Search results

OBJECTIVE:To identify the geographic, organisational, and payment correlates of buprenorphine and methadone treatment among substance abuse treatment (SAT) providers. METHODS:Secondary analyses of the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (NSSATS) from 2007-16 were conducted. We provide bivariate descriptive statistics regarding substance abuse treatment services which offered buprenorphine and methadone treatment from 2007-16. Using multiple logistic regression, we regressed geographic, organisational, and payment correlates on buprenorphine and methadone treatment. RESULTS:Buprenorphine is increasingly offered at SAT facilities though uptake remains comparatively low outside of the northeast. SAT facilities run by tribal governments or Indian Health Service which offer buprenorphine remain low compared to privately operated SAT facilities (AOR = 0.528). The odds of offering buprenorphine among facilities offering free or no charge treatment (AOR = 0.838) or a sliding fee scale (AOR = 0.464) was lower. SAT facilities accepting Medicaid payments showed higher odds of offering methadone treatment (AOR = 2.035). CONCLUSIONS:Greater attention towards the disparities in provision of opioid agonist therapies is warranted, especially towards the reasons why uptake has been moderate among civilian providers. Additionally, the care needs of Native Americans facing opioid-related use disorders bears further scrutiny.

INTRODUCTION: Opioids are one of the most important and effective drug classes in pain medicine with a key role in most medical fields. The increase of opioid prescription over time has led to higher numbers of prescription opioid misuse, abuse and opioid-related deaths in most developed OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries around the world. Whilst reliable data on the prevalence of opioid treatment is accessible for many countries, data on Germany specifically is still scarce. Considering Germany being the largest country in the European Union, the lack of evidence-based strategies from long-term studies is crucial. The aim of this work is to review and summarise relevant published literature on the prevalence of opioid prescription in Germany to adequately inform health policy strategies. METHODS: A systematic review of the epidemiology of opioid prescription in Germany was conducted, searching PubMed and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria were defined prior to conducting the search. Literature concerning Germany, published in English and German was included and the search was replicated by three independent researchers. Two levels of screening were employed. Disagreement was resolved by face-to-face discussion, leading to a consensus judgement. RESULTS: Our electronic search yielded 735 articles. Reviewing titles and abstracts yielded 19 relevant articles. Three authors examined each article's full text more closely and determined that twelve papers should be included. Of the twelve identified studies-with publication dates ranging from 1985 to 2016-six were retrospective cross-sectional studies and six were retrospective repeated-measures cross-sectional studies. Sample sizes ranged from 92,842 to ≈ 11,000,000 participants. Data sources of included studies showed vast heterogeneity. The reviewed literature suggested an increase in the number of patients with opioid prescriptions and defined daily doses of opioids per recipient in Germany over time. The majority of opioid prescriptions was used for patients with non-cancer pain. Opioid use was more common in older people, women and in the north of Germany. Fentanyl was shown to be the most prescribed strong opioid in outpatient settings in Germany, despite not being the first-line choice for chronic pain conditions. All data published before 2000-but none of the more recent studies-suggested an insufficient treatment of pain using opioids. There were no signs for a current opioid epidemic in Germany. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations of the review and the heterogeneity of studies, it can be stated that the number of opioid prescriptions overall as well as the number of people receiving opioid treatment have increased over time. Most prescriptions were found to be for strong opioids and patients with non-cancer pain. Even though patterns of opioid prescription follow trends observed in other developed countries, there are no signs of an opioid epidemic in Germany. Therefore, this review could currently not find a need for urgent health policy interventions regarding opioid prescription practices. However, critical gaps in the literature remain and more research is needed to make more reliable judgements.

