Prevalence of Opioid Dependence and Opioid Agonist Treatment in the Berlin Custodial Setting: A Cross-Sectional Study

Feasibility and effectiveness of extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) among correctional populations: a systematic review

Background: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce risks for overdose among correctional populations. Among other barriers, daily dosing requirements hinder treatment continuity post-release. Extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) may therefore be beneficial. However, limited evidence exists.Objectives: To conduct a systematic review examining the feasibility and effectiveness of XR-BUP among correctional populations.Methods: Searches were carried out in Pubmed, Embase, and PsychINFO in October 2023. Ten studies reporting on feasibility or effectiveness of XR-BUP were included, representing n = 819 total individuals (81.6% male). Data were extracted and narratively reported under the following main outcomes: 1) Feasibility; 2) Effectiveness; and 3) Barriers and Facilitators.Results: Studies were heterogeneous. Correctional populations were two times readier to try XR-BUP compared to non-correctional populations. XR-BUP was feasible and safe, with no diversion, overdoses, or deaths; several negative side effects were reported. Compared to other MOUD, XR-BUP significantly reduced drug use, resulted in similar or higher treatment retention rates, fewer re-incarcerations, and was cost-beneficial, with a lower overall monthly/yearly cost. Barriers to XR-BUP, such as side effects and a fear of needles, as well as facilitators, such as a lowered risk of opioid relapse, were also identified.Conclusion: XR-BUP appears to be a feasible and potentially effective alternative treatment option for correctional populations with OUD. XR-BUP may reduce community release-related risks, such as opioid use and overdose risk, as well as barriers to treatment retention. Efforts to expand access to and uptake of XR-BUP among correctional populations are warranted.

Met and unmet prison-based treatment needs for people who are incarcerated with a history of substance use disorder: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorders (SUD) are highly prevalent among incarcerated people. However, in some prisons, only a small percentage of those who need treatment receive it. The aims of this study were to examine coverage of treatment for SUD in Danish prisons and assess whether treatment differed by substance class. Further, we examined factors associated with receiving treatment for SUD, and types of services received.

DATA AND METHODS

We linked multiple Danish register data using unique personal identification numbers. This study retrospectively analysed data for 49,330 individuals (aged 18-90) incarcerated in Danish prisons between 2008 and 2018. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to predict enrolment in treatment for SUD in prison.

RESULTS

Of incarcerated people with a history of SUD, 34.6 % received treatment care during incarceration. We observed only minor variations in terms of substance classes concerning the type of treatment. Those who were women, immigrants, had higher education, or were married were less likely to receive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving access and increasing treatment coverage in the Danish Prison and Probation Services is crucial to reduce the burden of SUD in incarcerated populations.

Stimulant abuse as a coping strategy-Forensic and criminal consequences of stimulant abuse for neuroenhancement

Pharmacological neuroenhancement (PN) describes the use of divergent psychoactive substances to enhance mental performance (cognition) without medical need. This kind of substance abuse takes place predominantly in stressful situations. Users implicitly-or even explicitly-describe this kind of drug abuse to be a coping strategy. Regarding the decision making process whether to use PN drugs or not, users indicate that legal aspects to be decisive. However, the legal situation has been neglected so far. To elucidate the German legal situation, PN substances have to be divided into over-the-counter drugs, prescription drugs and illegal drugs. Amphetamines have the highest cognition-enhancing potential, followed by modafinil and caffeine-containing substances. It is pointed out that the use of both freely available and prescription PN substances and narcotics without medical indication have so far been largely exempt from punishment under German law. However, individuals (physicians, bus and truck drivers, etc.) taking PN substances may expose others at risk due to wrong decisions (driving or treatment), errors based on side effects of the used substances. Therefore, the protection of life and health of others could legitimize criminal regulation.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2020

This paper is the forty-third consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2020 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (1), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (2) and humans (3), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (4), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (5), stress and social status (6), learning and memory (7), eating and drinking (8), drug abuse and alcohol (9), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (10), mental illness and mood (11), seizures and neurologic disorders (12), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (13), general activity and locomotion (14), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (15), cardiovascular responses (16), respiration and thermoregulation (17), and immunological responses (18).

