Research paper
Diversion of methadone and buprenorphine by patients in opioid substitution treatment in Sweden: Prevalence estimates and risk factors

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.10.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We have studied the prevalence of self-reported diversion of methadone and buprenorphine at opioid substitution treatment (OST) programs in Sweden.

  • Self-reported diversion was considerably higher than in previous research. This is most likely due to our new data-gathering strategyy.

  • The risk for diversion is higher with mono-buprenorphine than with methadone.

  • Current illicit drug use and socializing with active drug users increase the likelihood of diversion.

  • Efforts to decrease diversion should focus on psychosocial and lifestyle-changing interventions.

Abstract

Background

Diversion—patients who sell or share their medication—is a hotly debated but relatively unresearched phenomenon. We have investigated the prevalence of self-reported diversion of methadone and buprenorphine at OST programs in Sweden. We have also examined if demographic, treatment, and social factors can be associated with an increased risk of diversion.

Methods

Structured interviews were conducted with 411 patients from eleven OST programs. A standardized questionnaire with 106 close- and five open-ended questions were used. 280 interviews were done on site, by the researchers, while 131 interviews were conducted by specially trained patients through privileged access interviewing. The data were analyzed through frequency- and averages-calculations, cross-tabulations, and logistic regression analysis.

Results

In total, 24.1% (n = 99) of the patients reported diversion in the past month. 67.6% (n = 277) stated that they had diverted at some point. The peer interviews showed significantly higher levels of diversion (37.4% past month) compared with the researcher interviews (17.2%). Neither demographic factors, dosages, nor collection routines were associated with diversion. The likelihood of diversion was higher for patients on mono-buprenorphine (OR = 5.64) and buprenorphine–naloxone (OR = 2.10), than among methadone patients. Other factors which increased the likelihood of diversion were current illicit drug use (OR = 5.60), having had patients as a primary source of illicit methadone or buprenorphine prior to treatment (OR = 3.39), and mainly socializing with active drug users (OR = 2.12).

Conclusion

Self-reported diversion was considerably higher than in previous studies. This is most likely due to the new methodological strategy we used, but may also partly be explained by low availability of OST in Sweden, leading to a high demand for the substances by heroin users outside treatment. Efforts to decrease diversion should primarily focus on psychosocial and lifestyle-changing interventions, and expanded access to treatment, rather than on control measures.

Introduction

Dependence on heroin or other opiates is a condition which is difficult to treat. Research has been unable to point to any clear evidence of lasting effects of medication-free treatment. The dominant treatment method is opioid substitution treatment (OST) with methadone or buprenorphine, the latter often combined with naloxone. Metastudies show that OST is effective in light of factors such as mortality, morbidity, illicit drug use, and criminality (Amato et al., 2011, Mattick et al., 2009, Mattick et al., 2008). OST also carries risks. Methadone is a strong respiratory depressant, potentially fatal for individuals without sufficient tolerance (Fugelstad et al., 2007, Milroy and Forrest, 2000). Buprenorphine is less potent, but if mixed with alcohol or sedatives there is a risk of polydrug intoxication (Mégarbane, Hreiche, Pirnay, Marie, & Baud, 2006). Both medications have high abuse potential and are sought after on the illicit drug market. Diversion—here defined as patients selling or sharing part or all of their medication—is therefore a significant risk. In several countries diversion has been linked to an increase in methadone-related fatalities and in extensive illicit use of buprenorphine (Obadia et al., 2001, Otiashvili et al., 2010, Piercefield et al., 2010, Strang et al., 2010). Measures have been taken to reduce these risks, such as developing safer versions of the medications (Fudala & Johnson, 2006). The first one to reach the market was Suboxone©, a sublingual tablet where buprenorphine was combined with the opioid antagonist naloxone, which reduces the potential for abuse. Buprenorphine–naloxone is now also available as a sublingual film.