Introduction Opioids are one of the most important and effective drug classes in pain medicine with a key role in most medical fields. The increase of opioid prescription over time has led to higher numbers of prescription opioid misuse, abuse and opioid-related deaths in most developed OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries around the world. Whilst reliable data on the prevalence of opioid treatment is accessible for many countries, data on Germany specifically is still scarce. Considering Germany being the largest country in the European Union, the lack of evidence-based strategies from long-term studies is crucial. The aim of this work is to review and summarise relevant published literature on the prevalence of opioid prescription in Germany to adequately inform health policy strategies. Methods A systematic review of the epidemiology of opioid prescription in Germany was conducted, searching PubMed and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria were defined prior to conducting the search. Literature concerning Germany, published in English and German was included and the search was replicated by three independent researchers. Two levels of screening were employed. Disagreement was resolved by face-to-face discussion, leading to a consensus judgement. Results Our electronic search yielded 735 articles. Reviewing titles and abstracts yielded 19 relevant articles. Three authors examined each article's full text more closely and determined that twelve papers should be included. Of the twelve identified studies-with publication dates ranging from 1985 to 2016-six were retrospective cross-sectional studies and six were retrospective repeated-measures cross-sectional studies. Sample sizes ranged from 92,842 to approximate to 11,000,000 participants. Data sources of included studies showed vast heterogeneity. The reviewed literature suggested an increase in the number of patients with opioid prescriptions and defined daily doses of opioids per recipient in Germany over time. The majority ...

BACKGROUND: The decision by the UK government to leave the European Union comes at a time when parts of the UK are experiencing a marked rise in reported gun and knife crimes. The health effects of Brexit will have serious consequences as to how the UK tackles this upsurge in drug-related crime. HEALTH POLICY PROCESSES: The UK's future participation with the EU's specialised agencies will depend on the detail of any agreement reached on future collaboration with the EU and its drug agency, the EMCDDA. CONTEXT: The EMCDDA provides the EU and its Member States with a factual overview of European drug problems and a solid evidence base to support debates on drugs policies. It also supports early warning initiatives and coordinates measures at national and supranational levels with Europol and supranational enforcement agencies. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: While these arrangements might continue throughout any transition period, those working within the sector require guidance and assurances from the British government about its long-term intentions after any transition. CONCLUSIONS: The scale of collaboration between the UK and European institutions is extensive. It is not clear how this might be replicated after Brexit. Yet an alternative framework of collaboration between the UK and the EU is clearly needed to facilitate shared and agreed approaches to data sharing and drug surveillance after Brexit.

BACKGROUND: The decision by the UK government to leave the European Union comes at a time when parts of the UK are experiencing a marked rise in reported gun and knife crimes. The health effects of Brexit will have serious consequences as to how the UK tackles this upsurge in drug-related crime. HEALTH POLICY PROCESSES: The UK's future participation with the EU's specialised agencies will depend on the detail of any agreement reached on future collaboration with the EU and its drug agency, the EMCDDA. CONTEXT: The EMCDDA provides the EU and its Member States with a factual overview of European drug problems and a solid evidence base to support debates on drugs policies. It also supports early warning initiatives and coordinates measures at national and supranational levels with Europol and supranational enforcement agencies. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: While these arrangements might continue throughout any transition period, those working within the sector require guidance and assurances from the British government about its long-term intentions after any transition. CONCLUSIONS: The scale of collaboration between the UK and European institutions is extensive. It is not clear how this might be replicated after Brexit. Yet an alternative framework of collaboration between the UK and the EU is clearly needed to facilitate shared and agreed approaches to data sharing and drug surveillance after Brexit.

Introduction The rapid rise in trade and use of NPS and the lack of information concerning their potential toxicity pose serious challenges to public health authorities across the world. Policy measures towards NPS taken so far have a special focus on their legal status, while the implementation of a public health strategy seems to be still missing. The aim of this study is to perform a general assessment of NPS-related policy (including regulatory measures and public health strategies) implemented by six European countries: Portugal, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Poland, the United Kingdom and Sweden. Methods Six EU countries were included in this scoping review study. Drug policies (including legal responses and public health strategies) were analysed. UNODC drug policy classification system was used as a benchmark, while path dependency approach was used for data analysis; a net of inter-dependencies between international, EU and national policies was highlighted. Results and discussion The countries included in this study can be placed in a wide spectrum according to their formulation of drug policy, from Portugal and the UK that have specific legal responses to NPS but have differently focused on harm reduction strategies at one end, to Sweden whose drug-free society goal is not translated into a specific regulation of NPS at the other end. Conclusion The findings of the study reveal limited development towards harmonisation of national drug policies particularly with regard to NPS. To tackle the challenge presented by NPS, EU Member states have formulated legislation and public health strategies independently. National approaches to NPS are therefore in line with their already existing drug policies, reflecting cultural values towards substance abuse and national political interests, while the homogenization at an international level has so far mostly been focused on law enforcement and drugs use preventive strategies.