Buprenorphine misuse among heroin and amphetamine users in Malmo, Sweden: purpose of misuse and route of administration

Detection of drugs and hepatitis C virus in used syringes from a needle exchange in Gothenburg, Sweden

People who inject drugs (PWID) are exposed to serious health risks such as lethal overdoses, addiction and infections. The patterns of drug use and the prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection vary greatly between and even within countries. Data on drugs used for injection are important to inform PWID of risks and adapt healthcare. This study aimed to determine which substances are injected in Gothenburg, Sweden, and estimate the risk of HCV transmission. A total of 150 syringes handed in at the needle and syringe exchange program (NEP) in Gothenburg over a week in November 2021 were analysed for drug content using liquid chromatography coupled with high-resolution mass spectrometry. Using a dose-adjusted comparison, the main drug(s) injected was distinguished from the impurities in the syringes containing several drugs. HCV RNA was quantified by real-time PCR in an additional set of 150 syringes. Drugs were detected in >99% of analysed syringes, and the most common drugs were amphetamine (81%), followed by buprenorphine (8.0%), heroin (6.7%) and alprazolam (4.6%). Less common findings were testosterone (2.7%), methylphenidate (2.0%), MDMA (0.7%), trenbolone (0.7%) and zopiclone (0.7%). Eleven syringes (7.3%) contained more than one drug. HCV RNA was detected in 13% of the syringes, and one in 10 contained enough to potentially transmit an infection. This study underlines the importance of access to NEPs for PWID to reduce the risks associated with drug injection.

Drug prescriptions preceding opioid-related deaths-a register study in forensic autopsy patients

BACKGROUND/AIM

Opioid overdose deaths have increased in Sweden and other developed countries in recent decades, despite increased treatment efforts and harm-reduction interventions. Further knowledge in this field is needed if this trend is to be reversed. Previous research suggests that mental health and patterns of prescription of opioids and other prescription drugs are associated with increased opioid-related mortality. The present study therefore aimed to investigate what drugs were prescribed during the last six months of life to individuals with a history of illicit substance use who died with opioids present in their blood, the relationship between drugs prescribed and drugs found in blood at time of death, and if prescription of specific drugs was temporally associated with death.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, register-based observational study that utilized data from the National Board of Forensic Medicine, the Prescribed Drug Registry, regional health care services, and municipal social services. We used conditional logistic regression to find temporal associations between the prescription and dispensing of drugs and time of death.

RESULTS

Prescription and dispensing of alprazolam and diazepam were temporally associated with death. The most frequently dispensed drugs were zopiclone, pregabalin, methylphenidate, diazepam and oxycodone. Methadone, alprazolam, and buprenorphine were the drugs most often found in the blood. Opioids and tranquilizers in combination were found in a vast majority of deaths, and prescription data suggested that the use of these drugs was illicit in a majority of cases.

CONCLUSION

Prescription of certain drugs, especially alprazolam and diazepam, should be made with great caution to patients with a history of illicit substance use or concurrent use of opioids.

Pre-incarceration polysubstance use involving opioids: A unique risk factor of postrelease return to substance use

OBJECTIVE

Justice-involved populations are at increased risk of overdose following release from prison and jail. This risk is exacerbated by polysubstance use, including the use of opioids with other substances. This study explored pre-incarceration polysubstance use involving opioids as a unique risk factor for postrelease return to substance use.

METHODS

The study examined data from a cohort of 501 justice-involved persons who were enrolled in a therapeutic community treatment program while incarcerated. Latent profile validation identified profiles of polysubstance use involving opioids prior to incarceration. Multivariate logistic regression examined return to substance use, defined as self-reported relapse, and a time series model examined time in the community until a relapse event occurred.

RESULTS

A latent profile validation found six unique polysubstance opioid patterns prior to incarceration. Two of these profiles, primarily alcohol and primarily buprenorphine, were at increased and accelerated risk for relapse postrelease relative to a less polysubstance use profile. Both profiles at increased risk had pre-incarceration co-use of marijuana (≈45% of month) and nonmedical use of opioids (≈40% of month) but were unique in their respective near daily use of alcohol and nonmedical buprenorphine.

CONCLUSIONS

Among persons who use opioids returning to the community, return to substance use occurs along a continuum of risk. Providers' consideration of polysubstance use patterns during treatment may assist in mitigating adverse outcomes for patients postrelease.

Systematic benefit-risk assessment for buprenorphine implant: a semiquantitative method to support risk management

BACKGROUND

Prior to approval in the European Union, a systematic benefit-risk assessment was required to compare buprenorphine implant to sublingual buprenorphine as part of the license application to the European Medicines Agency.

OBJECTIVE

The Benefit-Risk Action Team framework was used to describe the overall benefit-risk of buprenorphine implant in comparison to sublingual buprenorphine.

STUDY SELECTION/METHODS

A value tree of key benefits and risks related to the implant formulation of buprenorphine was constructed. Risk differences (RD) or reporting ORs (ROR) and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated for each outcome, along with the number needed to treat and number needed to harm. Swing weighting was assigned to outcomes and the weighted net clinical benefit (wNCB) was calculated.

FINDINGS

Key benefits assessed: reduced risk of illicit opioid use (RD=0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.17), reduced risk of misuse and diversion (ROR=0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.94), improved compliance and convenience (RD=0.20) and quality of life measures (RD=0.03). Key risks assessed: clinically significant implant breakage (RD=0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01), migration/missing implant (RD=0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.02), infection at insertion/removal site (RD=0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.12) and implant-related allergic reaction (RD=0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11). The wNCB for buprenorphine implant was 4.96, which suggests a favourable benefit-risk profile.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit-risk profile of buprenorphine implant is considered favourable in comparison to sublingual buprenorphine, based on this semiquantitative analysis using available data. Further data from real-world use on benefits and risks should be used for ongoing monitoring of the benefit-risk profile of buprenorphine implants in the postmarketing setting.

Non-prescribed use of methadone and buprenorphine prior to opioid substitution treatment: lifetime prevalence, motives, and drug sources among people with opioid dependence in five Swedish cities

BACKGROUND

Opioid substitution treatment (OST) with methadone or buprenorphine is the most effective means of treating opioid dependence. If these substances are used by people who are not undergoing OST, they can however carry serious risks. This article examines the lifetime prevalence, motives, and drug sources for such use, as well as geographical differences in these variables.

METHODS

Structured interviews were conducted with 411 patients from 11 OST clinics in five Swedish cities. The researchers carried out 280 interviews on-site, while 131 interviews were conducted by specially trained patients through privileged access interviewing. Data were analyzed by frequency and average calculations, cross-tabulations, and χ2 tests.

