Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:310 (9 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7410.310
Wim van den Brink, professor1, Vincent M Hendriks, senior researcher3, Peter Blanken, researcher1, Maarten W J Koeter, assistant professor2, Barbara J van Zwieten, delegate to CPMP4, Jan M van Ree, professor5
1 Central Committee on the Treatment of Heroin Addicts (CCBH), Stratenum, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584 CG Utrecht, Netherlands, 2 Amsterdam Institute for Addiction Research, Tafelbergweg 25, 1105 BC Amsterdam, Netherlands, 3 Parnassia Addiction Research Centre, PO Box 2505 AA The Hague, Netherlands, 4 Netherlands Medicines Evaluation Board, Kalvermarkt 53, The Hague, Netherlands, 5 Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
Correspondence to: W van den Brink w.vandenbrink{at}amc.uva.nl
Design Two open label randomised controlled trials.
Setting Methadone maintenance programmes in six cities in the Netherlands.
Participants 549 heroin addicts.
Interventions Inhalable heroin (n = 375) or injectable heroin (n = 174) prescribed over 12 months. Heroin (maximum 1000 mg per day) plus methadone (maximum 150 mg per day) compared with methadone alone (maximum 150 mg per day). Psychosocial treatment was offered throughout.
Main outcome measures Dichotomous, multidomain response index, including validated indicators of physical health, mental status, and social functioning.
Results Adherence was excellent with 12 month outcome data available for 94% of the randomised participants. With intention to treat analysis, 12 month treatment with heroin plus methadone was significantly more effective than treatment with methadone alone in the trial of inhalable heroin (response rate 49.7% v 26.9%; difference 22.8%, 95% confidence interval 11.0% to 34.6%) and in the trial of injectable heroin (55.5% v 31.2%; difference 24.3%, 9.6% to 39.0%). Discontinuation of the coprescribed heroin resulted in a rapid deterioration in 82% (94/115) of those who responded to the coprescribed heroin. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across treatment conditions.
Conclusions Supervised coprescription of heroin is feasible, more effective, and probably as safe as methadone alone in reducing the many physical, mental, and social problems of treatment resistant heroin addicts.
A large cohort study in Switzerland ascertained the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of medical prescription of injectable heroin to 1969 addicts.5 The effectiveness of treatment was difficult to judge because no (random) controls were available, before and after comparisons were restricted to those who completed treatment, and participants were obliged to take part in mandatory psychosocial counselling and care.6-8 In a small randomised controlled trial (n = 51) in which intravenous heroin was compared with some standard treatment, functioning of the participants in the heroin group was significantly better after six months.9 However, these positive effects could have been the result of the additional, and mandatory, psychosocial interventions in the group allocated to heroin.
We examined the effectiveness of medically coprescribed heroine in two open label randomised controlled trials among heroin addicts who had responded insufficiently to methadone maintenance treatment.
Participants and treatments
Included participants had regularly attended methadone maintenance
programmes during the previous six months, were at least 25 years old, and met
diagnostic criteria for heroin dependence during the past five
years.10
Participants were recruited from existing methadone maintenance programmes
between 15 July 1998 and 1 October 2000. They were allocated to either the
inhaling or the injecting trial depending on how they usually used the drug.
Participants in the control groups were reallocated to their methadone
programme of origin and received standard methadone maintenance treatment.
Those in the experimental and comparison groups (group B for 12 months and
group C for the last six months) were allowed to visit the newly established
treatment units seven days a week, three times a day. Methadone was delivered
once a day. Participants were allowed to use a maximum of 400 mg heroin each
visit and a maximum of 1000 mg a day. They were not allowed to take any
home.
Assessments
Independent research assistants assessed participants before the trial and
then every two months. They assessed diagnosis and baseline characteristics
using the composite international diagnostic interview (CIDI) and the European
version of the addiction severity index (EuropASI).
To be eligible for the study, participants had to be resistant to treatment as indicated by continued illegal use of opiates and poor physical functioning, mental health, and social integration (see bmj.com for details). We validated self reported data on illicit cocaine against urinalysis, and self reported data on charges by the police with data from the police register.
We used a prespecified outcome index as the primary outcome parameter.