[Substitution Treatment for Opiate Addicts in Forensic Hospitals under the Penal System]

Opiate addiction is common among offenders, and many opiate-dependent lawbreakers are treated in the correctional system according to § 64 STGB. While substitution treatment in prisons has become common practice, substitution treatment in forensic hospitals in the traditionally abstinence-oriented prison system is controversial and also varies from region to region. Basic data on this are lacking so far. The problem is discussed against the background of a current expert opinion case. Current figures from a large forensic hospital in Munich-East show that almost 30% of the patients are treated with substitutes (n=186). The problem of substitution treatment in the prison system is discussed.

Availability of opioid agonist treatment and critical incidents in Forensic Clinics for Dependency Diseases in Germany

BACKGROUND

Prevalence of substance use disorders, especially opioid use disorders, is high in patients admitted into forensic psychiatric settings. Opioid agonist treatment is a safe, well-established, and effective treatment option for patients that suffer from opioid dependence. Surprisingly, data on the availability and practice of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) options in German Forensic Clinics for Dependency Diseases is rare. Furthermore, essential data on the prevalence of critical incidents such as violent behavior, relapse, or escape from the clinic are missing for this particular treatment setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted an observational study on all forensic addiction treatment units in Germany (Sect. 64 of the German Criminal Code). A questionnaire on the availability and practice of OAT was sent to all Forensic Clinics for Dependency Diseases in Germany. Following items were assessed: availability and the total number of patients that received an OAT in 2018, available medication options, specific reasons for start and end of OAT, number of treatments terminated without success, number of successful treatments, and critical incidents such as violent behavior, relapse, escape and reoffending. We compared the forensic clinics that offered OAT with those that did not offer this treatment option. The data were analyzed descriptively. Mean and standard deviation was calculated for metric scaled variables. For categorical variables, absolute and relative frequencies were calculated. The two groups (OAT vs. Non-OAT institutions) were compared concerning the given variables by either using Fishers exact test (categorical variables), t-test (normally distributed metric variables), or Wilcoxon-test (metric variables not normally distributed).

RESULTS

In total, 15 of 46 Forensic Clinics for Dependency Diseases participated in the study (33%). In total, 2,483 patients were treated in the participating clinics, 18% were relocated into prison due to treatment termination, and 15% were discharged successfully in 2018. 275 critical incidents were reported: violence against a patient (4%), violence against staff (1.6%), escape (4.7%) and reoffending in (0.5%). In seven clinics treating 1,153 patients, an OAT was available. OAT options in forensic clinics were buprenorphine/naloxone, buprenorphine, methadone, and levomethadone. Regarding critical incidents and successful discharge, no differences were detected in the clinics with or without an OAT. In the clinics that offered an OAT, we found a significantly higher rate of treatment termination without success (p < 0.007) in comparison to clinics without an OAT program. Ninety-nine patients received an OAT, and this treatment was ended due to illegal drug abuse (57%), refusal to give a urine drug sample (71%), and cases where the OAT was given away to other patients (85%).

CONCLUSION

In Forensic Clinics for Dependency Diseases in Germany, OAT is not available in every institution, and thus, access is limited. Critical incidents such as violent behavior against staff or patients and escape are not uncommon in these forensic treatment settings. Further studies are needed to enhance the understanding of OAT practice and the risks for patients and staff.

[Suicides in the German prison system: frequency, risk factors, and prevention]

Gefangene haben ein hohes Suizidrisiko und die höchsten Suizidraten sind bei Untersuchungsgefangenen zu verzeichnen. Suizid ist die häufigste singuläre Todesursache in deutschen Gefängnissen. In diesem narrativen Übersichtsbeitrag werden zunächst die Gefängnispopulation und ihre allgemeine Gesundheitsversorgung beschrieben, wobei insbesondere auf psychiatrische und Substanzkonsumstörungen eingegangen wird. Der Hauptteil widmet sich der Prävalenz, den Ursachen und Risikofaktoren von Gefängnissuizid. Maßnahmen zur Suizidprävention werden dargestellt.

Der Anteil von Männern unter Gefangenen in Deutschland ist mit 94 % (2020) wie in allen Teilen der Welt sehr hoch. Die meisten Gefangenen sind jungen oder mittleren Alters. Die durchschnittlichen jährlichen Suizidraten bei Männern und Frauen in deutschen Gefängnissen entsprechen mit 105,8/100.000 bzw. 54,7/100.000 denen der meisten Länder in der Europäischen Union (Vollerhebung 2000–2011). Die Suizidraten bei männlichen deutschen Gefangenen sind in den Jahren 2000–2013 unabhängig vom Alter kontinuierlich zurückgegangen. Bei weiblichen Gefangenen stiegen sie dagegen an, wobei die Ursachen hierfür nicht bekannt sind. Es gibt Hinweise darauf, dass psychiatrische Erkrankungen nicht erkannt worden waren.

Wichtige suizidpräventive Maßnahmen sind die Unterbringung in Gemeinschaft und die Vermeidung von Isolation, beispielsweise durch das Angebot von Arbeit. Zudem stehen validierte deutschsprachige Screeninginstrumente zur Verfügung, um ein Suizidrisiko frühzeitig zu erkennen. Für eine wirksame Gefängnissuizidprävention bedarf es der Identifikation von Hochrisikopersonen, des Angebots geeigneter suizidpräventiver Maßnahmen sowie der Entwicklung teambezogener Maßnahmen beim Gefängnispersonal.

Rates of opioid agonist treatment prescribing in provincial prisons in Ontario, Canada, 2015-2018: a repeated cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVE

To describe opioid agonist treatment prescribing rates in provincial prisons and compare with community prescribing rates.

DESIGN

We used quarterly, cross-sectional data on the number and proportion of people prescribed opioid agonist treatment in prison populations. Trends were compared with Ontario surveillance data from prescribers, reported on a monthly basis.

SETTING

Provincial prisons and general population in Ontario, Canada between 2015 and 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults incarcerated in provincial prisons and people ages 15 years and older in Ontario.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Opioid agonist treatment prescribing prevalence, defined as treatment with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone.

RESULTS

In prison, 6.9%-8.4% of people were prescribed methadone; 0.8% to 4.8% buprenorphine/naloxone; and 8.2% to 13.2% either treatment over the study period. Between 2015 and 2018, methadone prescribing prevalence did not substantially change in prisons or in the general population. The prevalence rate of buprenorphine/naloxone prescribing increased in prisons by 1.70 times per year (95% CI 1.47 to 1.96), which was significantly higher than the increase in community prescribing: 1.20 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.21). Buprenorphine/naloxone prescribing prevalence was significantly different across prisons.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in opioid agonist treatment prescribing between 2015 and 2018 in provincial prisons shows that efforts to scale up access to treatment in the context of the opioid overdose crisis have included people who experience incarceration in Ontario. Further work is needed to understand unmet need for treatment and treatment impacts.

Transition from methadone to subcutaneous buprenorphine depot in patients with opioid use disorder in custodial setting - a case series

BACKGROUND

Methadone, a full opioid agonist, and buprenorphine, a partial agonist at the opioid receptor, are established first-line medications for opioid maintenance therapy. Transition from methadone to sublingual buprenorphine may precipitate withdrawal and is usually performed only in patients on low dose of methadone (<30-40 mg). Transition from methadone to a novel subcutaneous buprenorphine depot (Buvidal) has not been previously described.

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that a rapid transition from methadone to buprenorphine depot after a single dose of buprenorphine 4 mg sublingual is safe and well tolerated.

METHODS

Retrospective chart analysis of a case series of seven opioid users under custodial setting (prison) who were switched from methadone to buprenorphine depot (initial dose 16 mg weekly subcutaneously) after an initial test dose of buprenorphine 4 mg sublingual within 48 hours.

RESULTS

Clinical data indicate that a rapid transition from methadone to depot buprenorphine is feasible (six patients within 48 hours, one within 4 days). All patients were successfully switched to buprenorphine depot and the transfer period was completed without dropouts or major medical problems. Further dose adjustments were performed in 4 of 7 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Transition of opioid users from methadone to buprenorphine depot is feasible and safe via 4 mg buprenorphine sublingual. This procedure may facilitate induction of buprenorphine depot formulations in patients treated with methadone.