R P Schwartz1, S M Kelly2, S G Mitchell3, K E O'Grady4, A Sharma5, J H Jaffe6. 1. Friends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: Rschwartz@friendsresearch.org. 2. Friends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: skelly@friendsresearch.org. 3. Friends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: smitchell@friendsresearch.org. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. Electronic address: ogrady@umd.edu. 5. Friends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: asharma@friendsresearch.org. 6. Friends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: jhjaffe@aol.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder is common among detainees in US jails, yet methadone treatment is rarely initiated. METHODS: This is a three-group randomized controlled trial in which 225 detainees in Baltimore treated for opioid withdrawal were assigned to: (1) interim methadone (IM) with patient navigation (IM + PN); (2) IM; or (3) enhanced treatment-as-usual (ETAU). Participants in both IM groups were able to enter standard methadone treatment upon release, while ETAU participants received an assessment/referral number. Follow-up assessments at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-release determined treatment enrollment, urine drug testing results, self-reported days of drug use, criminal activity, and overdose events. Generalized linear mixed modelling examined two planned contrasts: (1) IM groups combined vs. ETAU; and (2) IM + PN vs. IM. RESULTS: On an intention-to-treat basis, compared to ETAU, significantly more participants in the combined IM groups were in treatment 30 days post-release, while the IM + PN vs. IM groups did not significantly differ. By month 12, there were no significant differences in the estimated marginal means of enrollment in any kind of drug treatment (0.40 and 0.27 for IM + PN and IM groups, respectively, compared to 0.29 for ETAU). There were no significant differences for either contrast in opioid-positive tests, although all groups reported a sharp decrease in heroin use from baseline to follow-up. There were five fatal overdoses, but none occurred during methadone treatment. CONCLUSION: Initiating methadone treatment in jail was effective in promoting entry into community-based drug abuse treatment but subsequent treatment discontinuation attenuated any potential impact of such treatment.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder is common among detainees in US jails, yet methadone treatment is rarely initiated. METHODS: This is a three-group randomized controlled trial in which 225 detainees in Baltimore treated for opioid withdrawal were assigned to: (1) interim methadone (IM) with patient navigation (IM + PN); (2) IM; or (3) enhanced treatment-as-usual (ETAU). Participants in both IM groups were able to enter standard methadone treatment upon release, while ETAUparticipants received an assessment/referral number. Follow-up assessments at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-release determined treatment enrollment, urine drug testing results, self-reported days of drug use, criminal activity, and overdose events. Generalized linear mixed modelling examined two planned contrasts: (1) IM groups combined vs. ETAU; and (2) IM + PN vs. IM. RESULTS: On an intention-to-treat basis, compared to ETAU, significantly more participants in the combined IM groups were in treatment 30 days post-release, while the IM + PN vs. IM groups did not significantly differ. By month 12, there were no significant differences in the estimated marginal means of enrollment in any kind of drug treatment (0.40 and 0.27 for IM + PN and IM groups, respectively, compared to 0.29 for ETAU). There were no significant differences for either contrast in opioid-positive tests, although all groups reported a sharp decrease in heroin use from baseline to follow-up. There were five fatal overdoses, but none occurred during methadone treatment. CONCLUSION: Initiating methadone treatment in jail was effective in promoting entry into community-based drug abuse treatment but subsequent treatment discontinuation attenuated any potential impact of such treatment.
Authors: Robert P Schwartz; Sharon M Kelly; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Jan Gryczynski; Kevin E O'Grady; Jerome H Jaffe Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2018-11-19
Authors: Kelly E Moore; Walter Roberts; Holly H Reid; Kathryn M Z Smith; Lindsay M S Oberleitner; Sherry A McKee Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2018-12-15
Authors: John Marsden; Garry Stillwell; Hayley Jones; Alisha Cooper; Brian Eastwood; Michael Farrell; Tim Lowden; Nino Maddalena; Chris Metcalfe; Jenny Shaw; Matthew Hickman Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Robert P Schwartz; David A Highfield; Jerome H Jaffe; Joseph V Brady; Carol B Butler; Charles O Rouse; Jason M Callaman; Kevin E O'Grady; Robert J Battjes Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2006-01
Authors: Elizabeth L C Merrall; Azar Kariminia; Ingrid A Binswanger; Michael S Hobbs; Michael Farrell; John Marsden; Sharon J Hutchinson; Sheila M Bird Journal: Addiction Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Sharon M Kelly; Robert P Schwartz; Kevin E O'Grady; Shannon G Mitchell; Tiffany Duren; Anjalee Sharma; Jerome H Jaffe Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-04-04
Authors: Christine E Grella; Erika Ostlie; Dennis P Watson; Christy K Scott; John Carnevale; Michael L Dennis Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2022-01-04
Authors: Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Caroline Harmon-Darrow; Elizabeth Lertch; Laura B Monico; Sharon M Kelly; James L Sorensen; Robert P Schwartz Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2021-03-04