz P. Social integration after 4 years of heroin-assisted treatment. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 2013;52:243–250.
    1. Trujols J, Iraurgi I, Oviedo-Joekes E, Guardia G. A critical analysis of user satisfaction surveys in addiction services: opioid maintenance treatment as a representative case study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa