Author: CDPC

Training Drug Users and Bystanders to Treat Overdose Saves Lives

Drug overdose is a growing public health crisis that now kills more adults per year in the United States than motor vehicle accidents. In cars, seatbelts and airbags save lives. When it comes to opioid overdose a safe and non-abusable medicine called naloxone can restore breathing and avert death. Pragmatic doctors and health officials want anyone who uses opioids like heroin—and anyone likely to be around during an overdose—to have access to this life-saving drug, and know how to use it.

In Massachusetts, researchers led by Dr. Alexander Walley at the Boston University Medical Center set out to discover the results of a state-supported overdose education and naloxone distribution program on deaths from overdose. We sat down with Dr. Walley to discuss the findings.

What did your research find?

This study demonstrates that overdose education and naloxone distribution is an effective public health intervention to address the growing overdose epidemic. We found that communities that received overdose education and naloxone reported significantly fewer deaths than communities that received no training. We also observed that the higher the cumulative rate of program implementation, the greater the reduction in death rates. In other words, the more people at risk or in contact with people at risk for overdose who were given naloxone, and trained to prevent, recognize and respond to an overdose, the lower the overdose death rates.

Why are overdose education and naloxone delivery programs like these so important?

Since the beginning of the Massachusetts overdose education and naloxone delivery programs, there have been more than 1,700 overdose rescues using naloxone. While we do not know how many of these people may have died if they had not received naloxone, it is likely that many of them would have. These rescues have inspired many us to maintain hope that all overdose deaths can be prevented.

People who have recently stopped using opioids—whether because of jail time or treatment—are at increased risk of overdose, and we’ve heard inspiring stories of overdose reversals in these cases. While opioid addiction is a treatable disease, it is a chronic disease where relapse is unfortunately part of the natural history. Preventing overdose allows people to continue their progress towards recovery, and may enable them to seek out other lifesaving services.

What barriers stand in the way of implementing programs like this in other parts of the United States?

I’ll start first by listing features of the program in Massachusetts that contributed to its success and would support broader implementation: one is the use of a nasal delivery device for naloxone, allowing naloxone to be administered through the nose, instead of by injection. The other is a standing order issued by the health department that permits non-medical personnel to deliver overdose education and distribute naloxone. Without this order, a doctor would need to be present each time naloxone is given out. To date, there are still large parts of the country with no access to a lifesaving naloxone distribution program; though this program locator tool can help you find out if there is one near you.

The two main barriers to the expansion of these initiatives are that insurance companies do not cover the nasal delivery device that allows naloxone to be administered through the nose, and prescribers (doctors, nurse practitioners and physicians’ assistants) are not yet adequately educated on prescribing naloxone. We’ve created a website, prescribetoprevent.org, to help facilitate naloxone prescribing.

What message would you send to officials in countries like Russia and China where the death toll from drug overdoses continues to climb?

Preventing needless deaths from opioid overdose is a bridge issue – it’s a cause that people from different perspectives on treatment and harm reduction can agree and work together on. It can be a starting point from which we can work together in addressing the harms associated with drug use.

What happens now?

We keep implementing and evaluating this program and ones like it. In Massachusetts, overdose education and naloxone have been delivered to heroin users, prescription opioid users, patients in emergency departments, and the people who are most likely to respond to an overdose including: people who are incarcerated, family members, social service providers, police officers, and firefighters. It is important to determine how these programs should be tailored to different populations to maximize their reach, effectiveness and sustainability. That’s what we’re working on now.

This blog post was originally published on the Open Society Foundations website.

February 7, 2013
SALOME Participants Need An Exit Strategy

The SALOME study (Study to Assess Longer-term Opioid Medication Effectiveness), is a clinical trial being conducted in Vancouver, BC. The study compares the effectiveness of six months of injectable diacetylmorphine (heroin) with six months of injectable hydromorphone (Dilaudid, a licensed medication) and the effects of switching from injectable to oral heroin or Dilaudid.

SALOME began active recruitment in December, 2011. Participants will be in the study for one year, followed by a 1-month transition period where they will be encouraged to, once again, take part in conventional treatments such as methadone maintenance, drug-free treatments, and detox programs (treatments that have proven to be ineffective for these participants).

SALOME is a follow-up to the NAOMI study, which tested whether heroin-assisted treatment or methadone is more effective in improving the health of chronic and long-time opiate users. The repeated failure of treatment efforts for participants is in fact part of the criteria for selection of participants in SALOME, as was the case in NAOMI.

Many of the first participants will be exiting the clinical trial now and over the next two months (February and March).

