Upload
marion-day
View
219
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DYING FOR HEROIN
Overlooked or ignored options for preventing
opiate overdose deaths
Professor John StrangDirectorNational Addiction Centre,Institute of Psychiatry and the Maudsley, London, UK
STRUCTURE OF THE TALK
WHY THE INTEREST?Don’t forget ….----------------------------------------------
HOW COMMON?WHICH DRUGS?INTERVENTION OPPORTUNITY
WHY THE INTEREST?
GROWING PROBLEM
SOMETHING WE COULD DO ABOUT IT
Tables for Mortality from Opioids in Republic of Ireland
Time Period
deaths outside Dublin
deaths inside Dublin
Total number of deaths
1980 -1984 1 13 14 1985-1989 1
18 19
1990-1994 3
41 44
1995-1999 28
201 229
1980-1999 33 273 306*
Percent of total deaths in Ireland (for each age group) attributable to opioids in Ireland
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998Year
Per
cen
tag
e o
f d
eath
s
All ages Age 35-44 Age 25-34 Age 15-24
Age-standardised mortality rate from opioids and odds ratios amongst population aged 15-44, between 1980 and 1999 (per 1,000,000)
Factor
Age-corr. mort. rate
Odds Ratio(95% CI)
Time Period
1980-1984
1.9 13.6(7.9, 23.1)1995-1999
25.9
Gender Female
1.9 8.4(5.6, 12.6)Male
16.1
Area of residence
Outside Dublin
1.3 20.0(13.6, 29.3)Inside Dublin
27.0
Heroin purity 1986 - 2001
0102030405060708090100
86-1
87-1
88-1
89-1
90-1
91-1
92-1
93-1
94-1
95-1
96-1
97-1
98-1
99-1
00-1
2001-1
perc
ent
Don’t forget ….
Unmet need Waiting lists incomplete penetration
Poorly-met need Sub-optimal dosing Unacceptable reliance on drug alone Fondness for eccentricity
Iatrogenic harm In our own hands
Don’t forget ….
High-risk individuals, groups and times
Impact of the treatment we provide Inevitable ? Inexcusable ?
STRUCTURE OF THE TALK
WHY THE INTEREST? ----------------------------------------------
HOW COMMON?
WHICH DRUGS?
INTERVENTION OPPORTUNITY
A guide to the studies - London
2 PAI studies of community samples (n=438 early heroin users (Gossop et al, 1996)) and (n=312 injectors (Powis et al, 1999; Strang et al, 1999)).
2 studies of methadone maintenance treatment samples (n=142 m.m. clients (Strang et al, 1999)) and (n=155 outpatients (Best et al, 2000)).
London PAI Study #1:438 Early Heroin Users
[48% in first 3 years; 45% SDS6]
Overdose history among 98 (22%)
Of 309 ever-injectors, 96 (31%) had overdosed
Of 125 never-injectors, 2 (2%) had overdosed
(2=44.2, p<0.001 [data missing on 4])
(Gossop, Griffiths, Powis, Williamson and Strang, BMJ, 1996)
HOW COMMON (among injectors)?
WHICH DRUGS?
INTERVENTION OPPORTUNITY?
… personal O/D… witnessed O/D… (witnessed fatal O/D)----------------------and then detail on last event
London PAI Study #2:312 injectors
Personal overdose? - 117 (38%)
Witnessed overdose? - 157 (50%)
Witnessed fatal O/D? - 46 (15%)
(Strang, Griffiths, Powis, Fountain, Williamson and Gossop, Drug and Alcohol Review, 1999)
Conclusion number 1
Overdose is common hazard
Overdose frequently witnessed
HOW COMMON?
WHICH DRUGS?
INTERVENTION OPPORTUNITY?