RESULTS

The lifetime prevalence of non-prescribed use was 87.8% for methadone, 80.5% for buprenorphine, and 50.6% for buprenorphine/naloxone. Pseudo-therapeutic motives-avoiding withdrawal symptoms, staying clean from heroin, detoxification, or taking care of one's own OST-were commonly cited as driving the use, while using the drugs for euphoric purposes was a less common motive. Most respondents had bought or received the substances from patients in OST, but dealers were also a significant source of non-prescribed methadone and buprenorphine. Geographical differences of use, motives, and sources suggest that prescription practices in OST have a great impact on which substances are used outside of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Experiences of non-prescribed use of methadone and buprenorphine are extremely common among those in OST in southern Sweden. As the use is typically driven by pseudo-therapeutic motives, increased access to OST might decrease the illicit demand for these substances. Buprenorphine/naloxone has a lower abuse potential than buprenorphine and should therefore be prioritized as the prescribed drug. Supervised dosage and other control measures are important provisions in the prevention of drug diversion and non-prescribed use among people not undergoing OST.

Overdose Risk and Client Characteristics Associated With the Injection of Buprenorphine at a Medically Supervised Injecting Center in Sydney, Australia

Background: Buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone (BNX) were developed to improve the safety profile of opioid substitution treatment (OST) and reduce diversion and injection, yet continue to be injected, despite the risk of harm. Previous studies examining injection of these substances have relied on self-reported injection and overdose. Using data from the Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Center (MSIC) in Sydney, this study aimed to assess the overdose risk associated with the use of buprenorphine and BNX and identify factors associated with injecting. Methods: Client data routinely collected from MSIC, a drug consumption room where clients can legally inject drugs under supervision, was used. Odds ratios (OR) to assess the risk of overdose and their associated 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated and compared to other substances. Univariate analysis using χ-square and multivariate logistic regressions were used to determine characteristics associated with buprenorphine and BNX injection. Results: Data from 1,020,782 injections by 15,832 individuals were analyzed. Risk of overdose was low for buprenorphine compared to other substances (OR 0.16; 95%CI: 0.07-0.19) and no overdoses occurred when BNX was injected. Injection of both buprenorphine and BNX was associated with male gender, homelessness, no income/reliance upon government payments, and prior imprisonment. Conclusions: Buprenorphine and BNX continue to be injected, albeit in small numbers. This is the first study to report on injection and overdose risk using direct observation, and has confirmed the lower overdose risk. MSIC clients who inject buprenorphine and BNX tend to be marginalized and may benefit from targeted harm reduction measures.

Both localized and systemic bacterial infections are predicted by injection drug use: A prospective follow-up study in Swedish criminal justice clients

Background

Both skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) and systemic bacterial infections are common in people who inject drugs (PWID), but data on incidence and risk factors are lacking. We compared registered diagnoses for such infections in Swedish criminal justice clients with regard to injecting drug use.

Methods

Baseline interview data from the Swedish Prison and Probation Service on drug use in PWID and non-PWID with problematic alcohol use were linked to follow-up data from national Swedish registers on hospital diagnoses and/or death. Associations between drug use and later diagnosis of SSTI and systemic bacterial infection (septicemia or bacterial infection of the heart, bone/joints or central nervous system) were analyzed by Cox regression.

Results

Incidence rates of SSTI was 28.3 per 1,000 person-years for PWID (n = 2,444) and 10.0 for non-PWID with problematic alcohol use (n = 735). Incidence rates of systemic bacterial infection was 9.1 per 1,000 person-years for PWID and 2.7 per 1,000 person-years for non-PWID. Injection drug use was associated with a significantly increased risk of bacterial infections, for main drugs heroin (SSTI: Hazard ratio [HR] 2.45; systemic infection: HR 2.75), amphetamine (SSTI: HR 1.60; systemic infection: HR 2.19), and polysubstance use (SSTI: HR 1.92; systemic infection: HR 2.01). In relation to injection use of amphetamine and polysubstance use, PWID mainly using heroin had higher risk of SSTI.

Conclusions

Injection drug use predicted both SSTI and systemic bacterial infection, with a particularly high risk of SSTI in PWID mainly using heroin. The results imply the need for increased attention to bacterial infections among PWID, in terms of clinical management, prevention and research.

Challenges in implementing opioid agonist therapy in Lebanon: a qualitative study from a user's perspective

Background

Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) has been implemented for the treatment of individuals with opioid use disorders in Lebanon since 2011, but has not been evaluated yet. The aim of the study is to describe the implementation of the first pilot OAT program in Lebanon from the users’ perspective.

Methods

Data collectors gathered data from male participants during June 2016-July 2016. Eighty-one out of 94 patients agreed to participate in the study. Data regarding access to treatment, satisfaction with the treatment protocol and treatment outcomes, patient-provider relationship, and misuse and diversion was collected through semi-structured qualitative interviews. Data saturation was reached after 81 interviews; once no new themes were reported.

Results

Findings showed inequalities in access to treatment and showed that OAT improved mental and social wellbeing among users who had financial access and complied with the program protocols. Registering in the program protected users from arrest and reduced their economic burden. Among the main encountered challenges were fear of dependence to buprenorphine, restricted geographical access to treatment, misuse and diversion of buprenorphine.

Conclusion

Results implicate inequalities in access to OAT as one important gap to be tackled in the management of OAT in Lebanon. Further research should be done in order to understand the challenges in the implementation of the program from the providers’ perspectives.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13011-018-0151-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Buprenorphine alone or with naloxone: Which is safer?

To address concerns regarding the intravenous diversion of buprenorphine, a combined buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NLX) preparation was developed. The aim of this study is to compare health outcomes in opioid dependent patients treated with BUP and BUP-NLX. All patients treated with BUP and/or BUP-NLX in Western Australia between 2001 and 2010 were included in the study ( N = 3455). Patients were identified via State prescribing records and matched against the State mortality, hospital, and emergency department records. Rates of health events were examined and compared using Cox Proportional Hazard Models and Generalized Estimating Equations. While on treatment there was no significant difference between mortality rates in the two groups, mortality rates following the cessation of treatment were significantly higher in patients treated with BUP-NLX (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.59). Rates of hospitalization were significantly elevated in BUP-NLX patients (adjusted odds ratio: 1.17) compared with BUP treated patients; however, rates of hospitalization with a skin/subcutaneous diagnosis were significantly lower in BUP-NLX treated patients (adjusted odds ratio: 0.65). Off-treatment rates of both all-cause hospital admissions (adjusted odds ratio: 1.53) and hospital admissions with an opioid poisoning diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio: 1.59) were significantly elevated in BUP-NLX treated patients compared with BUP treated patients. The addition of naloxone does not appear to improve the safety profile of buprenorphine.