Patients were considered as responders if they showed at least 40% improvement
in at least one of the three domains of inclusion (physical, mental, social)
at the end of the treatment compared with baseline; if this improvement was
not at the expense of a serious (
40%) deterioration in functioning in any
of the other outcome domains; and if the improvement was not accompanied by a
substantial (
20%) increase in use of cocaine or amphetamines.
Additional outcome parameters were completion of treatment (percentage of
patients still in the intended treatment at the end of the trial) and
sustained response (participants who became a responder before the 12 month
assessment and remained responders during the course of the trial).
Discontinuation was described in terms of the percentage of completers and
responders who showed substantial deterioration (
20% of baseline score)
two months after discontinuation on at least one of the outcome domains on
which they responded at 12 months.
The treating physician continuously documented all clinically significant adverse events and all serious and unexpected adverse events.
Statistical analysis
To test the primary hypothesis we performed an intention to treat analysis
separately for each trial and included all patients who were notified about
the result of the randomisation. The magnitude of the difference between
treatment conditions was calculated as a difference in the percentage of
responders (RD). In addition, for the primary outcome variable we have
provided an estimate of the number of people who would need to be treated to
produce one additional responder (NNT = 1/RD). We used a multiple imputation
procedure to estimate missing data for the 12 month assessment. A clinically
relevant effect was predefined as a percentage of responders of 20% or
more.
|
The experimental treatment with 12 months of methadone plus heroin was significantly more effective than 12 months of methadone alone, both in the inhaling trial (difference = 22.8%, 95% confidence interval 11.0% to 34.6%; number needed to treat = 4.4, 2.9 to 9.1) and in the injecting trial (difference = 24.3%, 9.6% to 39.0%; number needed to treat = 4.1, 2.6 to 10.4) (table). Treatment centre and the interaction between centre and condition were not significantly related to outcome.
Results for those who completed the study were similar to those from the intention to treat analysis (table). Sustained response rates were of course lower than simple response rates, but the difference between the treatment conditions remained significant (table). The difference in the rate of sustained response increased during the course of the study (figure).
|
Treatment responders showed clinically relevant improvements in all outcome domains. These changes were absent in non-responders, with the exception of a reduction in illegal activities in the participants who received heroin in addition to methadone
Many (82%, 94) of the treatment responders in the experimental group deteriorated substantially in the two months after the planned discontinuation of the coprescribed heroin. Two months after discontinuation the mean scores on the constituent scales of the multidomain outcome index had returned to the scores seen just before the start of the intervention.
The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in all groups. Only two events were probably or definitely related to the study medication. There were three deaths (one in group A, one in group B, and one in group C (in the first phase before heroin was prescribed)), one of which was probably related to the coprescribed heroin.
|
Our findings generally agree with those from previous studies.5 9 The most important advantage of our study is that the observed effects of the coprescription of heroin could not be attributed to a difference in the offer of psychosocial treatment between the experimental and the control groups.
Limitations
Given the nature of the medication under study we could not use a double
blind design.11 We
also exclusively used self reported outcome data. This is generally truthful,
reliable, and valid in this kind of population, provided that confidentiality
is ensured and that no sanctions are connected to the content of the
answers.12 In
addition, the self reported data on police charges and use of cocaine
corresponded well with data from the police register and from urinalysis.
Finally, there was a difference in settings between the treatment groups.
Methadone prescription and dispensing took place in existing treatment
locations with existing treatment staff, whereas the combined prescription of
methadone and heroin took place in newly established locations with specially
recruited staff members. Despite these limitations, however, we consider that
our study provides strong evidence of the efficacy of prescribed heroin for
addicts who are resistant to other forms of treatment.
This is an abridged
version; the full version is on
bmj.com
We thank Ineke Huijsman for her coordinating activities during the trials. The Netherlands Medicines Evaluation Board was not involved in the study.
Contributors: See bmj.com
Funding: The study was commissioned and financially supported by the Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethical approval: The study was approved by the Central Committee on Medical Ethics (KEMO) and conducted according to ICH/EU Good Clinical Practice guidelines. All participants provided written informed consent.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses
UK medical students have published unreleased government plans to restrict failed asylum seekers' access to medical care