Advertisement

Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 84, Issue 4, pp 552–562 | Cite as

Heroin-assisted Treatment (HAT) a Decade Later: A Brief Update on Science and Politics

  • Benedikt FischerEmail author
  • Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes
  • Peter Blanken
  • Christian Haasen
  • Jürgen Rehm
  • Martin T. Schechter
  • John Strang
  • Wim van den Brink
Article

Abstract

Since the initial Swiss heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) study conducted in the mid-1990s, several other jurisdictions in Europe and North America have implemented HAT trials. All of these studies embrace the same goal—investigating the utility of medical heroin prescribing for problematic opioid users—yet are distinct in various key details. This paper briefly reviews (initiated or completed) studies and their main parameters, including primary research objectives, design, target populations, outcome measures, current status and—where available—key results. We conclude this overview with some final observations on a decade of intensive HAT research in the jurisdictions examined, including the suggestion that there is a mounting onus on the realm of politics to translate the—largely positive—data from completed HAT science into corresponding policy and programming in order to expand effective treatment options for the high-risk population of illicit opioid users.

Keywords

Heroin-assisted treatment Science Politics Opioid dependence Clinical trials 

References

  1. 1.
    Hser Y, Hoffman V, Grella C, Anglin M. A 33-year follow-up of narcotics addicts. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58(5):503–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Healey A, Knapp M, Marsden J, Gossop M, Stewart D. Criminal outcomes and costs of treatment services for injecting and non-injecting heroin users: evidence from a national prospective cohort survey. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(3):134–141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adlaf E, Begin P, Sawka E. Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS). A National Survey of Canadians’ Use of Alcohol and Other Drugs: Prevalence of Use and Related Harms: A Detailed Report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH series H-30, DHHS Publication no. SMA 06-4194; 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    EMCDDA. Annual Report 2006: The State of the Drugs problem in Europe. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction; 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    EMCDDA. Annual Report 2005: The State of the Drugs Problem in Europe. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction; 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Heroin Fact Sheet: June 2003. Available at: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/heroin/. Accessed November 8, 2006.
  8. 8.
    Darke S, Hall W. Heroin overdose: research and evidence-based intervention. J Urban Health. 2003;80(2):189–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mark T, Woody G, Juday T, Kleber H. The economic costs of heroin addiction in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2001;61:195–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wiessing L, Roy K, Sapinho D et al. Surveillance of Hepatitis C Infection Among Injecting Drug Users in the European Union. In: Jager J, Limburg W, Kretzschmar M, Postma M, Wiessing L, eds. EMCDDA Monographs: Hepatitis C and Injection Drug Use: Impact, Costs and Policy Options. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction; 2004:91–135.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rehm J, Fischer B, Haydon E. Reducing the Risks, Harms and Costs of HIV/AIDS and Injection Drug Use: A Synthesis of the Evidence Base for Development of Policies and Programs. Background Paper #4. 2nd Annual Background Dialogue on HIV/AIDS. Warsaw: Health Canada/UNAIDS/Canadian International Development Agency; 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wodak A. The current status of heroin prescription treatment for heroin dependence. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2005;4(5):815–819.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischer B. Illegale Opiatsucht, Behandlung und ökonomische Kostenforschung—ein beispielhafter Überblick und eine Diskussion aus sozialwissenschaftlicher Perspektive [Illicit opioid dependence, treatment and economic cost research—a selective review and discussion from a social science perspective]. Sucht. 2003;4:2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer B, Rehm J, Kirst M et al. Heroin-assisted treatment as a response to the public health problem of opiate dependence. Eur J Public Health. 2002;12:228–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uchtenhagen A, Dobler-Mikola A, Steffen T, Gutzwiller F, Blattler R, Pfeiffer S. Prescription of Narcotics for Heroin Addicts: Main Results of the Swiss National Cohort Study. Medical Prescription of Narcotics, vol. 1. Basel: Karger; 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van den Brink W, Hendriks V, van Ree J. Medical co-prescription of heroin to chronic, treatment-resistant methadone patients in the Netherlands. J Drug Issues. 1999;29(3):587–608.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stimson G, Metrebian N. Prescribing Heroin: What is the Evidence? York, England: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2003.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bammer G, van den BW, Gschwend P, Hendriks V, Rehm J. What can the Swiss and Dutch trials tell us about the potential risks associated with heroin prescribing? Drug Alcohol Rev. 2003;22(3):363–371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schechter MT. NAOMI—her time has come. North American Opiate Medication Initiative. J Urban Health. 2002;79(2):164–165.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schechter M et al. North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI): Multi-Centre, Randomized Controlled Trial of Heroin-Assisted Therapy for Treatment-Refractory Injection Opiate Users. Canada: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haasen C, Verthein U, Degkwitz P, Berger J, Krausz M, Naber D. Heroin assisted treatment for opioid dependence: a randomised, controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. In press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schulenburg J, Claes C. Gesundheitsokönomische Begleitforschung und Spezialstudie im Rahmen des bundesdeutschen Modellprojekts zur kontrollierten Heroinvergabe an Schwerstabhängige. Available at: http://www.heroinstudie.de/Gesundheitsoekonomie_Kurzf_abg.pdf; 2006.
  23. 23.
