|
|
|||||||||||
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London NW3 2QG
John Dunn has received travel expenses and an honorarium for attending a meeting organised by Napp Pharmaceuticals, who produce Subsitol (slow release morphine).
|
|
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Surveys suggest that UK drug services under-prescribe methadone to opiate-dependent patients. This study investigated methadone prescribing for 169 patients on long-term methadone at a specialist drug service.
RESULTS
The mean methadone dose for patients on maintenance was 65.8 mg, and 67.7% were taking 50 mg or more. Mean doses in relation to methadone formulation varied substantially: mixture 57.4 mg, tablets 81.8 mg and ampoules 113.0 mg. These figures are higher than those reported from national surveys. The proportion of urine screens positive for illicit opiates was inversely related both to methadone dose and length of time in treatment.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
This survey shows the levels of methadone prescribing at an inner-city drug service and gives support to the effectiveness of high-dose methadone maintenance.
|
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A limitation of the pharmacy surveys is that patients in receipt of two prescriptions for different formulations of methadone, such as ampoules and mixture, are counted twice. Furthermore, patients on detoxification programmes, slow reduction regimens and methadone maintenance are grouped together, thus skewing the results to the left. The aim of this study was to audit long-term methadone prescribing at an inner-city, specialist NHS drug service and to compare the results with national data.
|
|
The study |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The service
The North Camden Drug Service covers the northern half of the London
borough of Camden (population 101,700 and Jarman index=32.9). Although there
are areas of affluence (e.g. Hampstead Village), it has pockets of deprivation
(e.g. Gospel Oak, Camden Town and Kentish Town). Camden & Islington have
the fourth-highest number of drug users notified to the Regional Drug Misuse
Database in the whole Thames Region
(Department of Health,
1998).
The following on-site treatment services are available: out-patient detoxification, long-term prescribing, keyworking, psychological therapies, psychiatric and medical interventions, an alcohol programme, a crack cocaine programme, needle exchange, hepatitis testing and vaccination, alternative therapies and benefits advice. There is an on-site pharmacy and prescriptions are also dispensed at community pharmacies. Only four local pharmacies have so far been approved to take part in the supervised methadone scheme. There were 620 episodes of care at our service between 3 April 2001 and 31 April 2002, including 304 new assessments.
Data extraction and analysis
Patients were excluded if they were on the waiting list, not receiving
controlled drugs or on the structured detoxification programme. Data were
extracted from the following three electronic databases: (i) the patient
registration database, covering 19 items including basic demographic
information, drug use, service allocated and date of allocation; (ii) the
prescribing software (Advantage-Altrix), which produces patients'
prescriptions; and (iii) a database of urine drug screens for the last 7
months (provided by the Department of Chemical Pathology at the Royal Free
Hospital). Anonymised data were collated and entered onto the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences. Eleven variables were used: age, gender,
prescribed opioid, dose, formulation, frequency of pick-up, supervised
consumption, duration of current treatment episode, number of urine drug
screens in the past 7 months, proportion of urine screens positive for
non-prescribed opiates and treatment programme (slow reduction or
maintenance). Slow reduction was empirically defined as any methadone regimen
not forming part of the structured detoxification programme, in which there
had been two or more successive reductions in dose since January 2000 (when
the prescribing database began). All other non-reducing regimens were
considered as maintenance.
The t-test or one-way analysis of variance were used to compare
the means between groups when data followed a normal or near-normal
distribution. Categorical data were analysed using the
2 test.
Parametric but highly-skewed data were analysed using the MannWhitney
U or KruskalWallis tests. Pearson's correlation was used to
test the association between two variables. To compare the proportion of
urines positive for non-prescribed opiates between maintenance patients on
different methadone formulations, a paired analysis of matched cases was used
with matching on gender, age, methadone dose and duration of treatment. The
paired Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used because of the asymmetric
distribution of this variable.
|
|
Findings |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
The proportion of urines positive for non-prescribed opiates was inversely correlated with methadone dose (-0.26, P=0.004) and duration of current treatment episode (-0.31, P=0.001).