Both studies provide an immense value not only to our scientific understanding of heroin dependence, but also to those individuals who have participated in the research. But as with NAOMI, the current study protocol of SALOME puts research participants at an increased risk by failing to have an adequate “exit strategy” in place for when research is complete.

Each of the research participants has previously failed on methadone maintenance treatment and other conventional treatments before entering the study, yet if the study shows that they are benefiting from diacetylmorphine when the research is concluded, they will not be allowed to be maintained on the drug that is benefitting them. Instead, they will be returned to methadone or other conventional treatment options.

This practice, as demonstrated in international research and through the accounts of participants in the NAOMI study, produces real harms to members of our community, and we cannot tolerate it being repeated during the SALOME study.

Canada remains the only country conducting a prescription diacetylmorphine (heroin) trial that has failed to provide diacetylmorphine to the research participants at the end of the trial.

We feel that research testing new methods of treatment for the harms of addiction is valuable, but must be conducted in ways that effectively address the continuing treatment and support for the individual participants in the research if the intervention proves successful.

By not putting in place an adequate exit strategy, the study is putting marginalized and vulnerable people at risk.

We request that Providence Health Care take immediate steps to provide ongoing diacetylmorphine treatment for participants concluding the SALOME study by applying for and supporting Special Access to diacetylmorphine, and begin planning for a pilot program for providing this treatment to the community at large.

How you can help:

On behalf of the NAOMI Patients Association (NPA), a community letter directed to Providence Health Care in support of heroin assisted therapy is circulating. The letter is available here.

For more information please contact Susan Boyd, on behalf of NAOMI Patients Association at naomipatientsassociation@hotmail.com

To learn more about the NPA click here.

February 4, 2013
Cheap, Easy, and Lifesaving—Naloxone Treatment for Overdose

How much does it cost to save a life? That question got a clear and striking answer this week in the case of overdose from heroin in the United States. A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that distribution of the overdose antidote naloxone—a safe, non-abusable, and inexpensive medicine—to one in five heroin users in the United States could prevent as many as 43,000 deaths. The cost of distribution would be equivalent to some of the cheapest, most effective, and most accepted medical interventions, like checking blood pressure at a doctor’s office.

The study used mathematical modeling to assess whether giving out naloxone was “worth it”—that is, to determine how much naloxone distribution would cost per “quality-adjusted” year of life gained. This is the measure used by economists and policymakers to compare health interventions and decide which ones are affordable. The naloxone study also investigated assumptions that patient advocates would rather not acknowledge—like whether it would be cheaper to let illegal drug users die, or to put them in jail. Those are ugly questions, but ones that certainly run through the minds of opponents of health services for drug users worldwide. The answer was that naloxone saves lives with costs far below what health or prison systems pay. For example, screening for cancer with colonoscopy costs over $50,000 per quality adjusted life year gained in the United States, and screening for HIV costs around $40,000.

Naloxone distribution saves lives for as little as $400.

The other question, of course, is whose lives are deemed worth saving. Drug overdose now kills more adults a year in the United States than motor vehicle accidents, or deaths from choking or accidental falls. Most of us have seen safety messages related to driving, choking, or minding our step, but naloxone and other measures to prevent overdose remain unknown to many at risk. As noted in an editorial in the same journal, co-authored by officials from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the FDA, making new and easy-to-use formulations of the medicine can help. However, action can be taken now to make the medicine available to heroin users—actions that will prevent thousands of needless deaths, and spare family and friends who may have to watch helplessly as their loved ones stop breathing.

– Daniel Wolfe

Daniel Wolfe is director of the International Harm Reduction Development Program at the Open Society Foundations. This blog post was originally published on the Open Society Foundations website.

January 29, 2013
Drug Policy Leaders Honoured with Diamond Jubilee Award

At an event to be held at Simon Fraser University’s Harbour Centre Campus this evening, Senator Pierre Claude Nolin will award sixteen individuals from British Columbia’s drug policy reform community with the Queen’s 60th Anniversary Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Among the recipients are the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition’s Executive Director, Donald MacPherson, and steering committee members Philippe Lucas and Gillian Maxwell.

“All of these recipients have worked to improve public health in their community. They have dedicated many years of their lives to participate in the implementation, evaluation and construction of programs to help those struggling with addictions or health issues to connect with the services and medication they need,” said Senator Nolin. “They have worked with municipal, provincial and federal governments to advance critical public health programs, and such work is indispensable to our nation as a whole.”

