Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19480466›Full record

ReviewCNS drugs2009

Prescription of heroin for the management of heroin dependence: current status.

Nicholas Lintzeris

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in CNS drugs, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
10.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicholas LintzerisSydney South West Area Health Service, Drug Health Services, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Nicholas.Lintzeris@sswahs.nsw.gov.au
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prescription of heroin (diamorphine) for the management of heroin dependence is a controversial treatment approach that was limited to Britain until the 1990s. Since then a number of countries have embarked upon clinical trials of this approach, and it is currently licensed and available in several European countries. To date, six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with over 1600 patients and several cohort studies have examined injected (or inhaled) heroin treatment. This article reviews relevant clinical pharmacology, how heroin treatment programmes are delivered, and the evidence regarding safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness from RCTs. Heroin is usually prescribed in intravenous dosages of 300-500 mg/day, divided in two or three doses. Uncommon but serious side effects include seizures and respiratory depression immediately following injection. Despite methodological shortcomings, RCTs generally indicate that heroin treatment results in a comparable retention, improved general health and psychosocial functioning, and less self-reported illicit heroin use than oral methadone treatment. Cost-effectiveness studies indicate heroin treatment to be more expensive to deliver but to result in savings in the criminal justice sector. There has been debate regarding how heroin treatment should be positioned within the range of treatment approaches for this condition. There is increasing consensus that, in countries that have robust and accessible treatment systems for heroin users, heroin treatment is suited to a minority of heroin users as a second-line treatment for those individuals who do not respond to methadone or buprenorphine treatment delivered under optimal conditions.

Indexed as

PrescriptionsCost-Benefit AnalysisHeroinHeroin DependenceHumansNarcoticsOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHeroinNarcotics

Identifiers

PMID19480466
OpenAlexW1997655700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.