Using cohort studies to estimate mortality among injecting drug users that is not attributable to AIDS

Background: Injecting drug use (IDU) and associated mortality appear to be increasing in many parts of the world. IDU is an important factor in HIV transmission. In estimating AIDS mortality attributable to IDU, it is important to take account of premature mortality rates from other causes to ensure that AIDS related mortality among injecting drug users (IDUs) is not overestimated. The current review provides estimates of the excess non-AIDS mortality among IDUs. Method: Searches were conducted with Medline, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science. The authors also searched reference lists of identified papers and an earlier literature review by English et al (1995). Crude. mortality rates (CMRs) were derived from data on the number of deaths, period of follow UP, and number of participants. In estimating the all-cause mortality, two rates were calculated: one that included all cohort studies identified in the search, and one that only included studies that reported on AIDS deaths in their cohort. This provided lower and upper mortality rates, respectively. Results: The current paper derived weighted mortality rates based upon cohort studies that included 179 885 participants, 1 219 422 person-years of observation, and 16 593 deaths. The weighted crude AIDS mortality rate from studies that reported AIDS deaths was approximately 0.78% per annum. The median estimated non-AIDS mortality rate was 1.08% per annum. Conclusions: Illicit drug users have a greatly increased risk of premature death and mortality due to AIDS forms a significant part of that increased risk; it is, however, only part of that risk. Future work needs to examine mortality rates among IDUs in developing countries, and collect data on the relation between HIV and increased mortality due to all causes among this group.

Does naltrexone treatment lead to depression? Findings from a randomized controlled trial in subjects with opioid dependence

Objective: Dysphoria and depression have been cited as side effects of the opioid antagonist naltrexone. We aimed to assess whether depressive symptoms are a clinically relevant side effect in a population receiving naltrexone as a treatment for opioid dependence. Methods: We carried out a randomized controlled, open-label trial comparing rapid opiate detoxification under anesthesia and naltrexone treatment with continued methadone maintenance at the Alcohol and Drug Service, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. The study subjects were patients stabilized on methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence who wished to transfer to naltrexone treatment. The Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Opiate Treatment Index subscales for heroin use and social functioning were used at baseline and follow-up assessments at 1, 2, 3 and 6 months. Results: Forty-two participants were allocated to receive naltrexone treatment, whereas 38 continued methadone maintenance as the control condition. Participants who received naltrexone did not exhibit worsening of depressive symptoms. In participants attending all follow-up assessments, there was a trend for those receiving naltrexone to exhibit an improvement in depression over time compared with the control group. Participants who were adherent to naltrexone treatment exhibited fewer depressive symptoms than those who were nonadherent. Conclusions: These results suggest that depression need not be considered a common adverse effect of naltrexone treatment or a treatment contraindication and that engaging with or adhering to naltrexone treatment may be associated with fewer depressive symptoms.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of policy instruments for reducing the global burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use

Alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use together pose a formidable challenge to international public health. Building on earlier estimates of the demonstrated burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use at the global level, this review aims to consider the comparative cost-effectiveness of evidence-based interventions for reducing the global burden of disease from these three risk factors. Although the number of published cost-effectiveness studies in the addictions field is now extensive ( reviewed briefly here) there are a series of practical problems in using them for sector-wide decision making, including methodological heterogeneity, differences in analytical reference point and the specificity of findings to a particular context. In response to these limitations, a more generalised form of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is proposed, which enables like-with-like comparisons of the relative efficiency of preventive or individual-based strategies to be made, not only within but also across diseases or their risk factors. The application of generalised CEA to a range of personal and non-personal interventions for reducing the burden of addictive substances is described. While such a development avoids many of the obstacles that have plagued earlier attempts and in so doing opens up new opportunities to address important policy questions, there remain a number of caveats to population-level analysis of this kind, particularly when conducted at the global level. These issues are the subject of the final section of this review.