In lieu of the Senator’s absence due to medical appointments, the event will be presided over by Philip Owen, former Mayor of Vancouver, and Senator Yonah Martin, who will present the medals.

The event will also feature a special tribute to Irene Goldstone, former Director, Professional Education and Care Evaluation at the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.

Full list of recipients:

Donald MacPherson, Bud Osborn, Liz Evans, Dean Wilson, Maxine Davis, Gillian Maxwell, Ann Livingston, Philippe Lucas, Rielle Capler, Kirk Tousaw, John Conroy, David Bratzer, Dr. Evan Wood, Dr. Thomas Kerr, Hilary Black, Mark Haden.

January 24, 2013
Attorney Generals Speak Out On Pot Prohibition

Last Friday, in a commentary piece for the Globe and Mail, four former B.C. Attorney Generals came out in very clear terms and said what needs to be said: Canada’s pot laws don’t work.

“As four former attorneys-general of British Columbia, we were the province’s chief prosecutors and held responsibility for overseeing the criminal justice system. We know the burden imposed on B.C.’s policing and justice system by the enforcement of marijuana prohibition and the role that prohibition itself plays in driving organized crime and making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.”

– Ujjal Dosanjh, Colin Gabelmann, Graeme Bowbrick & Geoff Plant

This is the paradox of prohibition. Rather than reducing the flow of drugs, prohibition generates a profitable black market, especially in the case of a widely used substance such as cannabis. While banning drugs and applying the criminal law to those who produce, distribute and possess them is intended to stifle the market and curb use, in reality, it only makes the market more robust and profitable where are any consumer demand is present.

But the economic arguments against prohibition, while indisputable, neglect the real problem, which is moral in nature – prohibition puts our government, courts and police in a position where they are directly harming, rather than protecting, the Canadian public.

The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition commends British Columbia’s former attorney generals for speaking out on the issue of cannabis regulation. The time has come for Canada to build a drug policy that does more good than harm – one that focuses on protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

If you agree and would like to help, please consider becoming a member or signing up to our newsletter and we will keep you updated on upcoming events, actions and campaigns.

January 24, 2013
CDPC Heads to Panama to Create Alternative Scenarios for Drug Policy

At the April 2012 Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, the members of the Organization of American States commissioned the OAS to analyze the hemisphere’s drug policies and to present and explore alternatives to address the issue of illegal drugs and drug use. On Saturday, January 20th, the OAS will formally commence this process in Panama City, Panama.

The CDPC is proud to announce that CDPC Executive Director and SFU Adjunct Professor, Donald MacPherson, will be in attendance as part of the OAS’s scenario-building team and representative of Canada.

“There is a real shift taking place in the global drug policy regime and the OAS review process is a good indicator of this. Governments from across the hemisphere are beginning to look for smarter alternatives to the war on drugs that are more effective at addressing both public health harms and public safety issues at the same time,” said MacPherson.

“Who knows what will happen when we start imagining different futures in the area of drug policy. The important thing is to get people talking about alternatives – alternatives that have a hope of achieving success. The OAS process will begin to do that – it will bring people with diverse views together to look forward and see what kind of drug policies make more sense than prohibition. And in the end we all have the same goal – improved public health and safety when it comes to drugs and drug use.”

The group will meet twice over the next two months and work together for four days each meeting. The meetings are being facilitated by Reos Partners and the Centro de Liderazgo y Gestion and will result in a report that will be used to inform the OAS’s position on drug policy.

January 18, 2013
The Insite Story: Transforming Health Care Services through Leadership, Risk Tolerance and Innovation

It has been said that “an essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to fail.” A PricewaterhouseCoopers’ survey conducted among the Times 1000 leading companies found that one of the common characteristics among the most innovative companies is that they take a balanced view of risk-taking behaviours. But a recent Conference Board of Canada survey conducted among Canadian health care executives confirmed that Canadian health care leaders have low tolerance for risk. Boards are perceived to be more risk-averse than executive teams by a fairly wide margin. As seen in the chart below, 57 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their executive teams are risk-tolerant, compared to the 37 per cent who agreed or strongly agreed that their boards are risk tolerant, a difference of 20 points.

At a recent meeting of the Centre for the Advancement of Health Innovations in Vancouver, Insite, North America’s first legal supervised injection site for drug users, exemplified the importance of adopting a balanced approach towards risks. Insite’s leaders have taken bold actions, many of which carried significant risks, to implement innovative and transformative health care services.