London PAI Study #2:312 injectors
Personal overdose? (38%)
Witnessed overdose? - (50%)
Witnessed fatal O/D? - (15%)
(Strang, Griffiths, Powis, Fountain, Williamson and Gossop, Drug and Alcohol Review, 1999)
PAI Study #2: 312 InjectorsLast personal overdose (n=117)Heroin (n=94) Other opiate (n=21)
[of which methadone =13]
60 3 [2] 3[1]
8[6]
23 7[4]
13
Non-opiate drug (n=51)
Figure 1 : Last personal overdose (n=117):Types of drug involved
(Strang, Griffiths, Powis, Fountain, Williamson and Gossop, Drug and Alcohol Review 1999)
60 3[1]
13
23 7[4]
8[6]
3[2]
Heroin (n=94 ) Other opiate (n=21) [meth =13]
Non-opiate (n=51)
PAI Study #2: 312 InjectorsLast witnessed O/D (n=157)Heroin (n=94) Other opiate (n=21)
[of which methadone =13]
60 3 [2] 3[1]
8[6]
23 7[4]
13
Non-opiate drug (n=51)
Figure 1 : Last personal overdose (n=117):Types of drug involved
(Strang, Griffiths, Powis, Fountain, Williamson and Gossop, Drug and Alcohol Review 1999)
107 6[3]
5
33 5[5]
0
1[0]
Heroin (n=141) Other opiate (n=12) [meth =8]
Non-opiate (n=43)
PAI Study #2: 312 InjectorsLast witnessed fatal O/D (n=46)Heroin (n=94) Other opiate (n=21)
[of which methadone =13]
60 3 [2] 3[1]
8[6]
23 7[4]
13
Non-opiate drug (n=51)
Figure 1 : Last personal overdose (n=117):Types of drug involved
(Strang, Griffiths, Powis, Fountain, Williamson and Gossop, Drug and Alcohol Review 1999)
15 2[0]
3
16 4[4]
2[1]
4[0]
Heroin (n=37) Other opiate (n=12) [meth =5]
Non-opiate (n=25)
Conclusion number 2:Drugs involved with overdose
HEROIN
Heroin and sedative mixtures
HOW COMMON?
WHICH DRUGS?
INTERVENTION OPPORTUNITY?
INTERVENTION OPPORTUNITY?
Extensive witnessing of overdoses (including fatal outcomes) …
INTERVENTION OPPORTUNITY?
Sydney - 86% had witnessed O/D
Adelaide - 70% had witnessed O/D
London PAI injectors -50%
(London treatment sample -
83/97%)
INTERVENTION OPPORTUNITY?
O.K., so extensive witnessing of overdoses (including fatal outcomes);
but what about resuscitation efforts (even if incorrect)?
TREATMENT SAMPLE 2b 115 methadone maintenance clients (current or former injectors) 57 (50%) had previously overdosed 112 (97%) had witnessed an overdose (fuller data on 98)
For last witnessed overdose, Mostly friends - 70% Partner - 10% Acquaintance - 14% Stranger - 1%
(Strang, Best, Man, Noble and Gossop, IJDP, 2000)
TREATMENT SAMPLE 2b 115 methadone maintenance clients
Willingness to implement different interventions – For
Partner For
Friend For
Family For
Acqaint. For
Stranger Recovery position
97% 96% 96% 91% 89%
Mouth-to-mouth
97% 97% 97% 77% 69%
Walk them about
97% 97% 97% 93% 92%
Call ambulance
97% 97% 97% 93% 93%
Wait for ambulance
97% 97% 97% 95% 93%
(Strang, Best, Man, Noble and Gossop, I JDP, 2000)
TREATMENT SAMPLE #2 155 clients in/or seeking methadone treatment
72 (47%) had personal overdose history 128 (83%) had witnessed an overdose (includes 43 witnessing fatality)
Of these 128,75 (59%) had inflicted pain71 (55%) had walked them about the room70 (55%) had called an ambulance***63 (49%) had waited for the ambulance58 (45%) had splashed them with water56 (44%) had placed them in recovery position**49 (38%) had given mouth-to-mouth resusc*
[*** identifies user assessment of urgency]
REPORTS OF WITNESSED OVERDOSES THAT RESULTED IN FATALITIES
“He OD’ed at a friend’s house. The guy looked asleep, in fact he had already overdosed and died”.
