Diacetylmorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid addiction. Controlled trial of prescribed heroin in the treatment of opioid addiction. Randomised trial of heroin maintenance programme for addicts who fail in conventional drug treatments. Evaluation of heroin maintenance in controlled trial. Heroin-assisted treatment for opioid dependence: randomised controlled trial. Methodology for the Randomised Injecting Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT): evaluating injectable methadone and injectable heroin treatment versus optimised oral methadone treatment in the UK.
Studies in Europe have suggested that injectable diacetylmorphine, the active ingredient in heroin, can be an effective adjunctive treatment for chronic, relapsing opioid dependence.
                In an open-label, phase 3, randomized, controlled trial in Canada, we compared injectable diacetylmorphine with oral methadone maintenance therapy in patients with opioid dependence that was refractory to treatment. Long-term users of injectable heroin who had not benefited from at least two previous attempts at treatment for addiction (including at least one methadone treatment) were randomly assigned to receive methadone (111 patients) or diacetylmorphine (115 patients). The primary outcomes, assessed at 12 months, were retention in addiction treatment or drug-free status and a reduction in illicit-drug use or other illegal activity according to the European Addiction Severity Index.
                The primary outcomes were determined in 95.2% of the participants. On the basis of an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of retention in addiction treatment in the diacetylmorphine group was 87.8%, as compared with 54.1% in the methadone group (rate ratio for retention, 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35 to 1.95; P<0.001). The reduction in rates of illicit-drug use or other illegal activity was 67.0% in the diacetylmorphine group and 47.7% in the methadone group (rate ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.77; P=0.004). The most common serious adverse events associated with diacetylmorphine injections were overdoses (in 10 patients) and seizures (in 6 patients).
                Injectable diacetylmorphine was more effective than oral methadone. Because of a risk of overdoses and seizures, diacetylmorphine maintenance therapy should be delivered in settings where prompt medical intervention is available. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00175357.)
                2009 Massachusetts Medical Society This study aimed to assess the efficacy of the prescription of intravenous diacetylmorphine (DAM) versus oral methadone with medical and psychosocial support, with a view of improving physical and mental health as well as social integration among socially excluded, opioid-dependent individuals for whom standard treatments have failed.
                This study used an open, randomized controlled trial.
                This study took place in Granada, Spain.
                Sixty-two opioid-dependent participants were randomized, 31 in each treatment group, and 50 of them were analyzed. The participants were recruited directly from the streets, through peer outreach, in well-known meeting places for drug-addicted individuals.
                Participants in the experimental group received injected DAM, twice a day, plus oral methadone, once a day, for 9 months. The control group received only oral methadone, once a day. The two groups received an equivalent opioid dosage. The average DAM dosage was 274.5 mg/day (range: 15-600 mg), and an average methadone dosage was 42.6 mg/day (range: 18-124 mg). The daily methadone dosage in the control group was 105 mg/day (range: 40-180 mg). Comprehensive clinical, psychological, social, and legal support was given to both groups.
                The following were measured in this study: general health, quality of life, drug-addiction-related problems, nonmedical use of heroin, risk behavior for HIV and HCV, and psychological, family, and social status.
                Both groups improved with respect to the total domain assessed. Those in the experimental group showed greater improvement in terms of physical health (the improvement was 2.5 times higher; p = .034) and risk behavior for HIV infection (the improvement was 1.6 times higher; p = .012). In addition, this group decreased its street heroin use from 25 days/month to 8 days/month as seen on the Addiction Severity Index (p = .020), as well as the number of days free from drug-related problems (the improvement was 2.1 times higher; p = .004) or involvement in crime (from 11 days/month to <1 day/month; p = .096 between groups).
                These findings support the hypothesis that, under the same conditions, DAM could be safely delivered, in our context. Also, in physical health, HIV risk behavior, street heroin use, and days involved in crime, DAM plus methadone was more efficacious than methadone alone. This implies that this treatment could provide an effective alternative for the treatment of socially excluded, opioid-dependent patients with severe physical and mental health problems because of drug addiction, when all available previous treatments have failed. To evaluate an experimental heroin maintenance programme. Design: Randomised trial.
                Outpatient clinic in Geneva, Switzerland.
                Heroin addicts recruited from the community who were socially marginalised and in poor health and had failed in at least two previous drug treatments.
                Patients in the experimental programme (n=27) received intravenous heroin and other health and psychosocial services. Control patients (n=24) received any other conventional drug treatment (usually methadone maintenance). Main outcome measures: Self reported drug use, health status (SF-36), and social functioning.
