The trajectory of methadone maintenance treatment in Nepal
Introduction
Nepal has concentrated HIV epidemic among certain population groups, including people who inject drugs (PWIDs). The policy environment in Nepal has not been unfavourable to a harm reduction response to preventing the spread of HIV and Nepal initiated harm reduction services for PWIDs, including needle exchange programmes (NEP) and methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) much earlier than in other countries in South Asia. In fact, Nepal was the first country in South Asia to introduce MMT for opioid dependent people who use drugs. The trajectory of the MMT programme serves as an interesting case study, with implications for other developing countries with emerging or established HIV epidemics among PWIDs. The paper discusses salient issues to support learning for other countries in the region. We have relied upon our own experience of working on MMT in Nepal and have conducted a desk review of relevant documents. While buprenorphine based substitution treatment is also available, it is much smaller in scale and scope and therefore we restrict our focus to MMT.
Nepal has a long history of drug use. Cannabis was sanctioned for use on certain religious occasions, and occasional use of alcohol was tolerated socially. Reports of heroin use started appearing by the 1960s, and by the 1980s the number of heroin chasers had increased considerably. The next decade saw a shift in the pattern of drug use from heroin chasing to injectable opioid preparations such as buprenorphine (Reid & Costigan, 2002). A rapid situation assessment carried out in 1996 showed that 40% of drug users had injected drugs at least once in their lifetime; 66% PWIDs had injected buprenorphine and 20% had injected heroin (Ray, 2000). A study by Central Bureau of Statistics (2007) estimated that 61% of the 46,309 current ‘hard drug’ users were PWIDs (i.e. 28,439 PWIDs in Nepal). A recent nation-wide mapping study estimated the number of PWIDs to be in the range of 30,155–33,742. Among the PWIDs surveyed, a high proportion noted sharing needles/syringes and few reported using condoms (HSCB and NCASC, 2011). In 2011 HIV prevalence among PWIDs was estimated at 6.3% in Kathmandu and 4.6% in the Pokhara valley (National Centre for AIDS and STD Control, 2012).
Nepal was the first country in South Asia region to introduce NEP in the 1980s. Though HIV prevention services for PWIDs have been scaled up in recent years, the coverage remains low. The IBBS Round V survey conducted in 2011 showed that in the preceding year, only about 47% of PWIDs in Kathmandu and 82% in the Pokhara valley interacted with a peer educator/outreach worker, 2.9% and 3.5% visited a sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinic, and 20% and 31.3% visited a HIV testing centre (NCASC, 2011). The size estimation exercise conducted in 2011 also shows that in terms of services available for PWIDs, only one-third had access to a NEP, condom outlet or voluntary counselling and testing service within one kilometre of drug use hotspots (HSCB and NCASC, 2011) implying that much needs to be done to achieve universal access to HIV prevention services for PWIDs.
Section snippets
Methadone maintenance therapy in Nepal
The first MMT clinic was introduced in a psychiatric hospital in Kathmandu in 1994 with the objective of “preventing relapse, facilitating recovery and reducing overdose, risk of HIV, hepatitis and other infections among drug users” (Shreshta, 2000). The clinic had a medical doctor and a trained nurse working under the supervision of a psychiatrist. Methadone was dispensed as a tablet of 40 mg (unlike the current practice of dispensing liquid form), and most clients received a maintenance dose
Conclusion
A systematic evaluation of the outcome of MMT in Nepal is still needed. However, programme reviews and many small reports on MMT give encouraging signals (Ojha, 2011, Ambekar et al., 2010, Sapkota, 2010). While there is much to celebrate in the country's attempt to overcome various barriers in implementing MMT, there are many areas of concern as well as lessons that can be learnt from this experience. According to the target setting guidelines, the scale of MMT has to be increased to cater for
Funding source
None.
Acknowledgement
None.
Conflicts of interest statement
We declare no conflict of interest with any other agency/organization whatsoever.
References (33)
- et al.
What happens when a demonstration project ends: Consequences for a clinic and its clients
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
(1996) Tilting at windmills and the evidence base on injecting drug use
The Lancet
(2010)- et al.
Rapid Scale-up of Harm reduction in China
International Journal of Drug Policy
(2007) - et al.
A Review of Opioid Substitution Therapy in Nepal
(2010) - et al.
HIV/AIDS Prevention among Injecting Drug Users in Kathmandu Valley – Report for The Centre for Harm reduction
(2001) Summary report of the survey on Hard Drug User in Nepal – 2063
(2007)Grant performance report (February 2012)
(2012)Resource inflow for the HIV and AIDS Programme in Nepal-2010
(2010)Mapping and size estimation of Most-at-risk-Population in Nepal, 2011, Vol. 2: Injecting Drug Users
(2011)- et al.
Unpacking drug detoxification in Nepal: In-depth interviews with participants to identify reasons for success and failure
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation
(2012)
Legal and policy concerns related to IDU harm reduction in SAARC countries
Hammer in the Himalayas
Drug Control Strategy
Controlling Narcotics
NCASC and ASHA Project 2011 Integrated Biological and Behavioral Surveillance (IBBS) Survey among Injecting Drug Users in Kathmandu and Pokhara Valley, Nepal, Round V-2011
Cited by (14)
Treatment trajectories and barriers in opioid agonist therapy for people who inject drugs in rural Puerto Rico
2021, Journal of Substance Abuse TreatmentCitation Excerpt :PWID in rural Puerto Rico seeking MOUD also face the effects of a large-scale economic crisis, crumbling public infrastructure, expanding opioid markets, and a persistent cultural stigma around so-called substitution treatment (Bonilla & LeBron, 2019; Echautegui et al., 2016; Gelpi-Acosta et al., 2020; Mulligan, 2014; Rodríguez-Díaz et al., 2017). Departing from epidemiological studies that tend to treat MOUD barriers independently of one another or of the social context in which participants make decisions about enrolling in therapy, this study replicates findings that illustrate the compounded effects of individual and structural factors in MOUD enrollment (Ambekar et al., 2013; Bourgois & Schonberg, 2009; Carroll et al., 2018; Grub et al., 2019; Guarino et al., 2018; Harris & Rhodes, 2013; Rhodes, 2009; Sarang et al., 2013; Singer et al., 2017; Treloar & Valentine, 2013). Participants entered MOUD at different times in their careers, for different reasons, and with different outcomes.
Drug safety in Nepal
2020, Drug Safety in Developing Countries: Achievements and ChallengesOpioid pharmacotherapy: Treatment, regimes, constructions and control
2013, International Journal of Drug PolicyThe politics of providing opioid pharmacotherapy
2013, International Journal of Drug PolicyStigma toward substance use disorders: a multinational perspective and call for action
2024, Frontiers in Psychiatry