Insite was created to provide needed services to a population group that has suffered social stigma, abuse and social exclusion in Canada: drug-addicts. Before Insite, there were very few effective solutions to protect drug users from HIV and drug overdose but Insite has changed this reality.It offers clean injection supplies, withdrawal management support, detoxification areas and transitional recovery housing. A team of mental health workers, counsellors, nurses and physicians work with people with drug addiction to educate, intervene when necessary, plan a path to recovery and assist with re-integration in the wider community.

And the results are outstanding: thirty-three per cent of Insite users are more likely to go to detox if they use the site once a week; 70 per cent are less likely to report syringe sharing, thus reducing HIV risk behaviour; and fatal overdoses within 500 metres of Insite decreased by 35 per cent after the facility opened compared to a decrease of 9 per cent in the rest of Vancouver. The benefits also extend to the heath care system and society: it has been estimated that supervised injection can save $14 million and 920 life years over 10 years due to a reduction in HIV, hepatitis and other medical interventions.

Despite these proven benefits, Insite has had to fight legal battles to prove legitimacy. In 2006, the federal government deferred the decision to extend Insite’s special exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, citing a lack of evidence to support the benefits of supervised injection. In a brave demonstration of leadership, Insite’s supporters took the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, which in 2011, ruled unanimously to uphold Insite‘s exemption, allowing the facility to stay open indefinitely. Over the past nine years, more than one million injections have taken place at Insite under supervision and with clean equipment. It is the busiest supervised injection site in the world with over 1,200 visits every day.

Insite’s leaders did not run away or gave up on their vision when the many obstacles appeared; they relentlessly focused on implementing change and appropriately and effectively managing the risks associated with a program of this nature. And these efforts have paid off: by partnering with the local health authority, Insite has been able to effectively bringing innovative health care services to marginalized populations who were previously unreachable.

The program continues to work with low-income people to bring more opportunities for this hard-to-reach population to control their addictions and access effective, culturally appropriate chronic disease management and disease prevention programs. Insite’s daring leaders were not paralyzed by fear of failure. They are transforming health care services by demonstrating that the “best health care solution lies in treating all people humanely”.

– Jeannette Lye

Jeannette is a graduate of the School of Public Administration at Dalhousie University and in addition holds a Master of Science in Cultural Psychology from Brunel University and an undergraduate degree in psychology from Acadia University. This blog post was originally published on ConferenceBoard.ca

January 4, 2013
The Missing Link in Overdose Prevention

Long-established medical practice supports prescribing pre-loaded syringes of epinephrine to people having severe, life-threatening allergic reactions to allergens such as bee stings, nuts and shellfish. Patients, including children, are taught how to use them and carry them with them at all times in order to administer the drug without delay when they have a reaction. It “buys time” to allow the person to get to emergency medical care for monitoring and further treatment if needed. Epinephrine is considered an emergency drug and in most circumstances is administered by trained medical personnel in health care settings. However, the risk of death from a severe allergic reaction, when seconds count, outweighs the risks associated with dispensing the drug for unsupervised use by lay people in the community.

For about thirty years, the harm reduction approach has been advocated by some in Canada as a means of promoting health and preventing needless injury and death among people who use drugs. It accepts that, whatever one’s beliefs about drug use and the people who use drugs, at any given time some people will use drugs unsafely. It holds that preventing unnecessary morbidity and mortality is best accomplished by a continuum of strategies which include educating drug users about the drugs they use, the risks involved, ways to mediate those risks, and the availability of supports to reduce or cease risky use.

For example, research from Australia has shown that needle exchange programs prevented 32,000 HIV infections and almost 100,000 Hepatitis C infections in the first decade of the 21st century, saving over AU$1 billion – which represents a five-fold return on investment. Despite decades of robust evidence supporting the efficacy of harm reduction, in general health care providers have been “slow adopters” of harm reduction strategies.

In September 2010, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) described widespread addiction to strong painkillers, known as opiates, as a “public health crisis” in Ontario. Earlier this year, a potent long acting opiate known as OxyContin was removed from the Canadian market and replaced with a new formulation called OxyNeo, which is made with a time release coating which is more difficult to bypass, making it less accessible to people using it without a prescription. This has resulted in fewer people using the drug, but not fewer people addicted to opiates.

Research from the United States shows that many former Oxycontin users turned to more readily accessible opiates such as fentanyl and heroin after Oxycontin was taken off the market there.Reports from police and addiction workers suggest the same is now happening here in Canada. One of the problems with this is that people have had to change from opiates with a precisely known strength to others with variable potency. The risk of overdose has increased as a result. Recognizing this, Ontario Health Minister Deb Matthews announced in April 2012 that her government was increasing resources to address opiate addiction, including distribution of “emergency overdose kits across the province.”

