Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37106464›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2023

Intravenous misuse of slow-release oral morphine capsules: how much morphine is injected?

Célian Bertin, Edouard Montigne, Sarah Teixeira, Florent Ferrer, Louis Lauwerie, Damien Richard, Nicolas Authier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Célian BertinUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm 1107 Neuro-Dol, Service de Pharmacologie Médicale, Centres Addictovigilance et Pharmacovigilance, Centre Evaluation et Traitement de la Douleur, Université Clermont Auvergne, 63003, Clermont-Ferrand, France. cbertin@chu-clermontferrand.fr.
Edouard MontigneUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm 1107 Neuro-Dol, Service de Pharmacologie Médicale, Centres Addictovigilance et Pharmacovigilance, Centre Evaluation et Traitement de la Douleur, Université Clermont Auvergne, 63003, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Sarah TeixeiraUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm 1107 Neuro-Dol, Service de Pharmacologie Médicale, Centres Addictovigilance et Pharmacovigilance, Centre Evaluation et Traitement de la Douleur, Université Clermont Auvergne, 63003, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Florent FerrerUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm 1107 Neuro-Dol, Service de Pharmacologie Médicale, Centres Addictovigilance et Pharmacovigilance, Centre Evaluation et Traitement de la Douleur, Université Clermont Auvergne, 63003, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Louis LauwerieUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm 1107 Neuro-Dol, Service de Pharmacologie Médicale, Centres Addictovigilance et Pharmacovigilance, Centre Evaluation et Traitement de la Douleur, Université Clermont Auvergne, 63003, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Damien RichardUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm 1107 Neuro-Dol, Service de Pharmacologie Médicale, Centres Addictovigilance et Pharmacovigilance, Centre Evaluation et Traitement de la Douleur, Université Clermont Auvergne, 63003, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Nicolas AuthierUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm 1107 Neuro-Dol, Service de Pharmacologie Médicale, Centres Addictovigilance et Pharmacovigilance, Centre Evaluation et Traitement de la Douleur, Université Clermont Auvergne, 63003, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand · FRInserm · FRUniversité Clermont Auvergne · FRUniversity of Clermont Auvergne · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe injection of morphine from morphine sulfate capsules containing sustained-release microbeads (Skenan®) is a practice frequently described by French intravenous opioid users. They seek an injectable form of substitution for heroin. Depending on how the syringe is prepared, the morphine rates may vary. The dosage of the capsule, the temperature of the dissolving water and the type of filter used have been identified as the parameters most likely to influence the final quantity of morphine in solution before intravenous injection. The aim of our study was to determine the amounts of morphine actually injected, according to the different preparation modalities described by people who inject morphine and the harm reduction equipment made available to them.

methodsDifferent morphine syringes were prepared by varying the dosage of the capsule (100 or 200 mg), the temperature of the dissolving water before adding morphine, ambient (≈ 22 °C) or heat (≈ 80 °C) and four filtration devices: risk reduction Steribox® cotton, risk reduction filter "Sterifilt®", "Wheel" filter and cigarette filter. The quantification of the morphine in the syringe body was carried out by liquid phase chromatography coupled with a mass spectrometry detector.

resultsThe best extraction yields were obtained with heated water, independently of dosages (p < 0.01). Yields of 100 mg capsules varied according to the filter (p < 0.01) and the water temperature (p < 0.01), with maximum yields obtained for solutions dissolved in heated water, then filtered with the "Wheel" filter (83 mg). The yields of the 200 mg capsules varied according to the temperature of the water (p < 0.01), without difference according to the filter used (p > 0.01), and maximum yields obtained for solutions dissolved in heated water (95 mg).

conclusionsNo procedure for dissolving Skenan® led to the complete dissolution of the morphine it contains. Whatever the variations in preparation conditions, the extraction rates of the 200 mg morphine capsules were lower than those of 100 mg, without the risk reduction filters adversely impacting morphine extraction. Offering an injectable substitution to persons who inject morphine would make it possible to reduce the risks and damage, particularly overdoses, associated with variations in dosage due to preparation methods.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidMorphineCapsulesHumansAnalgesics, OpioidCapsulesMorphineHarm reductionMisuseMorphineOpioid use disorderPerson who inject drugs

Identifiers

PMID37106464
PMCPMC10134660
OpenAlexW4367181476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.