Briony Larance1, Nicholas Lintzeris2, Robert Ali3, Paul Dietze4, Richard Mattick5, Rebecca Jenkinson4, Nancy White3, Louisa Degenhardt6. 1. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Electronic address: b.larance@unsw.edu.au. 2. The Langton Centre, South East Sydney Local Health District, 591 South Dowling Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia; Mental Health and Drug and Alcohol Office, NSW Department of Health, 73 Miller Street, North Sydney, NSW 2060, Australia. 3. School of Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. 4. Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia. 5. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. 6. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia; Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared the diversion and injection of a new formulation of buprenorphine, a buprenorphine-naloxone film product (BNX film), with buprenorphine-naloxone tablets (BNX tablets), mono-buprenorphine (BPN) and methadone (MET) in Australia. METHODS: Surveys were conducted with people who inject drugs regularly (PWID) (2004-2012) and opioid substitution treatment (OST) clients (2012, N=543). Key outcome measures: the unsanctioned removal of supervised doses, diversion, injection, motivations, drug liking and street price. Levels of injection among PWID were adjusted for background availability of medication using sales data. Doses not taken as directed by OST clients were adjusted by total number of daily doses dispensed. RESULTS: Among out-of-treatment PWID, levels of injection for BNX film were comparable to those for MET and BNX tablet formulations, adjusting for background availability; BPN injecting levels were higher. Among OST clients, recent injecting of one's medication was similar among clients in all OST types; weekly or more frequent injection of prescribed doses was reported by fewer BNX film clients (3%; 95% CI: 1-6) than BPN clients (11%; 95% CI: 3-17), but at levels similar to those observed among MET and BNX tablet clients. The proportion of BNX film doses injected was lower than that for BPN and BNX tablets, and equivalent to that for MET. The majority of BNX film doses injected by OST clients were unsupervised doses, although some injection of supervised doses of BNX film did occur. The median price of all buprenorphine forms on the illicit market was the same. CONCLUSIONS: Non-adherence and diversion of the BNX film formulation was similar to MET and BNX tablet formulations; BPN had higher levels of all indicators of non-adherence and diversion.
BACKGROUND: We compared the diversion and injection of a new formulation of buprenorphine, a buprenorphine-naloxone film product (BNX film), with buprenorphine-naloxone tablets (BNX tablets), mono-buprenorphine (BPN) and methadone (MET) in Australia. METHODS: Surveys were conducted with people who inject drugs regularly (PWID) (2004-2012) and opioid substitution treatment (OST) clients (2012, N=543). Key outcome measures: the unsanctioned removal of supervised doses, diversion, injection, motivations, drug liking and street price. Levels of injection among PWID were adjusted for background availability of medication using sales data. Doses not taken as directed by OST clients were adjusted by total number of daily doses dispensed. RESULTS: Among out-of-treatment PWID, levels of injection for BNX film were comparable to those for MET and BNX tablet formulations, adjusting for background availability; BPN injecting levels were higher. Among OST clients, recent injecting of one's medication was similar among clients in all OST types; weekly or more frequent injection of prescribed doses was reported by fewer BNX film clients (3%; 95% CI: 1-6) than BPN clients (11%; 95% CI: 3-17), but at levels similar to those observed among MET and BNX tablet clients. The proportion of BNX film doses injected was lower than that for BPN and BNX tablets, and equivalent to that for MET. The majority of BNX film doses injected by OST clients were unsupervised doses, although some injection of supervised doses of BNX film did occur. The median price of all buprenorphine forms on the illicit market was the same. CONCLUSIONS: Non-adherence and diversion of the BNX film formulation was similar to MET and BNX tablet formulations; BPN had higher levels of all indicators of non-adherence and diversion.
Authors: Sharon L Walsh; Paul A Nuzzo; Shanna Babalonis; Victoria Casselton; Michelle R Lofwall Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Andrea K Finlay; Erica Morse; Matthew Stimmel; Emmeline Taylor; Christine Timko; Alex H S Harris; David Smelson; Mengfei Yu; Jessica Blue-Howells; Ingrid A Binswanger Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Barbara K Zedler; Ashley L Mann; Mimi M Kim; Halle R Amick; Andrew R Joyce; E Lenn Murrelle; Hendrée E Jones Journal: Addiction Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Briony Larance; Louisa Degenhardt; Jason Grebely; Suzanne Nielsen; Raimondo Bruno; Paul Dietze; Kari Lancaster; Sarah Larney; Thomas Santo; Marian Shanahan; Sonja Memedovic; Robert Ali; Michael Farrell Journal: Addiction Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Briony Larance; Marianne Byrne; Nicholas Lintzeris; Suzanne Nielsen; Jason Grebely; Louisa Degenhardt; Jeyran Shahbazi; Marian Shanahan; Kari Lancaster; Gregory Dore; Robert Ali; Michael Farrell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 2.692