Similar to the way in which we provide emergency epinephrine to people with life-threatening allergic reactions, distributing a drug called naloxone, which reverses opiate overdoses, has been saving the lives of people who have overdosed on opiates since 1995 in the UK and Germany. There are 150 such programs in 19 American states but so far only Toronto and Ottawa have naloxone distribution programs up and running in Ontario, eight months after the health minister’s announced support of the strategy.

Naloxone distribution involves providing opiate users with education on overdose prevention, first aid, CPR, as well as naloxone administration in an overdose situation, which “buys time” to get someone to emergency care. The OHRDP received Ministry of Health funding to create a detailed guidance document, which they have compiled building on the work of the Toronto and Ottawa pioneers. It is replete with supporting documentation, current statistics, training manuals, sample protocols and medical directives (required legally to prescribe and dispense this medication to lay people). The naloxone has been purchased and is ready to be used by trained lay people.

Few health care providers would argue that the opiate addiction crisis has gone away. Small communities are dealing with issues like heroin which they have never seen before. What is different in small communities is that the people using substances are much more dispersed and invisible (for more information, see “Below the Radar”). While it may be reasonable in large cities to focus overdose prevention in places where there are high concentrations of drug users, small towns need a more widespread system of interventions because the people affected are not to be found in a few highly visible areas.

For example, Peterborough ranks seventh highest in the province for opioid related deaths. Peterborough Police Chief Murray Rodd has warned that “already we are seeing an increase in heroin and fentanyl in our city,” which he is concerned will lead to “even more overdoses in the coming months”. A network of Peterborough agencies is poised to roll out an evidence-based overdose prevention program, which includes naloxone training – the first for an Ontario county which includes many rural communities where 911 response times are longer than is common in large cities. Supported by the local Medical Officer of Health, the police service and EMS, it will only reach the people it needs to if local health care providers get behind the initiative. One hopes that they will do so without delay, as the project will undoubtedly save lives and provide a model for other small and rural communities.

One of the reasons we study epidemiology (what is causing injury and death) is to use that information to plan programs which will prevent unnecessary injuries and deaths. Health providers have an obligation to understand evidence based interventions available around opioid addiction and to use them to reduce deaths. Some may ask “is this really needed?” but when overdose death rates are so well documented, the answer is obvious. Saving even one person from a needless overdose death should be considered important. She is someone’s daughter, maybe someone’s mom. While the needs of opiate users may not resonate with health care providers in the same way as the needs of people severely allergic to bee stings, when we have an evidence-proven lifesaving intervention, we are obligated to offer it widely and without delay.

-Kathy Hardill

Kathy Hardill is a Primary Care Nurse Practitioner at a clinic which includes patients whose health is made vulnerable through homelessness, poverty and other risk factors. This blog post was originally published on HealthyDebate.ca

January 2, 2013
Breaking the Taboo

The CDPC is proud to join together with the Beckley Foundation, Virgin Unite, Sundog Pictures, Avaaz.org, The Global Commission on Drugs, and civil society NGO’s from around the world in calling for a fundamental review of global strategies in response to drugs.

Breaking the taboo is a bold new international challenge. At the heart of the initiative is a groundbreaking documentary film that uncovers the UN sanctioned war on drugs, charting its origins and its devastating impact on countries like the USA, Colombia and Russia. Narrated by Morgan Freeman and featuring prominent statesmen including Presidents Clinton and Carter, the film follows The Global Commission on Drug Policy on a mission to break the political taboo and expose the biggest failure of global policy in the last 50 years.

www.breakingthetaboo.info

We encourage you to get involved, read the Beckley Foundation letter, sign the AVAAZ Campaign, and join the conversation on twitter using the hashtag #breakingthetaboo.

Global commissioner on drug policy Richard Branson hopes “this film will open people’s eyes on the war on drugs and the failed war on drugs and make it easier for people who want to be brave and do something about it.” Among those featured are Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos and former US president Bill Clinton, who admits bluntly that the US-led war on drugs in Colombia “hasn’t worked”. Clinton also talks about the need for rehabilitation rather than incarceration when dealing with people with addictions. Sir Richard said countries such as Portugal and Spain, where drug users receive treatment rather than being jailed, provide a template. He believes that legalisation of cannabis is “inevitable”. “I have hardly ever come across a politician that won’t say – off the record – what needs to be done … in the end they just need to be brave,” he said.

December 7, 2012