Jurisdictional trends in opioid overdose deaths, 1988-96

This report analysed data on opioid overdose mortality between 1988 and 1996 to: examine differences between jurisdictions in the rate of fatal opioid overdose and the rate of increase in overdose; and estimate the proportion of all deaths which were attributed to opioid overdose. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data were obtained on the number of deaths attributed to opioid dependence (ICD 9 codes 304.0, 304.7) and accidental opioid poisoning (ICD 9 codes E850.0, E850.1). The highest rate of fatal overdose occurred in NSW, followed by Victoria. The standardised mortality rate among other jurisdictions fluctuated quite markedly. While the rate of opioid overdose has increased throughout Australia, the rate of increase has been greater in some of the less-populous states and territories than it has in NSW or Victoria. In 1996, approximately 6.5% of all deaths among people aged 15-24 years and approximately 10% of all deaths among those aged 25-34 were due to opioid overdose. During the interval from 1988 to 1996, the proportion of deaths attributed to opioid overdose increased. From 1988 to 1996, the proportion of deaths attributed to opioid overdose among individuals aged 25-34 years was approximately one-third that attributed to suicide, but this proportion had increased to approximately one-half by 1996. The rate of increase in the proportion of deaths attributed to opioid overdose was higher than the rate of increase in the proportion of deaths attributed to suicide.

Opioid overdose mortality in Australia, 1964-1997: birth-cohort trends

Objective: To examine trends in rates of opioid overdose deaths from 1964 to 1997 in different birth cohorts. Design: Age-period-cohort analysis of national data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Main outcome measures: Annual population rates of death attributed to opioid dependence or accidental opioid poisoning in people aged 15-44 years, by sex and birth cohort tin five-year intervals, 1940-1944 to 1975-1979). Results: The rate of opioid overdose deaths increased 55-fold between 1964 and 1997, from 1.3 to 71.5 per million population aged 15-44 years. The rate of opioid overdose deaths also increased substantially over the eight birth cohorts, with an incidence rate ratio of 20.70 (95% confidence interval, 13.60-31.46) in the 1975-1979 cohort compared with the 1940-1944 cohort. The age at which the cumulative rate of opioid overdose deaths reached 300 per million fell in successive cohorts (for men, from 28 years among those born 1955-1959 to 22 years among those born 1965-1974; for women, from 33 years among those born 1955-1959 to 27 years among those born 1965-1969). Conclusions: Heroin use in Australia largely began in the early 1970s and rates of heroin use have markedly increased in birth cohorts born since 1950.

The distribution of naloxone to heroin users

Overdose deaths are a manor contributor to excess mortality among heroin users. It has been proposed that opioid overdose morbidity and mortality could be reduced substantially by distributing the opioid antagonist naloxone to heroin users. The ethical issues raised by this proposal are evaluated from a utilitarian perspective. The potential advantages of naloxone distribution include the increased chance of comatose opioid users being quickly resuscitated by others present at the time of an overdose, naloxone's safety and its lack of abuse potential. The main problems raised by the proposal are: the medico-legal complications of medical practitioners prescribing a drug that is most likely to be administered to and by people other than the one for whom it is prescribed; the economic costs of distributing naloxone sufficiently widely to have an impact on overdose morbidity and mortality; and the potentially greater cost-effectiveness of simpler educational interventions. Given the possible benefits of naloxone distribution, it may be worthwhile considering a controlled trial of naloxone distribution to high-risk heroin users.

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 effect of a reduction in heroin supply on fatal and non-fatal drug overdoses in New South Wales, Australia