Behavioral characteristics and injection practices associated with skin and soft tissue infections among people who inject drugs: A community-based observational study

BACKGROUND

People who inject drugs (PWID) are at increased risk for bacterial skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs). Although SSTIs pose significant health risks, little is known about their prevalence and characteristics in the population of PWID in the United States. This study investigates whether behavioral factors related to skin and equipment hygiene and tissue-damaging injection practices are associated with recent SSTIs among PWID.

METHODS

Active PWID were recruited using targeted sampling in San Francisco in 2011-2013. Interviewers collected information on behavioral risk factors of past-month self-reported SSTIs. Inferential analyses used multivariate logistic regression methods (i.e., generalized linear model) to characterize risk factors for past-month SSTIs.

RESULTS

The self-reported prevalence of lifetime, past-year, and past-month SSTI was 70%, 29%, and 11%, respectively. Several factors were significantly associated with past-month SSTIs in bivariate analysis, including injecting nonpowder drugs (odds ratio [OR] = 3.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23, 10.35; P = .01), needle-licking before injection (OR = 3.36; 95% CI = 1.28, 8.81; P = .01), injecting with someone else's preused syringe/needle (OR = 7.97; 95% CI = 2.46, 25.83; P < .001), being injected by another person (OR = 2.63; 95% CI = 1.02, 6.78; P = .04), infrequent skin cleaning before injection (OR = 2.47; 95% CI = 1.00, 6.10; P = .04), and frequent injections (P = .02). In multivariate analysis, only syringe/needle sharing (adjusted OR = 6.38; 95% CI = 1.90, 21.46) remained statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

SSTIs are common among PWID. These data highlight the importance of clinical and public health screening efforts to reduce SSTIs. Needle exchange programs may be good venues for SSTIs screening and treatment.

Exploring prison buprenorphine misuse in the United Kingdom: a qualitative study of former prisoners

The United Kingdom Ministry of Justice recently highlighted the extent of buprenorphine (Subutex) misuse in English andWelsh prisons, naming it the third most misused drug overall. Yet little is known regarding how illicit buprenorphine is obtained in prison and what influences prisoners to use it. Qualitative research was used to explore prison drug using practices. Thirty men who were former prisoners with a history of injecting drug use were interviewed in depth about their illicit prison drug use, including buprenorphine. Interviews were conducted over 18 months, from August 2006 to January 2008 and were analysed using Framework. The misuse of Subutex by snorting emerged as a significant theme. Accounts suggested that the diversion of prison prescribed Subutex was widespread and prisoners used various tactics to obtain the medication. Various complex and interlinked reasons were given to explain why Subutex was snorted in prison. The main motivation for snorting was to experience a prolonged euphoric opiate effect, believed to help to combat the boredom of being in prison. The price of illicit Subutex in prison was linked to its availability, but it was generally cheaper than heroin, thus contributing to its use. Participants'narratives identified the belief that snorting Subutex in prison was not risk free, but risks were lower than continuing to use other drugs, particularly injecting illicit opiates. The implications of prison Subutex misuse for prisoners, prison medical services, commissioners, and prescribing policy and practice are discussed.

The effect of prescription opioid injection on the risk of non-fatal overdose among people who inject drugs

OBJECTIVES

Prescription opioid (PO) use by people who inject drugs (PWID) is a growing public health concern. Non-fatal overdose remains a leading source of morbidity among PWID, however, little is known about the relationship between PO injection and non-fatal overdose in this population. In this study we sought to examine the impact of PO injection on non-fatal overdose among PWID from Vancouver, Canada.

METHODS

Data were derived from two open prospective cohorts of PWID for the period of December, 2005 to May, 2014. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to examine the odds of overdose among those who injected: POs; heroin; and POs and heroin.

RESULTS

In total, 1660 PWID (33.7% women) participated in this study. In multivariable analyses, in comparison to those who were injecting non-opioid drugs, exclusive PO injection was not significantly associated with non-fatal overdose (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.86). The odds of non-fatal overdose were elevated for heroin injection (AOR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.31-2.27), but were greatest for those who injected both heroin and POs (AOR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.83-3.30).

DISCUSSION

Compared to injecting non-opioids, injecting POs exclusively did not increase risk of non-fatal overdose; however, injecting both POs and heroin doubled the risk. This may reflect consistencies in drug potency and composition when POs are used, as well as unique characteristics of exclusive PO injectors. Our findings call for the continued scale-up of evidence-based overdose prevention interventions for people who inject opioids, including POs.

Interim buprenorphine treatment in opiate dependence: A pilot effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

Interim methadone treatment (i.e., temporary medication-only treatment) has been tested in a few U.S. studies as a method for facilitated referral to and initiation of opioid maintenance treatment in heroin dependence. However, despite the favorable safety profile of buprenorphine compared with methadone, interim treatment with buprenorphine rarely has been tested and reported in the scientific literature. The present pilot effectiveness study aims to assess the feasibility of an interim buprenorphine treatment for initiation of individuals with opiate dependence into full-scale opioid maintenance treatment, and to study baseline predictors of successful transfer to full-scale treatment.

METHODS

Interim treatment was introduced in a high-threshold setting with waiting lists to opioid maintenance treatment. Consecutive patients on the waiting list were offered the option to enter interim treatment. The interim program was a medication-only condition with supervised daily doses of buprenorphine-naloxone. The main outcome was successful transfer to full-scale opioid maintenance treatment, which required a drug-free urine sample.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients entered interim buprenorphine treatment. Among them, 57% (n = 25) were successfully transferred to full-scale treatment after an average of 44 days. Remaining patients could not be transferred, generally because they did not manage to become drug-free. Successful transfer to full-scale treatment was associated with a lower baseline Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score (4.4 vs. 12.6; P < .001) and tended to be associated with lower cannabis use (5.2 vs. 10.4 days during the past 30 days; P = .06) and lower heroin use (7.2 vs. 9.9 days; P = .09) prior to baseline. In a logistic regression analysis, only lower AUDIT score predicted successful treatment entry.

CONCLUSIONS

According to these pilot data, supervised buprenorphine-naloxone in a medication-only interim treatment condition appears to be a feasible way to improve treatment initiation in a high-threshold setting. Polydrug use, including higher levels of alcohol consumption, may predict a more complicated course in interim treatment.

