The Opioid Replacement Therapies Review: an overview Dr Brian Kidd Chair

1. The Opioid Replacement Therapies Review: an overview Dr Brian Kidd Chair Drug Strategy Delivery Commission

3. Plan • Why was it done? • What did we do? • What did we find? • What does it mean?

4. Why was the ORT review undertaken?

5. Progress 1994-1999 - Drug issues (harm reduction) “on the map” - Creation of delivery system (DATs)

6. Progress: 1999-2008 - Consolidation and investment - Strategic thinking (e.g. STRADA) - Delivery system improvements

7. Progress from 2008 • Recovery focus • Outcomes • Delivery reform

9. 2011 584 deaths

10. Drivers for review • Reports of loss of political consensus • Progress towards delivering recovery remains elusive despite clear strategy • Increase in drug deaths continuing • Methadone implicated in many • Ongoing negative media reports on balance, quality of services

11. Methodology: how was the ORT review delivered?

12. Methodology • Agreed remit with Minister & Chief Medical Officer for Scotland • Lead researchers employed: Dr Kennedy Roberts and Dr Charles Lind • Representative Steering Group – drawn from DSDC and National Drug Death Forum • Secretariat from Scottish Government • Aim to deliver “spring 2013”

13. Remit

14. Methodology • A review of the research evidence base on ORT (focus on methadone) • Validated review group conclusions with an international panel of expert reviewers • Gathered views of Scottish academics on strengths and weaknesses of the evidence-base in Scotland • Examined the delivery system in Scotland • Took evidence from a wide range of stakeholders • NB Accessibility to the review was paramount

15. Stakeholders • Scottish academics • Written and verbal evidence from all ADPs • Relevant government agencies • Politicians • National representative organisations • Health & social care professionals • Residential detox and rehabilitation providers • Those advocating particular therapies/approaches • National and local events

16. Main findings

17. 5 key themes • The strong evidence for ORT with methadone – but the need for quality assurance • The lack of progress in delivery of recovery outcomes • The apparent lack of local accountability and post-ADP integration of the delivery system • The link with social exclusion and health inequalities – and need to make this drive access to more generic services & solutions • The need for valid information, evaluation and research

18. ORT with methadone • Strong evidence base for effectiveness at reducing drug-related harms • Strongest evidence-base for relatively short-term outcomes (<1year) • Longer term cohort studies show long-term protective effect (30+ years) • Poor evidence base for delivery of “recovery” with ORT (Bell 2012; Best et al 2010) • Quality standards and processes essential

19. Scottish Methadone Review – SG 2007 In summary, replacement prescribing with methadone remains the main plank of medical treatment for opiate dependency in the UK. Harm reduction approaches, incorporating methadone treatment, have evolved rapidly in the face of blood-borne virus infection. It has also been seen to be effective in the Criminal Justice arena by reducing the need for imprisonment. Methadone is more cost effective than any other medical treatment for dependency, though other effectiveinterventions should be part of any comprehensive programme, improving patient choice. Outcomes improve if delivered with associated counselling interventions and these should also be standard. The challenge with methadone is to optimise delivery of harm reduction whilst ensuring that progress to recovery is encouraged, facilitating a way out of methadone treatment whenever appropriate.

20. Delivery of recovery outcomes • Strong representation from families (e.g. SFAD) • ADP responses:

21. Accountability of the delivery system • The whole system • How held to account and by what mechanism? • Information deficiencies – local and national • Quality and effectiveness of local partnerships • Organisational v partnership issues • Specialist or generalist responses • Lack of institutional memory

22. Social exclusion & health inequalities • Problem substance use a key driver of the “Glasgow effect” (eg SDF/SAADAT 2007) • Prevalence mirrors areas of deprivation • Drug deaths rates mirror areas of deprivation • Scottish research shows clearly the health impacts effecting this long term substance users • Data on social exclusion echoes this • Need for generic service elements to “own” this problem and for prioritisation processes to acknowledge and respond to this anomaly

23. Information, evaluation & research Information systems • Long standing failure to deliver meaningful national information systems • Variable local responses Programme of research for Scotland • Repeated calls – but limited action to date • Uniqueness of Scottish dimension – UK research impact limited • Opportunity for real, planned change

24. Recommendations

25. ORT in Scotland

26. Delivery of recovery outcomes

27. Accountability of the delivery system

28. Social exclusion & health inequalities

29. Information, evaluation & research

30. Mechanism for Change Over to you……

31. In conclusion

32. In conclusion Why was it done? • To address criticisms and concerns regarding treatment What did we do? • We comprehensively reviewed the literature. • We took evidence/opinion from a wide range of Scottish stakeholders • We validated our conclusions via international experts

33. In conclusion What did we find? • We reiterated the link with social exclusion and health inequalities • We set out the evidence for ORT • We found little evidence of a strong commitment to recovery at local level • We found the delivery system (from ADP to DSDC) unable to demonstrate effectiveness – lack of valid information

34. In conclusion What does it mean? • This situation must change • Institutional memory • Consistent action should follow the evidence-base • Evidence base must develop • Focus on accountability and on delivering measurable outcomes

38. Discussion