Objective: To examine the impact of a sudden and dramatic decrease in heroin availability, concomitant with increases in price and decreases in purity, on fatal and non-fatal drug overdoses in New South Wales, Australia. Design and setting: Time-series analysis was conducted where possible on data on overdoses collected from NSW hospital emergency departments, the NSW Ambulance Service, and all suspected drug-related deaths referred to the NSW Coroner's court. Main outcome measures: The number of suspected drug-related deaths where heroin and other drugs were mentioned; ambulance calls to suspected opioid overdoses; and emergency department admissions for overdoses on heroin and other drugs. Results: Both fatal and non-fatal heroin overdoses decreased significantly after heroin supply reduced; the reductions were greater among younger age groups than older age groups. There were no clear increases in non-fatal overdoses with cocaine, methamphetamines or benzodiazepines recorded at hospital emergency departments after the reduction in heroin supply. Data on drug-related deaths suggested that heroin use was the predominant driver of drug-related deaths in NSW, and that when heroin supply was reduced overdose deaths were more likely to involve a wider combination of drugs. Conclusion: A reduction in heroin supply reduced heroin-related deaths, and did not result in a concomitant increase, to the same degree, in deaths relating to other drugs. Younger people were more affected by the reduction in supply.

Methadone maintenance treatment reduces heroin injection in New South Wales prisons

The purpose of this study was to examine whether methadone maintenance treatment reduces injecting risk behaviour land therefore transmission of blood-borne viral infections) among prisoners in New South Wales (NSW), using comparison of retrospective reports of drug use in prisons for people who received standard drug treatment, time-limited methadone treatment and methadone maintenance treatment, The setting for the study was the NSW prison system. One hundred and eighty-five injecting drug users who had been recently released from NSW prisons were recruited in 1993, Self-reported drug use and injecting risk behaviour were compared in inmates who received standard drug treatment (counselling), time-limited methadone treatment and methadone maintenance treatment. HIV status was determined by serology, Intervention comprised high and low dose methadone treatment and counselling. The groups were similar in terms of most basic demographic characteristics but subjects who had been maintained on methadone reported a significantly lower prevalence of heroin injection, syringe sharing and scored lower on an HIV Risk-taking Behavioural Scale than subjects who received standard drug treatment and time-limited methadone treatment, This study suggests that methadone treatment is associated with reduced injecting risk behaviour in prison with adequate (greater than 60 mg) dose and duration in treatment. These treatment conditions are known to increase effectiveness in community-based methadone programmes. Prospective studies are required to evaluate the effectiveness of methadone programmes in the prevention of HIV and other blood-borne viral infections among IDU prisoners.

Role of maintenance treatment in opioid dependence

Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) involves the daily administration of the oral opioid agonist methadone as a treatment for opioid dependence-a persistent disorder with a substantial risk of premature death. MMT improves health and reduces illicit heroin use, infectious-disease transmission, and overdose death. However, its effectiveness is compromised if low maintenance doses of methadone (

Is naltrexone a cure for heroin dependence? [Editorial]

No Abstract

Is ultra-rapid opioid detoxification a viable option in the treatment of opioid dependence?

Ultra-rapid opioid detoxification (UROD) involves the acceleration of opioid withdrawal hv administering thp opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone under general anaesthesia. There is evidence from uncontrolled and a few controlled studies that UROD accelerates opioid withdrawal and that it achieves high rates of completion of acute opioid withdrawal. However, there is clear evidence that the use of a general anaesthetic is not required to accelerate withdrawal or to achieve high rates of completion of acute opioid withdrawal. These goals can be achieved by using naltrexone or naloxone to accelerate withdrawal under light sedation, a procedure known as rapid opioid detoxification under sedation (ROD). There is also evidence that use of an opioid antagonist is not required to achieve a high rate of completion of acute opioid withdrawal. The mixed agonist-antagonist buprenorphine has achieved comparable rates of completion in similarly selected patients with fewer withdrawal symptoms. There is no evidence from controlled trials that either UROD or ROD increases the rate of abstinence from opioids 6 or 12 months after withdrawal. UROD and ROD may increase the number of patients who are inducted onto naltrexone maintenance (NM) therapy but extensive experience with NM therapy suggests that it only has a limited role in selected patients. Given the lack of evidence of substantially increased rates of abstinence, and the need for anaesthetists and high dependency beds, UROD has at best a very minor role in the treatment of a handful of opioid dependent patients who are unable to complete withdraw in any other way. ROD may have more of a role as one option for opioid withdrawal in well motivated patients who want to be rapidly inducted onto NM therapy or who want to enter other types of abstinence-oriented treatment.