                25 experimental patients completed 6 months in the programme, receiving a median of 480 mg of heroin daily. One experimental subject and 10 control subjects still used street heroin daily at follow up (difference 44%; 95% confidence interval 16% to 71%). Health status scores that improved significantly more in experimental subjects were mental health (0.58 SD; 0.07 to 1.10), role limitations due to emotional problems (0.95 SD; 0.11 to 1.79), and social functioning (0.65 SD; 0.03 to 1.26). Experimental subjects also significantly reduced their illegal income and drug expenses and committed fewer drug and property related offences. There were no benefits in terms of work, housing situation, somatic health status, and use of other drugs. Unexpectedly, only nine (38%) control subjects entered the heroin maintenance programme at follow up.
                A heroin maintenance programme is a feasible and clinically effective treatment for heroin users who fail in conventional drug treatment programmes. Even in this population, however, another attempt at methadone maintenance may be successful and help the patient to stop using injectable opioids. Ninety-six confirmed heroin addicts requesting a heroin maintenance prescription were randomly allocated to treatment with injectable heroin or oral methadone. Progress was monitored throughout the next 12 months by research workers operating independently of the clinic. Heroin can be seen as maintaining the status quo, with the majority continuing to inject heroin regularly and to supplement their maintenance prescription from other sources; it was associated with a continuing intermediate level of involvement with the drug subculture and criminal activity. Refusal to prescribe heroin while offering oral methadone constituted a more confrontational response and resulted in a higher abstinence rate, but also a greater dependence on illegal sources of drugs for these who continued to inject. Those offered oral methadone tended to polarize toward high or low categories of illegal drug use and involvement with the drug subculture, and were more likely to be arrested during the 12-month follow-up. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of employment, health, or consumption of nonopiate drugs. Refusal to prescribe heroin resulted in a significantly greater drop out from regular treatment. Heroin-assisted treatment has been found to be effective for people with severe opioid dependence who are not interested in or do poorly on methadone maintenance.
                To study heroin-assisted treatment in people on methadone who continue intravenous heroin and in those who are heroin dependent but currently not in treatment.
                In an open-label multicentre randomised controlled trial, 1015 people with heroin dependence received a variable dose of injectable heroin (n=515) or oral methadone (n=500) for 12 months. Two response criteria, improvement of physical and/or mental health and decrease in illicit drug use, were evaluated in an intent-to-treat analysis.
                Retention was higher in the heroin (67.2%) than in the methadone group (40.0%) and the heroin group showed a significantly greater response on both primary outcome measures. More serious adverse events were found in the heroin group, and were mainly associated with intravenous use.
                Heroin-assisted treatment is more effective for people with opioid dependence who continue intravenous heroin while on methadone maintenance or who are not enrolled in treatment. Despite a higher risk, it should be considered for treatment resistance under medical supervision. Whilst unsupervised injectable methadone and diamorphine treatment has been part of the British treatment system for decades, the numbers receiving injectable opioid treatment (IOT) has been steadily diminishing in recent years. In contrast, there has been a recent expansion of supervised injectable diamorphine programs under trial conditions in a number of European and North American cities, although the evidence regarding the safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of this treatment approach remains equivocal. Recent British clinical guidance indicates that IOT should be a second-line treatment for those patients in high-quality oral methadone treatment who continue to regularly inject heroin, and that treatment be initiated in newly-developed supervised injecting clinics. The Randomised Injectable Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT) is a multisite, prospective open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the role of treatment with injected opioids (methadone and heroin) for the management of heroin dependence in patients not responding to conventional substitution treatment. Specifically, the study examines whether efforts should be made to optimise methadone treatment for such patients (e.g. regular attendance, supervised dosing, high oral doses, access to psychosocial services), or whether such patients should be treated with injected methadone or heroin. Eligible patients (in oral substitution treatment and injecting illicit heroin on a regular basis) are randomised to one of three conditions: (1) optimized oral methadone treatment (Control group); (2) injected methadone treatment; or (3) injected heroin treatment (with access to oral methadone doses). Subjects are followed up for 6-months, with between-group comparisons on an intention-to-treat basis across a range of outcome measures. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who discontinue regular illicit heroin use (operationalised as providing >50% urine drug screens negative for markers of illicit heroin in months 4 to 6). Secondary outcomes include measures of other drug use, injecting practices, health and psychosocial functioning, criminal activity, patient satisfaction and incremental cost effectiveness. The study aims to recruit 150 subjects, with 50 patients per group, and is to be conducted in supervised injecting clinics across England.
The available evidence suggests an added value of heroin prescribed alongside flexible doses of methadone for long-term, treatment refractory, opioid users, to reach a decrease in the use of illicit substances, involvement in criminal activity and incarceration, a possible reduction in mortaliity; and an increase in retention in treatment. Due to the higher rate of serious adverse events, heroin prescription should remain a treatment for people who are currently or have in the past failed maintenance treatment, and it should be provided in clinical settings where proper follow-up is ensured.