Patients receiving methadone ampoules had the lowest proportion of urines positive for illicit opiates, followed by those on tablets and then those on mixture. However, patients on tablets and ampoules were receiving higher doses of methadone. To investigate whether the lower level of illicit opiate use was best-explained by methadone dose or formulation, a paired analysis of patients on methadone tablets with those on mixture was performed with matching on gender, age, methadone dose and duration of treatment. As some patients had no urine results, there were only 19 pairs in this analysis. The proportion of urines positive for illicit opiates was slightly lower in the tablet (0.40) compared with the mixture group (0.54). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.36). Patients on methadone ampoules were not included in this analysis due to insufficient numbers.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The proportion of patients on methadone tablets (17.2%) was much higher than in Strang and Sheridan's (1998) survey (9.5%). The reasons for this are unclear. A previous prescribing policy in operation at this service seems to have allowed long-term compliant patients to move onto methadone tablets, if they were no longer injecting. A more restrictive policy was introduced in early 2000, bringing prescription into line with the Department of Health's Clinical Guidelines (Department of Health, 1999). Patients on combination therapy who are HIV-positive are often prescribed methadone tablets because they complain that mixture causes nausea. Since the change in policy, the number of patients receiving methadone tablets has fallen from 44 to 28. The percentage of patients receiving methadone ampoules is lower (5.9%) than Strang and Sheridan's (1998) figure (8.1%). Again, the stricter prescribing policy introduced in 2000 led to the number of patients on ampoules falling from 16 to 10.
Initial analysis suggested that patients on methadone ampoules or tablets were less likely to use illicit opiates than those taking mixture. However, when matched for gender, age, methadone dose and duration of treatment, drug formulation no longer had an independent effect on illicit drug use.
The inverse relationship between illicit heroin use and length of time in treatment is encouraging, suggesting that patients continue to improve and reduce their drug use over time. There was also an inverse relationship between methadone dose and the proportion of urines positive for illicit opiates, though the correlation was not strong. Two factors are likely to influence this relationship: (i) whether all the methadone prescribed is being taken and (ii) individual variation in the rate of methadone metabolism. Supervised methadone consumption has been advocated in an attempt to reduce the diversion of prescribed methadone onto the black market. In North Camden, we are still at an early stage of implementing supervised consumption in local pharmacies. We are also investigating the costbenefit of having an on-site pharmacy, which would allow us to supervise more prescribed patients. The second factor in the equation is the rate at which methadone is metabolised. Studies suggest that there is considerable individual variation, due to different levels of activity of the cytochrome P450 enzymes (Eap et al, 1998). We argue that monitoring serum methadone levels is a better way of determining methadone dose than using the arbitrary maximum doses set by many clinics. This is not a routine test in the UK and could have considerable costs. However, if its use was restricted to patients who persistently use heroin in addition to their methadone, to investigate the possibility of a pharmacokinetic explanation, the cost would be less prohibitive.
Looking at methadone dose and urine drug screens in isolation gives limited information on the multifaceted nature of treatment outcome. Consequently, we plan to do a larger and more detailed survey of patients on methadone maitenance, in the whole of Camden and Islington, to gain a better perspective of our prescribing practices and the clinical effectiveness of this intervention. The present study has acted as a useful pilot exercise, to identify problems that might arise with a larger survey.
|
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
|
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (1998) Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases, for the six months ending 1998. http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/drugmisuse.htm.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (1999) Drug misuse and dependence guidelines on clinical management. http://www.doh.gov.uk/drugdep.htm.
EAP, C. B., BERTSCHY, G., BAUMANN, P., et al
(1998) High interindividual variability of methadone enantiomer
blood levels to dose ratios. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 55,
89-90.
FARRELL, M., WARE, J., MATTICK, R., et al
(1994) Methadone maintenance treatment in opiate dependence: a
review. British Medical Journal,
309,
997-2001.
GOSSOP, M., MARSDEN, J., STEWART, D., et al (1999) Methadone treatment practices and outcome for opiate addicts treated in drug clinics and in general practice: results from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study. British Journal of General Practice, 49, 31-24.
STRANG, J. & SHERIDAN, J. (1998) Effect of
government recommendations on methadone prescribing in south east England: a
comparison of 1995 and 1997 surveys. BMJ,
317,
1489-1490.
STRANG, J. & SHERIDAN, J. (2001) Methadone prescribing to opiate addicts by private doctors: comparison with NHS practice in south east England. Addiction, 96, 567-576.[CrossRef][Medline]
STRANG, J. & SHERIDAN, J. & BARBER, N. (1996)
Prescribing injectable and oral methadone to opiate addicts: results from the
1995 national postal survey of community pharmacies in England and Wales.
BMJ, 313,
270-272.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. Joseph and H. F. Moselhy National survey of methadone prescribing for maintenance treatment: 'opiophobia' among substance misuse services? Psychiatr. Bull., December 1, 2005; 29(12): 459 - 461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| British Journal of Psychiatry | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |