METHODS: Survey results from 1613 randomly selected PWID from 5 regions in Ukraine who were currently, previously or never on OAT were analyzed for their preference of pharmacological therapies for treating OUDs. For those preferring XR-NTX, independent correlates of their willingness to initiate XR-NTX were examined.
RESULTS: Among the 1613 PWID, 449 (27.8%) were interested in initiating XR-NTX. Independent correlates associated with interest in XR-NTX included: being from Mykolaiv (AOR=3.7, 95% CI=2.3-6.1) or Dnipro (AOR=1.8, 95% CI=1.1-2.9); never having been on OAT (AOR=3.4, 95% CI=2.1-5.4); shorter-term injectors (AOR=0.9, 95% CI 0.9-0.98); and inversely for both positive (AOR=0.8, CI=0.8-0.9), and negative attitudes toward OAT (AOR=1.3, CI=1.2-1.4), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In the context of Eastern Europe and Central Asia where HIV is concentrated in PWID and where HIV prevention with OAT is under-scaled, new options for treating OUDs are urgently needed.
FINDINGS: here suggest that XR-NTX could become an option for addiction treatment and HIV prevention especially for PWID who have shorter duration of injection and who harbor negative attitudes to OAT. Decision aids that inform patient preferences with accurate information about the various treatment options are likely to guide patients toward better, patient-centered treatments and improve treatment entry and retention.
DESIGN: We estimated the cost-effectiveness ratios of three treatments for heroin dependence. We used a microcosting methodology to determine fixed, variable, and societal costs of each intervention. Cost data were collected from investigators, staff, and project records on the number and type of resources used and unit costs; societal costs for participants' time were estimated using Malaysia's minimum wage. Costs were estimated from a provider and societal perspective and reported in 2004 US dollars.
SETTING: Muar, Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: 126 patients enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in Malaysia (2003-2005) receiving counseling and buprenorphine, naltrexone, or placebo for treatment of heroin dependence.
MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome measures included days in treatment, maximum consecutive days of heroin abstinence, days to first heroin use, and days to heroin relapse. Secondary outcome measures included treatment retention, injection drug use, illicit opiate use, AIDS Risk Inventory total score, and drug risk and sex risk subscores.
FINDINGS: Buprenorphine was more effective and more costly than naltrexone for all primary and most secondary outcomes. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below $50 for primary outcomes, mostly below $350 for secondary outcomes. Naltrexone was dominated by placebo for all secondary outcomes at almost all endpoints. Incremental treatment costs were driven mainly by medication costs, especially the price of buprenorphine.
CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine appears to be a cost-effective alternative to naltrexone that might enhance economic productivity and reduce drug use over a longer term.
METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted among 100 HIV+ prisoners with AUDs. Participants were randomized 2:1 to receive 6 monthly injections of XR-NTX or placebo starting one week prior to release. Using multiple imputation strategies for data missing completely at random, data were analyzed for the 6-month post-incarceration period. Main outcomes included: time to first heavy drinking day; number of standardized drinks/drinking day; percent of heavy drinking days; pre- to post-incarceration change in average drinks/day; total number of drinking days; and a composite alcohol improvement score comprised of all 5 parameters.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference overall between treatment arms for time-to-heavy-drinking day. However, participants aged 20-29 years who received XR-NTX had a longer time to first heavy drinking day compared to the placebo group (24.1 vs. 9.5days; p<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for other individual drinking outcomes. A sub-analysis, however, found participants who received ≥4 XR-NTX were more likely (p<0.005) to have improved composite alcohol scores than the placebo group. Post-hoc power analysis revealed that despite the study being powered for HIV outcomes, sufficient power (0.94) was available to distinguish the observed differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Among CJS-involved PLH with AUDs transitioning to the community, XR-NTX lengthens the time to heavy drinking day for younger persons; reduces alcohol consumption when using a composite alcohol consumption score; and is not associated with any serious adverse events.
DESIGN: A 4-site, prospective randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted among prison and jail inmates with HIV and OUD transitioning to the community from September 2010 through March 2016.
METHODS: Eligible participants (N = 93) were randomized 2:1 to receive 6 monthly injections of XR-NTX (n = 66) or placebo (n = 27) starting at release and observed for 6 months. The primary outcome was the proportion that maintained or improved VS (<50 copies/mL) from baseline to 6 months.
RESULTS: Participants allocated to XR-NTX significantly improved to VS (<50 copies/mL) from baseline (37.9%) to 6 months (60.6%) (P = 0.002), whereas the placebo group did not (55.6% at baseline to 40.7% at 6 months P = 0.294). There was, however, no statistical significant difference in VS levels at 6 months between XR-NTX (60.6%) vs. placebo (40.7%) (P = 0.087). After controlling for other factors, only allocation to XR-NTX (adjusted odds ratio = 2.90; 95% confidence interval = 1.04 to 8.14, P = 0.043) was associated with the primary outcome. Trajectories in VS from baseline to 6 months differed significantly (P = 0.017) between treatment groups, and the differences in the discordant values were significantly different as well (P = 0.041): the XR-NTX group was more likely than the placebo group to improve VS (30.3% vs. 18.5%), maintain VS (30.3% vs. 27.3), and less likely to lose VS (7.6% vs. 33.3%) by 6 months.
CONCLUSIONS: XR-NTX improves or maintains VS after release to the community for incarcerated people living with HIV with OUD.
METHODS: Baseline assessment of treatment-seeking subjects (n=177) included the Addiction Severity Index; AIDS Risk Inventory; serological tests for HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C; and chest X-ray.
RESULTS: All of the subjects were male; 67.8% were Malays, 28.8% Chinese, and 2.3%. Indian. Subjects had a mean (SD) age of 37.2 (9.1) years and 14.4 (8.5) years of using heroin; 76.3% reported lifetime injection drug use (IDU), and 41.5% reported current IDU; 30 of 156 (19.2%) tested HIV positive, 143 of 159 (89.9%) tested hepatitis C positive, and 25 of 159 (15.7%) had radiological evidence of pulmonary tuberbulosis. Malay subjects had a significantly higher prevalence of current IDU, needle sharing (p<0.01), and HIV infection (p<0.05) compared with Chinese subjects. Lifetime IDU, needle sharing, lack of consistent condom use, and Malay ethnicity were significantly associated with HIV infection.
CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of HIV infection among heroin-dependent individuals, in Malaysia supports the important of interventions to reduce the major risk factors for HIV, including IDU, needle sharing, and unprotected sex.