“I was with a friend who collapsed. We tried to revive him but the ambulance took 20 minutes to arrive, by which time he had died. He had taken lots of Valium”.
Best, Gossop et al, 2002, Drug and Alcohol Review
COMMENTS ON THE ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE LAST WITNESSED OVERDOSE
“I injected her with salt; it brought her back, didn’t need an ambulance”;
“I cleared the air pathways and put an upside down spoon in his mouth”;
“…after going very blue, he was given crack when he started coming round, and that brought him back”;
“I used naloxone, and it saved his life”.Beswick et al, 2002, Journal of Drug Issues
INTERVENTION OPPORTUNITY?
Extensive witnessing of overdoses (including fatal outcomes);
ANDFrequent resuscitation efforts (even if incorrect).
Conclusion number 3:O/D intervention opportunity?
Yes
surely there is now a case for …
Resuscitation training
Naloxone distribution
Take-home naloxone
The idea
Early exploration
Nest steps
First mooted: JS - Keynote on Harm reduction - pushing at the envelope (Melbourne Harm Reduction conference, 1992)
First serious consideration:Strang, J., Darke, S., Hall, W., Farrell, M. & Ali, R. (1996) Heroin overdose: the case for take-home naloxone? British Medical Journal, 312: 1435.
First investigated: Strang J, Powis B, Best D et al (1999)
Preventing opiate overdose fatalities with take-home naloxone: pre-launch study of possible impact and acceptability. Addiction , 94 (2): 199-204.
Possible first target populations (naloxone)
Treatment-related risk of overdose Induction onto methadone Post-release from prison Post-detox treatment
Capelhorn (1998) Drug & Alcohol Review, 17: 9-17Bird & Hutchinson (2003) Addiction, 98: 185-190Strang et al (2003) British Medical Journal, 326:7-8
Possible target populations (Training)
Non-medic drug workersKey agency personnelPatientsCarersWider clients (e.g.IEES,etc)Users (i.e. not linked to patient status)
Strang, Kelleher and Bown, submitted for publication
Does the naloxone ever get used?
Initial experience ……Berlin/Jersey – about 10% used within a
yearNew Mexico, USA – 2/100 within few monthsChicago, USA, 2001 – 52/550Chicago, USA, 2003 – 144/2000
Dettmer, Saunders and Strang, BMJ, 2001 Baca et al, BMJ, 2001 Bigg, BMJ, 2002 and 2003
Cost per life saved?
At least 10% used in earnestUse appears appropriateLives saved; no lives lost£3-5 per naloxone ampEven if successful only 10% of times, then
each life saved at drug cost of £300-500[n.b. could be much cheaper]
Dettmer, Saunders and Strang, BMJ, 2001
Take-home naloxone:the next steps
Embed within resusc training (Nalox-box +)
Improve the product (route, device, drug)
? eventual wider availability ?
Other populations to train and empower
Strang (1999) Addiction, 94: 207.
CONCLUSIONS(1)Optimise …Don’t forget ….Unmet need
Waiting lists incomplete penetration
Poorly-met need Sub-optimal dosing Unacceptable reliance on drug alone Fondness for eccentricity
Iatrogenic harm In our own hands
CONCLUSIONS (2)
NEW PREVENTION OBJECTIVES:
fewer overdoses, and
CONCLUSIONS (2)
NEW PREVENTION OBJECTIVES:
fewer overdoses, and less dangerous overdose
CONCLUSIONS (3)
NEW INTERVENTIONS,but what?
CPR,esp assisted breathing
rapid ambulance call
naloxone administration
Thank You