Abuse potential of intranasal buprenorphine versus buprenorphine/naloxone in buprenorphine-maintained heroin users

In spite of the clinical utility of buprenorphine, parenteral abuse of this medication has been reported in several laboratory investigations and in the real world. Studies have demonstrated lower abuse liability of the buprenorphine/naloxone combination relative to buprenorphine alone. However, clinical research has not yet examined the utility of the combined formulation to deter intranasal use in a buprenorphine-maintained population. Heroin-using volunteers (n = 12) lived in the hospital for 8-9 weeks and were maintained on each of three sublingual buprenorphine doses (2, 8, 24 mg). Under each maintenance dose, participants completed laboratory sessions during which the reinforcing and subjective effects of intranasal doses of buprenorphine (8, 16 mg), buprenorphine/naloxone (8/2, 8/8, 8/16, 16/4 mg) and controls (placebo, heroin 100 mg, naloxone 4 mg) were assessed. Intranasal buprenorphine alone typically produced increases in positive subjective effects and the 8 mg dose was self-administered above the level of placebo. The addition of naloxone dose dependently reduced positive subjective effects and increased aversive effects. No buprenorphine/naloxone combination dose was self-administered significantly more than placebo. These data suggest that within a buprenorphine-dependent population, intranasal buprenorphine/naloxone has reduced abuse potential in comparison to buprenorphine alone. These data strongly argue in favor of buprenorphine/naloxone rather than buprenorphine alone as the more reasonable option for managing the risk of buprenorphine misuse.

Buprenorphine/naloxone treatment practices in Malaysia: Results of national surveys of physicians and patients

OBJECTIVE

Medication assisted treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone (Bup/Nx), including prescribing and dispensing practices of general practitioners (GPs) in Malaysia and their patients' experiences with this treatment have not been systematically examined. The current study surveyed GPs providing Bup/Nx treatment and patients receiving office-based Bup/Nx treatment in Malaysia.

METHODS

Two cross-sectional surveys of GPs (N=115) providing outpatient Bup/Nx maintenance treatment and of patients (N=253) currently receiving Bup/Nx treatment throughout peninsular Malaysia.

RESULTS

Physicians prescribed Bup/Nx dosages in the range of 2-4mg daily for 70% of patients and conducted urine testing in the past month on approximately 16% of their patients. In the patient survey, 79% reported taking daily Bup/Nx doses of 2mg or less; 82% reported that no urine toxicology testing had been conducted on them in the past month, 36% had an opiate positive urine test at the time of the survey, 43% reported illicit opiate use, 15% reported injection of heroin and 22% reported injection of Bup/Nx in the past month.

CONCLUSION

Low daily Bup/Nx doses, lack of behavioral monitoring or counseling, and high rates of continued drug use, including injection of drugs and medications during Bup/Nx treatment in Malaysia, indicate continuing problems with implementation and less than optimal treatment effectiveness. High cost of Bup/Nx in Malaysia may deter patients from seeking treatment and contribute to taking low Bup/Nx dosages. Improved training of physicians and establishing standards for Bup/Nx dosing, routine toxicology testing, and counseling may be needed to improve care and treatment response.

Prior Experience with Non-Prescribed Buprenorphine: Role in Treatment Entry and Retention

Buprenorphine availability continues to expand as an effective treatment for opioid dependence, but increases in availability have also been accompanied by increases in non-prescribed use of the medication. Utilizing data from a randomized clinical trial, this mixed-method study examines associations between use of non-prescribed buprenorphine and subsequent treatment entry and retention. Quantitative analyses (N = 300 African American buprenorphine patients) found that patients with prior use of non-prescribed buprenorphine had significantly higher odds of remaining in treatment through 6 months than patients who were naïve to the medication upon treatment entry. Qualitative data, collected from a subsample of participants (n = 20), identified three thematic explanations for this phenomenon: 1) perceived effectiveness of the medication; 2) cost of obtaining prescription buprenorphine compared to purchasing non-prescribed medication; and 3) convenience of obtaining the medication via daily-dosing or by prescription compared to non-prescribed buprenorphine. These findings suggest a dynamic relationship between non-prescribed buprenorphine use and treatment that indicates potential directions for future research into positive and negative consequences of buprenorphine diversion.

Diversion of methadone and buprenorphine from opioid substitution treatment: the importance of patients' attitudes and norms

AIMS

Methadone and buprenorphine diversion by patients in opioid substitution treatment (OST) is a poorly understood phenomenon. We study the norms and attitudes on diversion among OST patients, including the role these norms and attitudes play as diversion risk factors. We also study whether perceived quality of care, social bonds to treatment staff, and deterrence can be associated with diversion.

METHODS

Structured interviews were conducted with 411 patients from eleven OST programs. In total, 280 interviews were done on site by the researchers, while 131 interviews were conducted through peer interviewing by specially trained patients. The data was analyzed through frequency- and averages-calculations, cross-tabulations, and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Most patients consider diversion as mostly positive (83.7%), morally right (76.8%), and without any significant risk of detection (66.9%). Individual differences in norms and risk perceptions may play a role in explaining variations in diversion; patients who consider it right to share medication with friends report higher treatment-episode diversion than other patients (OR 1.455, p = 0.016). Patients who perceive control measures as effective report lower diversion than other patients (OR = 0.655, p = 0.013). Furthermore, data indicate that patients who are satisfied with the care and service are less prone to engage in diversion. Social bonds with treatment staff seem to be less importance.

CONCLUSIONS

The norm system described by patients resemble Bourgois' 'moral economy of sharing' concept-not sharing drugs with friends in withdrawal is considered unethical. Efforts to decrease diversion may focus on lifestyle-changing interventions, and reducing black market demand for illicit medications by expanding access to treatment.

Long-term self-treatment with methadone or buprenorphine as a response to barriers to opioid substitution treatment: the case of Sweden

Background

It is well known that illicit use of methadone and buprenorphine is common among people with an opioid dependence. Less notice has been taken of the fact that these substances are also used for extended periods of self-treatment, as a way of handling barriers to OST. In this study, motives for self-treatment are investigated, as well as attitudes and perceived barriers to OST among drug users with an opioid dependence in Sweden.

Method

The study is based on qualitative research interviews with 27 opioid users who have treated themselves with methadone or buprenorphine for a period of at least three months.

Results

The duration of self-treatment among the interviewees varied from 5 months to 7 years. Self-treatment often began as a result of a wish to change their life situation or to cut back on heroin, in conjunction with perceived barriers to OST. These barriers consisted of (1) difficulties in gaining access to OST due to strict inclusion criteria, limited access to treatment or a bureaucratic and arduous assessment process, (2) difficulties remaining in treatment, and (3) ambivalence toward or reluctance to seek OST, primarily due to a fear of stigmatization or disciplinary action. Self-treatment was described as an attractive alternative to OST, as a stepping stone to OST, and as a way of handling waiting lists, or as a saving resource in case of involuntary discharge.

Conclusion

Illicit use of methadone and buprenorphine involve risks but may also have important roles to play for users who are unwilling or not given the opportunity to enter OST. A restrictive and strict rehabilitation-oriented treatment model may force many to manage their own treatment. More generous inclusion criteria, a less complex admission process, fewer involuntary discharges, and less paternalistic treatment may lead to increasing numbers seeking OST. Control measures are necessary to prevent diversion and harmful drug use but must be designed in such a way that they impose as few restrictions as possible on the daily life of patients.

Diversion of methadone and buprenorphine from opioid substitution treatment: a staff perspective

Opioid substitution treatment (OST) is still controversial, despite positive results. The issue of diversion to the illicit drug market is a cornerstone in the criticism typically voiced against the treatment. Little research is available concerning how professionals who work in OST view the issue of diversion. In this article, we discuss existing ideas and attitudes toward diversion of methadone and buprenorphine among OST staff in Sweden. The article is based on semi-structured interviews with 25 professionals working in eight OST-programs in southern Sweden. Diversion was seen as a deleterious phenomenon by the interviewees. Three problematic aspects were highlighted: medical risks in the form of overdose fatalities and the recruitment of new opiate/opioid users; negative consequences for the legitimacy of OST; and moral objections, since diversion means that the patients remain in a criminal environment. However, positive aspects were also highlighted. Illicit methadone or buprenorphine is perceived as safer than heroin. In this way, diversion can fulfill a positive function; for instance, if there is a shortage of access to regular treatment. Patients who share their medication with opioid-dependent friends are seen as less culpable than those who sell to anyone for money.

Correlates of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections in Injection Drug Users in a Syringe-Exchange Program in Malmö, Sweden

BACKGROUND

Injection drug users (IDUs) are at increased risk of various medical conditions, including bacterial skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs). SSTIs, which are painful and can lead to life-threatening complications, are common but scarcely studied.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate life time, past 12 month and past 30-day prevalence for SSTI related to injection drug use, in IDUs at Malmö syringe exchange program (Malmö SEP). To investigate factors associated with having ever had an SSTI.

METHODS

IDUs were recruited from Malmö SEP (N = 80). They participated in a survey with questions about demographics, drug use, and experience of SSTIs. Factors independently associated with self-reported SSTI ever were assessed using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The lifetime reported prevalence of SSTI was 58%, past 12 months 30%, and past 30 days 14%. Factors independently associated with SSTI ever were age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01-1.18), female sex (AOR = 6.75; 95% CI = 1.40-32.47), having ever injected prescribed drugs (AOR = 52.15; 95% CI = 5.17-525.67), and having ever injected in the neck (AOR = 8.08; 95% CI = 1.16-56.08).

CONCLUSIONS/IMPORTANCE

SSTI is common among IDUs in Malmö. Women and those injecting in the neck or injecting prescribed drugs (crushed tablets/liquids), are more likely to have had an SSTI.

Patterns of non-compliant buprenorphine, levomethadone, and methadone use among opioid dependent persons in treatment

Background

The non-compliant use of opioid substitution treatment (OST) medicines is widespread and well-documented. However, less is known about characteristics of non-compliant OST medicine use and the factors that predict it. The two main goals of this study are to compare characteristics of non-compliant levomethadone, methadone, and buprenorphine use and to explore factors that may differentially predict it among opioid dependent persons in treatment.

Methods

Data from 595 opioid dependent patients with non-compliant OST medicine use were analyzed. Characteristics of use between substances were compared using chi-squared tests and predictive factors were explored through multinomial logistic regressions.

Results

Non-compliant levomethadone and methadone use was characterized by more frequent parallel consumption of other psychoactive substances and intravenous use, whereas buprenorphine was more often procured without a prescription. Regarding predictive factors, methadone was perceived to relieve withdrawal symptoms better than buprenorphine and levomethadone was perceived as being better at modulating the effects of other substances and worst at enhancing mood.

Conclusions

Patterns of non-compliant use differ according to OST medicine. These patterns are considered with the reduction of non-compliant use and the improvement of treatment in mind.

The reinforcing and subjective effects of intravenous and intranasal buprenorphine in heroin users

Abuse of buprenorphine (BUP) by the intravenous (IV) route has been documented in several studies, and reports of intranasal (IN) abuse are increasing. However, no studies have directly compared the effects of BUP when it is administered intranasally and intravenously. The present secondary analysis used data from two separate studies to compare the reinforcing and subjective effects of IV and IN buprenorphine. One study evaluated IV buprenorphine (N=13) and the other evaluated IN buprenorphine (N=12). Participants were maintained on 2 mg sublingual (SL) BUP and tested with each intranasal or intravenous buprenorphine test dose (0 mg, 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 16 mg). During morning laboratory sessions, participants received money (US $20) and sample doses of IN or IV BUP, and then completed subjective effects questionnaires. Later that day, they completed a self-administration task to receive 10% portions of the drug and/or money they previously sampled. In general, positive subjective ratings for both IV and IN BUP were significantly greater than placebo, with IV BUP having a greater effect than IN BUP. All active BUP doses (IV and IN) maintained significantly higher progressive ratio breakpoint values than placebo, but breakpoint values for IV BUP were greater than for IN BUP. Buprenorphine is an effective maintenance treatment for opioid dependence, valued for its ability to reduce the positive subjective effects of other opioids. Nevertheless, the present data demonstrate that in participants maintained on a low dose of SL BUP, the medication itself has abuse liability when used intravenously or intranasally.

Abuse and diversion of buprenorphine sublingual tablets and film

Buprenorphine abuse is common worldwide. Rates of abuse and diversion of three sublingual buprenorphine formulations (single ingredient tablets; naloxone combination tablets and film) were compared. Data were obtained from the Researched Abuse, Diversion, and Addiction-Related Surveillance (RADARS) System Poison Center, Drug Diversion, Opioid Treatment (OTP), Survey of Key Informants' Patients (SKIP), and College Survey Programs through December 2012. To control for drug availability, event ratios (rates) were calculated quarterly, based on the number of patients filling prescriptions for each formulation ("unique recipients of a dispensed drug," URDD) and averaged and compared using negative binomial regression. Abuse rates in the OTP, SKIP, and College Survey Programs were greatest for single ingredient tablets, and abuse rates in the Poison Center Program and illicit diversion rates were greatest for the combination tablets. Combination film rates were significantly less than rates for either tablet formulation in all programs. No geographic pattern could be discerned.

Methadone and buprenorphine-naloxone are effective in reducing illicit buprenorphine and other opioid use, and reducing HIV risk behavior--outcomes of a randomized trial

AIMS

Determine the extent to which buprenorphine injectors continue treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone, and the impact of these treatments on substance use and HIV risk in the Republic of Georgia.