    Bundesministerium fur Gesundheit. Pressemitteilungen zu Drogen und Sucht. Entscheidung zum Fortgang der diamorphingestützten Behandlung. Bundenministerium für Gesundheit. Pressemitteilungen zu Drogen und Sucht. 2006.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van den Brink W, Hendriks V, Blanken P, Koeter M, van Zwieten B, van Ree J. Medical prescription of heroin to treatment resistant heroin addicts: two randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003;327(7410):310–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dijkgraaf MG, van der Zanden BP, de Borgie CA, Blanken P, van Ree JM, Van den Brink W. Cost utility analysis of co-prescribed heroin compared with methadone maintenance treatment in heroin addicts in two randomised trials. BMJ. 2005;330(7503):1297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    March JC, Oviedo-Joekes E, Perea-Milla E, Carrasco F. Controlled trial of prescribed heroin in the treatment of opioid addiction. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006;31(2):203–211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Colom J. Programa Catalán de Prescripción de Heroína Oral. Presentación en las II Jornadas Internacionales de heroína, Granada, 10–12 March 2005.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Perneger T, Giner F, del Rio M, Mino A. Randomized trial of heroin maintenance programme for addicts who fail in conventional drug treatment. BMJ. 1998;317(7150):13–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frei A. Economic evaluation of the Swiss project on medically prescribed heroin substitution treatment. Psychiatr Prax. 2001;28(1):S41–S44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rehm J, Gschwend P, Steffen T, Gutzwiller F, Dobler-Mikola A, Uchtenhagen A. Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of injectable heroin prescription for refractory opioid addicts: a follow-up study. Lancet. 2001;358:1417–1420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frick U, Rehm J, Kovacic S, Ammann J, Uchtenhagen A. A prospective cohort study on orally administered heroin substitution for severely addicted opioid users. Addiction. 2006;101(11):1631–1639.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ali R, Auriacombe M, Casas M et al. Report of the external panel on the evaluation of the Swiss Scientific Studies of Medically Prescribed Narcotics to Drug Addicts. Sucht. 1999;45(3):160–170.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Farrell M, Hall W. The Swiss heroin trials: testing alternative approaches. BMJ. 1998;316(7132):639.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Uchtenhagen A. Drug Law and Policy Reform in Switzerland: Briefing Paper for RSA Commission. Zurich: Research Institute for Public Health and Addiction; 2006.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    OFSP. Traitement avec prescription d’héroïne (HeGeBe) en 2004. Switzerland: Office Fédéral de la Santé Publique; 2005.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Metrebian N, Carnwath Z, Mott J, Carnwath T, Stimson GV, Sell L. Patients receiving a prescription for diamorphine (heroin) in the United Kingdom. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2006;25(2):115–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Metrebian N, Carnwath T, Stimson GV, Storz T. Survey of doctors prescribing diamorphine (heroin) to opiate-dependent drug users in the United Kingdom. Addiction. 2002;97(9):1155–1161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Strang J, Marsden J, Cummins M et al. Randomized trial of supervised injectable versus oral methadone maintenance: report of feasibility and 6-month outcome. Addiction. 2000;95(11):1631–1645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lintzeris N, Strang J, Metrebian N et al. Methodology for the Randomised Injecting Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT): evaluating injectable methadone and injectable heroin treatment versus optimised oral methadone treatment in the UK. Harm Reduct J. 2006;3(1):28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ferri M, Davoli M, Perucci CA. Heroin maintenance treatment for chronic heroin-dependent individuals: a Cochrane systematic review of effectiveness. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006;30:63–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rehm J, Fischer B. Heroingestütze Therapie für Opiatabhängige weder Allheilmittel noch Teufelswerk. Sucht. 2000;01(02):57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kahan M, Srivastava A, Shen K. Why we object to NAOMI. Heroin maintenance in Canada. Can Fam Physician. 2006;52:709–711.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Guttinger F, Gschwend P, Schulte B, Rehm J, Uchtenhagen A. Evaluating long-term effects of heroin-assisted treatment: the results of a 6-year follow-up. Eur Addict Res. 2003;9(2):73–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    van den Brink W, Haasen C. Evidence based treatment of opioid dependent patients. Can J Psychiatry. 2006;51(10):635–646.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fischer B, Rehm J. Illicit opioid use and treatment for opioid dependence: challenges for Canada and Beyond. Can J Psychiatry. 2006;51(10):621–623.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fischer B, Rehm J, Patra J, Firestone Cruz M. Changes in illicit opioid use profiles across Canada. CMAJ. 2006;175(11):1–3.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wodak A. Public health and politics: the demise of the ACT heroin trial. Med J Aust. 1997;167:348–349.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benedikt Fischer
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes
    • 1
    • 3
  • Peter Blanken
    • 4
  • Christian Haasen
    • 5
  • Jürgen Rehm
    • 2
    • 6
  • Martin T. Schechter
    • 7
  • John Strang
    • 8
    • 9
  • Wim van den Brink
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre for Addictions Research of British ColumbiaUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Andalusian School of Public HealthGranadaSpain
  4. 4.Central Committee on the Treatment of Heroin Addicts (CCBH)University Medical CentreUtrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Center for Interdisciplinary Addiction ResearchUniversity Medical CenterEppendorfGermany
  6. 6.Research Institute on Public Health and AddictionsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  7. 7.British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDSSt. Paul’s Hospital, University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  8. 8.National Addiction CentreInstitute of PsychiatryLondonUK
  9. 9.NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations