• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Addiction Treatment Forum

Addiction Treatment Forum

Addiction Treatment Forum reports on substance use news of interest to opioid treatment programs and patients in medication-assisted treatment.

  • Newsletter
  • Addiction Resources
  • Methadone
  • Buprenorphine
  • Patient Brochures
  • Events

The NAOMI Study: After a Year on Heroin Maintenance, Is it Ethical to Terminate?

June 18, 2012 by ATForum

A Canadian study that started in 2005 comparing heroin maintenance with methadone maintenance has given rise to a protest from the patients used as guinea pigs.   The patients protesting were actual subjects, clinical trials participants who were injected on a daily basis with heroin for a year. They had already failed methadone maintenance treatment twice. At the end of the year, however, the study was over and after a three-month detox, they were given a choice of methadone or buprenorphine.

Last year, 44 of these subjects formed a group called the North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI) Patients Association (NPA), and started comparing  notes on how they did after being taken off heroin. In a report released in March full of bittersweet reminiscences of a year on heroin and some scathing comments on how they were treated in the trial (10 minutes to inject, and if they were late, they missed the appointment), and how they survived the years following, NPA members detail their experience, some managing to get clean, some cycling in and out of drug use.

The NAOMI study, published in 2009 in The New England Journal of Medicine, concluded that heroin maintenance was effective. The findings had little effect in the United States since heroin is Schedule I and not used as a treatment medication here.

But the study publication contributed to the formation of the NPA, with patients questioning why the trial would be shut down. In other countries where such trials were done, patients continued to receive heroin. Although NAOMI researchers asked the Canadian government to allow the people who were given heroin to stay on it for compassionate reasons, the government, which runs health care, refused in 2007.

There are some serious questions posed by the NPA about ethics: for example, because people wanted heroin, they signed up for the trial. Under these circumstances, can informed consent really be given? In addition, if something works, can you take it away? One of the participants quoted in the NPA report put it succinctly: “They’re experimenting with a drug for cancer and it starts working. I mean, what are they, what are you going to do? Oh no. You can’t have it anymore.”

Proponents of medicinal injectable heroin in Canada think that it’s better at keeping patients in treatment than methadone maintenance, for people who have relapsed from methadone maintenance at least twice before.

There are some flaws to this argument, however. First of all, methadone maintenance in Canada isn’t as regulated as it is in the United States, with counseling requirements. Another flaw is that 75 percent of the NAOMI patients on heroin were unemployed; that is not the case with OTP patients in the United States. In addition, the cost of treatment with heroin in the NAOMI study was $14,891 per patient a year, because of the cost of daily injection, compared to $3,192 for methadone maintenance. And finally, while the heroin maintenance group did have better retention in NAOMI than the methadone group, the dose of the methadone may have been too low; the average dose was 96 milligrams.

Can it happen here? Well, not exactly. But in a large-scale, short-term trial, tapering the buprenorphine dosage of opioid-dependent patients was a self-fulfilling disaster. More than nine out of ten patients relapsed in this trial—more than even the principal investigator had expected. Yes, everyone had expected dismal results. Yet the trial, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, went ahead with that design because that is the way most physicians were using the medication for patients dependent on prescription opioids—as a detox drug. Let’s see if NIDA’s Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study (POATS), as the buprenorphine study was called, leads to its own patient association.

For the NPA report, go to http://drugpolicy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/NPAreportMarch5-12.pdf

Filed Under: 2012, Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT)

Primary Sidebar

Upcoming Events

CADCA 2023 Leadership Forum and SAMHSA’s Prevention Day
January 30-February 3, 2023

Washington, D.C.
http://cadca.org/forum2023

2023 Rx and Illicit Drug Summit
April 10-13, 2023

Atlanta, Georgia
https://www.rx-summit.com/

2023 ASAM conference
April 13-16, 2023

Washington, D.C.
https://annualconference.asam.org/

 

View More Upcoming Events…

ATForum.com

  • Newsletter
  • Addiction Resources
  • Rx Methadone & Safety
  • Patient Education Brochures
  • Events
  • Related Websites

Addiction Resources

  • Addiction and Recovery
  • Addiction Treatment Forum
  • Books and Booklets of Interest
  • Drug Screening and Testing
  • Evidence-Based Addiction Medicine
  • Federal Government
  • Health Care Reform
  • Hepatitis, HIV/AIDS
  • Medication-Assisted Treatment
  • Mental Health
  • Miscellaneous
  • Online Continuing Education Free Training Modules

Footer

Addiction Treatment Forum is produced by an independent medical communications agency. Commercial advertising is not accepted.
Published by Clinco Communications, Inc.
About Us
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Follow Us

Sign up for News!

© 2023 Addiction Treatment Forum · All Rights Reserved