METHODS

Randomized controlled 12-week trial of daily-observed methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone followed by a dose taper, referral to ongoing treatment, and follow-up at week 20 at the Uranti Clinic in Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia. Eighty consenting treatment-seeking individuals (40/group) aged 25 and above who met ICD-10 criteria for opioid dependence with physiologic features and reported injecting buprenorphine 10 or more times in the past 30 days. Opioid use according to urine tests and self-reports, treatment retention, and HIV risk behavior as determined by the Risk Assessment Battery.

RESULTS

Mean age of participants was 33.7 (SD5.7), 4 were female, mean history of opioid injection use was 5.8 years (SD4.6), none were HIV+ at intake or at the 12-week assessment and 73.4% were HCV+. Sixty-eight participants (85%) completed the 12-week medication phase (33 from methadone and 35 from buprenorphine/naloxone group); 37 (46%) were in treatment at the 20-week follow-up (21 from methadone and 16 from the buprenorphine/naloxone group). In both study arms, treatment resulted in a marked reduction in unprescribed buprenorphine, other opioid use, and HIV injecting risk behavior with no clinically significant differences between the two treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily observed methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone are effective treatments for non-medical buprenorphine and other opioid use in the Republic of Georgia and likely to be useful for preventing HIV infection.

Illicit use of methadone and buprenorphine among adolescents and young adults in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Illicit use of methadone and buprenorphine has been described as a growing problem in Sweden in recent years, and has been associated with an increased drug-related mortality. Critics claim that the substances have become popular among adolescents and that they function as a gateway to heroin use. The aim of this study is to investigate, firstly, the extent to which illicit use of methadone and buprenorphine occurs among adolescents and young adults in Sweden, and secondly, at what stage in a user's drug career these substances tend to appear.

METHODS

The study is based on surveys and structured interviews on drug use among various populations of young people, in addition to qualitative interviews with 86 informants who, in their professional capacity, encounter adolescents or young adults who are using illicit drugs.

RESULTS

Illicit use of methadone and buprenorphine is rare among young people in Sweden. According to high school surveys, less than 0.1% have tried these substances. Among young drug users in general, few have tried the substances, and there is nothing to indicate that they act as gateway drugs. Among adolescents and young adults with severe drug problems, however, the illicit use of methadone and buprenorphine is more common (54% in a compulsory care sample). These substances normally enter the drug career late, and few use them as their main drug of choice. Other prescription drugs, like benzodiazepines and tramadol, are used by adolescents to a far greater extent. Diversion and illicit use of methadone and buprenorphine is not seen as a serious problem by the professionals interviewed. A general view is that the substances are mainly used by people with a heroin or polydrug addiction, often for "self-medication" purposes. However, several informants express concern that methadone and buprenorphine may cause fatalities among young drug users without an opioid tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

Illicit use of methadone and buprenorphine among young drug users is not a widespread problem in Sweden. Harm-reduction measures should target drug users with more severe problems, among whom illicit use of methadone and buprenorphine is more common and pose a medical risk. Illicit use of other prescription drugs, which are less controlled and more widely used by young people, is an important issue for further research.

A review of human drug self-administration procedures

Drug self-administration procedures in laboratory settings allow us to closely model drug-taking behavior in real-world settings. This review provides an overview of many of the common self-administration methods used in human laboratory research. Typically, self-administration studies provide a quantifiable measure of the reinforcing effect of a drug, which is believed to be predictive of its potential for abuse. Several adaptations of the self-administration paradigm exist, the simplest of which allows participants free access to the drug under investigation. Free-access procedures allow investigators to observe patterns of drug self-administration and drug effects in a controlled setting. Allowing participants to choose between two simultaneously available reinforcers (choice procedures) is another well-established method of assessing the reinforcing effects of a drug. Offering a choice between two reinforcers (e.g. two different doses of the same drug, two different drugs, or drug and nondrug reinforcers) provides researchers with a point of comparison (e.g. between a drug of known abuse potential and a novel drug). When combined with other endpoints, such as subjective effects ratings, physiological responses, and cognitive performance, human self-administration paradigms have contributed significantly to our understanding of the factors that contribute to, maintain, and alter drug-taking behavior including: craving, positive subjective effects, toxicity, drug interactions and abstinence. This area of research has also begun to incorporate other techniques such as imaging and genetics to further understand the multifaceted nature of substance abuse. The present paper summarizes the different self-administration techniques that are commonly used today and the application of other procedures that may complement interpretation of the drug self-administration findings.

Clinician beliefs and attitudes about buprenorphine/naloxone diversion

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Concern about diversion of buprenorphine/naloxone (B/N) in the United States may affect prescribing patterns and policy decisions. This study examines addiction treatment clinician beliefs and attitudes regarding B/N diversion.

METHODS

Participants (n = 369) completed a 34-item survey in 2010 during two national symposia on opioid dependence. We conducted multivariable regression, examining the relationship of perceived danger from B/N diversion with clinician characteristics and their beliefs about B/N treatment and diversion. We compared causal beliefs about diversion among clinicians with and without B/N treatment experience.

RESULTS

Forty percent of clinicians believed that B/N diversion is a dangerous problem. The belief that B/N diversion increases accidental overdoses in the community was strongly associated with perceived danger from B/N diversion.

CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Attitudes and beliefs, not education level, were associated with clinician's perceived danger from B/N diversion. Clinicians with greater B/N patient experience were more likely to believe treatment access barriers are the major cause of B/N diversion.

Twelve-year trend in treatment seeking for buprenorphine abuse in Finland

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine abuse is becoming increasingly common worldwide. However, large-scale long-term studies of buprenorphine abuse are lacking. The objective of this study was to examine the trend in characteristics of clients seeking treatment for buprenorphine abuse and compare them to those seeking treatment for heroin and amphetamine abuse.

METHODS

A 12-year descriptive study was conducted at the Helsinki Deaconess Institute (HDI), a public utility foundation responsible for providing treatment for substance abuse in the greater Helsinki area. All clients seeking treatment between 31 January 1997 and 31 August 2008 received a structured clinical interview concerning demographic characteristics and abuse patterns. Characteristics of clients who reported that their primary drug of abuse was buprenorphine (n=780) were compared to those whose primary drug of abuse was either heroin (n=598) or amphetamine (n=1249).

