Serious adverse events in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD)

Aims The study estimated serious adverse event (SAE) rates among entrants to pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence, during treatment and after leaving treatment. Design A longitudinal study based on data from 12 trials included in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD). Participants and settings A total of 1.244 heroin users and methadone patients treated in hospital, community and GP settings. Intervention Six trials included detoxification; all included treatment with methadone, buprenorphine, levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol (LAAM) or naltrexone. Findings During 394 person-years of observation, 79 SAEs of 28 types were recorded. Naltrexone participants experienced 39 overdoses per 100 person-years after leaving treatment (44% occurred within 2 weeks after stopping naltrexone). This was eight times the rate recorded among participants who left agonist treatment. Rates of all other SAEs were similar during treatment versus out of treatment, for both naltrexone-treated and agonist-treated participants. Five deaths occurred, all among participants who had left treatment, at a rate of six per 100 person-years. Total SAE rates during naltrexone and agonist treatments were similar (20, 14 per 100 person-years, respectively). Total SAE and death rates observed among participants who had left treatment were three and 19 times the corresponding rates during treatment. Conclusions Individuals who leave pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence experience higher overdose and death rates compared with those in treatment. This may be due partly to a participant self-selection effect rather than entirely to pharmacotherapy being protective. Clinicians should alert naltrexone treatment patients in particular about heroin overdose risks. Duty of care may extend beyond cessation of dosing.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of heroin detoxification methods in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD)

This economic evaluation was part of the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD) project. Data from four trials of heroin detoxification methods, involving 365 participants, were pooled to enable a comprehensive comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five inpatient and outpatient detoxification methods. This study took the perspective of the treatment provider in assessing resource use and costs. Two short-term outcome measures were used-achievement of an initial 7-day period of abstinence, and entry into ongoing post-detoxification treatment. The mean costs of the various detoxification methods ranged widely, from AUD $491 (buprenorphine-based outpatient); to AUD $605 for conventional outpatient; AUD $1404 for conventional inpatient; AUD $1990 for rapid detoxification under sedation; and to AUD $2689 for anaesthesia per episode. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using conventional outpatient detoxification as the base comparator. The buprenorphine-based outpatient detoxification method was found to be the most cost-effective method overall, and rapid opioid detoxification under sedation was the most costeffective inpatient method.

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.

The contribution of research to Australian policy responses to heroin dependence 1990-2001: a personal retrospection

Periodic public concern about heroin use has been a major driver of Australian drug policy in the four decades since heroin use was first reported. The number of heroin-dependent people in Australia has increased from several hundreds in the late 1960s to around 100000 by the end of the 1990s. In this paper I do the following: (1) describe collaborative research on heroin dependence that was undertaken between 1991 and 2001 by researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre: (2) discuss the contribution that this research may have made to the formulation of policies towards the treatment of heroin dependence during a period when the policy debate crystallized around the issue of whether or not Australia should conduct a controlled trial of heroin prescription; and (3) reflect on the relationships between research and policy-making in the addictions field, specifically on the roles of investigator-initiated and commissioned research, the interface between researchers, funders and policymakers: and the need to be realistic about the likely impact of research on policy and practice.

The impact of a reduction in drug supply on demand for and compliance with treatment for drug dependence

Background: In early 2001, Australia experienced a sudden, dramatic and;sustained decrease in heroin availability that was accompanied by sharp increases in price and decreases in street level purity-the so-called heroin shortage. These unprecedented changes occurred in a context of widespread treatment availability, which made it possible for the first time to examine the impact of a sharp reduction in heroin supply in New South Wales (NSW) on entry to and adherence with treatment for heroin dependence. Given the evidence of drug substitution by some users. the current paper also examines the effects of the shortage on entry to treatment for other forms of drug dependence. Methods: Interrupted time-series analysis of the number of persons entering opioid pharmacotherapy and other treatment modalities in NSW for heroin dependence and for the treatment for other types of drug dependence. Findings: The heroin shortage was associated with a reduction in the number of younger persons entering opioid pharmacotherapy. There was a dramatic decrease in the number of persons entering heroin withdrawal or assessment only treatment episodes. There appear to have been small improvements in adherence to and retention in heroin treatment after the reduction in heroin supply. Relatively small increases were observed in numbers being treated for cocaine dependence. Conclusions: In the context of good treatment provision, a reduction in heroin supply appeared to produce modest improvements in intermediate outcomes. Supply and demand reduction measures, when both are implemented successfully, may be complementary. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.