RESULTS

The annual proportion of buprenorphine clients increased from 3.0% in 1998 to 38.4% in 2008. Daily abuse (73.8%) and intravenous administration (80.6%) were common among buprenorphine clients. Concurrent abuse of prescription medications (p<0.001), stimulants (p=0.001) and alcohol (p<0.001) increased from 1997 to 2008. Treatment seeking for heroin abuse declined to approximately 1% of clients annually after 2002. Buprenorphine clients were more likely to be daily users of their primary drug (p<0.001), abuse prescription medications (p<0.001) and administer drugs intravenously (p=0.001 from 1997 to 2001) compared to heroin and amphetamine clients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight the increasing abuse of buprenorphine in Finland. Buprenorphine clients had risky abuse patterns in terms of daily use and intravenous administration. Concurrent substance abuse increased during the study period.

Respondent-driven sampling in a syringe exchange setting

Aims: Respondent-driven sampling is a research technique, new to the Scandinavian setting, used in hard-to-reach populations, such as subjects at risk for HIV, including drug users. This study aimed to evaluate the use of respondent-driven sampling originating from syringe exchange clients, as a method to identify ‘hidden’ drug users without treatment or social service contact. Methods: Nine heroin and amphetamine injectors were recruited as ‘seeds’ and instructed to recruit up to three heavy drug users in a chain-referral process. Recruited clients were interviewed about drug use, social conditions and contacts with treatment, syringe exchange and other authorities. In order to estimate whether the recruitment managed to evolve into groups of ‘hidden’ drug users, clients included beyond the fourth wave of chain-referral were compared with seeds (wave 0) and clients recruited in waves 1–3. Results: Five seeds were generative, and in total, 66 clients were assessed. Except for one of the 35 variables studied, clients in waves 4–9 did not differ from clients in waves 0–3, and were no less likely to have contacts with authorities. All clients except one were injectors and syringe exchangers, and clients recruited later in the chain-referral even tended to attend the syringe exchange more frequently. Conclusions: Respondent-driven sampling originating from syringe exchange clients may have difficulty reaching beyond the population of injectors and syringe exchangers. The technique, new to this geographical setting, has potential for future studies, but particular efforts may be necessary to study out-of-treatment heavy drug users unknown to the syringe exchange program.

Misuse of medicines in the European Union: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Although awareness of the misuse of medicines is increasing, data on the extent of the problem in the European Union (EU) are lacking.

METHODS

In order to assess the magnitude and severity of the problem, a systematic review of the literature on the misuse of analgesics, opioid substitution medicines and sedatives/hypnotics (with the exception of benzodiazepines) was conducted using the PubMed and Web of Science databases. Relevant literature was identified between 2001 and 2011.

RESULTS

The main groups of misused medicines include opioid analgesics, methadone, buprenorphine and Z-drugs. Regional trends in medicine misuse indicate heterogeneity across the EU with respect to misused medicine types and research activities. Prevalence, high-risk populations and factors contributing to medicine misuse are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The implications of these findings for prevention, treatment, and policy in the EU are considered.

Illicit use of buprenorphine/naloxone among injecting and noninjecting opioid users

OBJECTIVES

We examined the use, procurement, and motivations for the use of diverted buprenorphine/naloxone among injecting and noninjecting opioid users in an urban area.

METHODS

A survey was self-administered among 51 injecting opioid users and 49 noninjecting opioid users in Providence, RI. Participants were recruited from a fixed-site syringe exchange program and a community outreach site between August and November 2009.

RESULTS

A majority (76%) of participants reported having obtained buprenorphine/naloxone illicitly, with 41% having done so in the previous month. More injection drug users (IDUs) than non-IDUs reported the use of diverted buprenorphine/naloxone (86% vs 65%, P = 0.01). The majority of participants who had used buprenorphine/naloxone reported doing so to treat opioid withdrawal symptoms (74%) or to stop using other opioids (66%) or because they could not afford drug treatment (64%). More IDUs than non-IDUs reported using diverted buprenorphine/naloxone for these reasons. Significantly more non-IDUs than IDUs reported ever using buprenorphine/naloxone to "get high" (69% vs 32%, P < 0.01). The majority of respondents, both IDUs and non-IDUs, were interested in receiving treatment for opioid dependence, with greater reported interest in buprenorphine/naloxone than in methadone. Common reasons given for not being currently enrolled in a buprenorphine/naloxone program included cost and unavailability of prescribing physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of diverted buprenorphine/naloxone was common in our sample. However, many opioid users, particularly IDUs, were using diverted buprenorphine/naloxone for reasons consistent with its therapeutic purpose, such as alleviating opioid withdrawal symptoms and reducing the use of other opioids. These findings highlight the need to explore the full impact of buprenorphine/naloxone diversion and improve the accessibility of buprenorphine/naloxone through licensed treatment providers.

Buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone diversion, misuse, and illicit use: an international review

The diversion, misuse, and non-medically supervised use of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone by opioid users are reviewed. Buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone are used globally as opioid analgesics and in the treatment of opioid dependency. Diversion of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone represents a complex medical and social issue, and has been widely documented in various geographical regions throughout the world. We first discuss the clinical properties of buprenorphine and its abuse potential. Second, we discuss its diversion and illicit use on an international level, as well as motivations for those activities. Third, we examine the medical risks and benefits of buprenorphine's non-medically supervised use and misuse. These risks and benefits include the effect of buprenorphine's use on HIV risk and the risk of its concomitant use with other medications and drugs of abuse. Finally, we discuss the implications of diversion, misuse, and non-medically supervised use (including potential measures to address issues of diversion); and potential areas for further research.

The prevalence and correlates of buprenorphine inhalation amongst opioid substitution treatment (OST) clients in Australia

BACKGROUND

Diversion and injection of buprenorphine (Subutex(®)) and buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone(®)) have been well documented. Recent international research and local anecdotal evidence suggest that these medications are also used by other routes of administration, including smoking and snorting.

METHODS

A cross-sectional sample of 440 opioid substitution treatment (OST) clients was recruited through pharmacies and clinics in three Australian jurisdictions, and interviewed face-to-face using a structured questionnaire. Eligible participants were those aged 18 or over, who had resided in their home state for at least six months, and had been in their current treatment episode for at least 4 weeks. We compared differences in characteristics between clients who had ever inhaled (smoked or snorted) buprenorphine (including buprenorphine-naloxone) and other OST clients. Logistic regression was used to identify correlates of buprenorphine inhalation. Sixty-eight clients who had never used buprenorphine were excluded from analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-five clients (18%) reported having ever inhaled buprenorphine, with Subutex(®) smoking being most common, reported by 50 clients (77%). In multivariable logistic regression, those who reported ever inhaling buprenorphine were significantly more likely to: be aged 35 or younger, have ever been in prison and have ever injected buprenorphine. Clients from New South Wales and Victoria were significantly less likely to have ever inhaled buprenorphine than those from South Australia.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicates that the inhalation of buprenorphine has occurred in a significant minority of Australian OST clients. The motivations, contexts and potential health consequences of buprenorphine use by these atypical routes of administration, particularly in a correctional setting, warrant further exploration.

Self-treatment: illicit buprenorphine use by opioid-dependent treatment seekers

Outpatient-based opioid treatment (OBOT) with buprenorphine is an important treatment for people with opioid dependence. No quantitative empirical research has examined rationales for use of illicit buprenorphine by U.S. opioid-dependent treatment seekers. The current study sequentially screened OBOT admissions (n = 129) during a 6-month period in 2009. This study had two stages: (a) a cross-sectional epidemiological analysis of new intakes and existing patients already receiving a legal OBOT prescription (n = 78) and (b) a prospective longitudinal cohort design that followed 76% of the initial participants for 3 months of treatment (n = 42). The primary aims were to establish 2009 prevalence rates for illicit buprenorphine use among people seeking OBOT treatment, to use quantitative methods to investigate reasons for this illicit use, and to examine the effect of OBOT treatment on illicit buprenorphine use behavior. These data demonstrate a decrease in illicit use when opioid-dependent treatment seekers gain access to legal prescriptions. These data also suggest that the use of illicit buprenorphine rarely represents an attempt to attain euphoria. Rather, illicit use is associated with attempted self-treatment of symptoms of opioid dependence, pain, and depression.

Route of administration for illicit prescription opioids: a comparison of rural and urban drug users

Background

Nonmedical prescription opioid use has emerged as a major public health concern in recent years, particularly in rural Appalachia. Little is known about the routes of administration (ROA) involved in nonmedical prescription opioid use among rural and urban drug users. The purpose of this study was to describe rural-urban differences in ROA for nonmedical prescription opioid use.

Methods

A purposive sample of 212 prescription drug users was recruited from a rural Appalachian county (n = 101) and a major metropolitan area (n = 111) in Kentucky. Consenting participants were given an interviewer-administered questionnaire examining sociodemographics, psychiatric disorders, and self-reported nonmedical use and ROA (swallowing, snorting, injecting) for the following prescription drugs: buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, OxyContin^® and other oxycodone.

Results

Among urban participants, swallowing was the most common ROA, contrasting sharply with substance-specific variation in ROA among rural participants. Among rural participants, snorting was the most frequent ROA for hydrocodone, methadone, OxyContin^®, and oxycodone, while injection was most common for hydromorphone and morphine. In age-, gender-, and race-adjusted analyses, rural participants had significantly higher odds of snorting hydrocodone, OxyContin^®, and oxycodone than urban participants. Urban participants had significantly higher odds of swallowing hydrocodone and oxycodone than did rural participants. Notably, among rural participants, 67% of hydromorphone users and 63% of morphine users had injected the drugs.

Conclusions

Alternative ROA are common among rural drug users. This finding has implications for rural substance abuse treatment and harm reduction, in which interventions should incorporate methods to prevent and reduce route-specific health complications of drug use.

Intravenous misuse of buprenorphine: characteristics and extent among patients undergoing drug maintenance therapy

Sublingual buprenorphine [Subutex(R)] is used to treat opioid dependence. However, illicit intravenous (IV) injection of buprenorphine is a widespread problem. This survey investigated the IV misuse of buprenorphine among patients receiving drug replacement therapy at the Drug Addiction Centre in Udine, Italy. All patients who were receiving treatment with buprenorphine or methadone at the Drug Addiction Centre were invited to fill in a voluntary and anonymous questionnaire consisting of five questions. The questions asked if the patient had ever misused buprenorphine intravenously, when the misuse had occurred, the patient's reasons for misusing buprenorphine, the patient's perception of their experience, and the patient's perception of how widespread IV misuse of buprenorphine is. 307 patients completed the questionnaire, 93 and 214 of whom, respectively, were receiving buprenorphine and methadone. In total, 23.12% of patients admitted an IV misuse of buprenorphine, with a significantly greater prevalence among patients currently receiving buprenorphine (35.48%) than those receiving methadone (17.75%; p < 0.001). Younger patients were also more likely to have misused buprenorphine, and tended to have done so before coming to the Drug Addiction Centre. The most frequent motivation for IV misuse was treatment of heroin addiction or withdrawal symptoms (50.71%), while only 12.67% of patients reported that their motivation was to experience pleasure or euphoria. The majority of patients who had misused buprenorphine intravenously (53.52%) had a negative experience, and methadone recipients were significantly more likely to find the experience negative than buprenorphine recipients (68.42% vs 36.36%; p = 0.007). Almost half of the patients (45.93%) thought that at least 50% of patients had taken buprenorphine by IV injection. The results of our study confirm the widespread IV misuse of buprenorphine. Misuse was most common among patients currently receiving buprenorphine treatment and younger patients. For the majority of patients, the reason for IV misuse was to treat their dependence. We believe that the prevalence of buprenorphine misuse could be reduced by adopting appropriate clinical practices and treating patients with the buprenorphine/naloxone combination rather than buprenorphine alone.

Were the changes to Sweden's maintenance treatment policy 2000-06 related to changes in opiate-related mortality and morbidity?

AIMS

To analyse whether changes in maintenance treatment of opiate-dependent subjects in Sweden were related to changes in opiate-related mortality and inpatient care from 1998 to 2006.

DESIGN

We collected data from surveys of methadone maintenance treatment units, of buprenorphine and methadone sales, and of mortality and inpatient care in Sweden.

SETTING

Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients in maintenance treatment.

MEASUREMENTS

Survey data of treatment policy to all units in 2003 and 2005. Trend tests and correlation analyses of data on sales, mortality, inpatient care and forensic investigations.

FINDINGS

The surveys showed a marked change to a less restrictive policy, with increased use of 'take-away doses' and a reduction of discharges due to side misuse. The one-year retention rate stayed high. Sales of buprenorphine and methadone and the number of patients in treatment increased more than threefold from 2000 to 2006, with the greatest increase for buprenoprphine, introduced in year 2000. There was a significant 20-30% reduction in opiate-related mortality and inpatient care between 2000-2002 and 2004-2006 but not of other drug-related mortality and inpatient care. This decline was larger in Stockholm County, which had a less restricted treatment policy. However, a significant increase in buprenorphine- and methadone-related mortality occurred. For the study period 1998-2006, statistically significant declines occurred only in Stockholm County.

CONCLUSIONS

The liberalization of Sweden's drug policy correlated with an increase in maintenance treatment, a decrease in opiate-related mortality and inpatient care and an increase in deaths with methadone and buprenorphine in the tissues.