In the research on diversion and illicit, three main strands emerge. One strand concerns illicit use, and the demand for methadone and buprenorphine on the illicit market. Illicit use of methadone and buprenorphine is common among opioid-dependent individuals. Lifetime prevalence of illicit methadone use among intravenous drug users outside treatment has varied between 17% and 95% in different studies, but high prevalence is the rule rather than the exception (Davis and Johnson, 2007, Hall et al., 2013, Roche et al., 2008, Vlahov et al., 2007). Illicit buprenorphine use is prevalent, as well (Håkansson et al., 2007, Yokell et al., 2011) and in some countries this substance has become the most common opioid on the illicit market (Aalto et al., 2011, Moatti et al., 2001, Yokell et al., 2011). Methadone and buprenorphine typically enter a user's drug career at a late stage, and they are rare among younger people, unless they have already developed severe drug problems (Richert & Johnson, 2013). The substances are mainly used by people with a long-standing opioid addiction. Very often these users are not in treatment, and employ them to avoid withdrawal symptoms, or as a means of performing self-detoxification, or managing substitution treatment on their own (Gwin et al., 2009, Håkansson et al., 2007, Monte et al., 2009, Richert and Johnson, 2013, Roche et al., 2008, Schuman-Olivier et al., 2010, Spunt et al., 1986). However, among them are also OST patients dissatisfied with their prescribed doses (Schmidt et al., 2013, Spunt et al., 1986). In addition, the substances are used for euphoria-inducing purposes, typically as part of a polydrug use (Richert & Johnson, 2013).

The second strand of research is looking at the negative consequences of illicit use, mainly in the form of methadone- and buprenorphine-related mortality among users not in treatment (Auriacombe et al., 2004, Fugelstad et al., 2010, Madden and Shapiro, 2011, Mégarbane et al., 2006, Morgan et al., 2006, Seldén et al., 2012, Seymour et al., 2003, Strang et al., 2010, Wikner et al., 2014). The majority of such fatalities are caused by polyintoxication involving a broad array of different substances, often sedatives and alcohol (Fugelstad et al., 2010, Mégarbane et al., 2006, Seldén et al., 2012, Wikner et al., 2014). Such deaths have made up a significant percentage of the opioid-related mortality in some countries, not least Sweden; since 2011 the combined number of methadone- and buprenorphine-related fatalities have exceeded heroin-related deaths.

Nevertheless, potential advantages to illicit use have been indicated, particularly in connection with heroin use. Harris and Rhodes argued that illicit methadone use may serve as a ‘protection strategy’ enabling people with an opioid dependence to control their drug use, improve social relations, and protect themselves against hepatitis C (Harris & Rhodes, 2013). This is the case also for buprenorphine (Bridge et al., 2003, Yokell et al., 2011).

The third and final strand concerns the supply side; how the substances end up on the illicit market, and how common it is for OST patients to sell or share their medication. This is also the main subject for our study, and therefore we will start by discussing previous research in greater detail.

Empirical evidence on the extent of diversion among OST-patients is not, however, available to any significant degree. In our research review we have identified only five peer-reviewed cross-sectional studies (Dale-Perera et al., 2012, Duffy and Baldwin, 2012, Spunt et al., 1986, Winstock and Lea, 2010, Winstock et al., 2008) (see Table 1).

All the studies are self-report studies in which structured interviews or questionnaires were used. The proportion of patients who reported that they had at some point sold or shared varies from 9.6% to 34% in these studies. The one-year prevalence varies from 4.3% to 23.8%. Only one study measured diversion in the past month. There, 4% admitted to having shared, 2% to having sold, and 1% to having traded their methadone (Duffy & Baldwin, 2012). No study accounts for how great a proportion of the medication was diverted, but Spunt and colleagues categorized 10% of the patients as ‘regular diverters’ (Spunt et al., 1986).

The research accounts for few demographic and treatment-related factors associated with self-reported diversion. In two studies comparing substances, prevalence was markedly higher for buprenorphine than for methadone (Winstock and Lea, 2010, Winstock et al., 2008). Strict collection routines and supervised dosing were associated with lower levels of diversion in two studies (Dale-Perera et al., 2012, Winstock and Lea, 2010), whereas two other studies found no such link (Spunt et al., 1986, Winstock et al., 2008). Personal experience of illicit use of methadone or buprenorphine was associated with an increased risk in two studies (Winstock and Lea, 2010, Winstock et al., 2008). One study found significant differences in the levels of diversion between countries (Dale-Perera et al., 2012).

Methodologically there is reason to question some of the aforementioned findings. Admitting use of methadone or buprenorphine outside treatment is unproblematic for most drug users, and as we have seen the prevalence of such use is often very high. However, the low numbers which have been reported for diversion may indicate disadvantages with this type of self-reported data. To tell a researcher that you have diverted your medication may be a delicate issue, even if you trust the researcher's promises of confidentiality. Where the interviews take place may also influence the answers—Duffy and Baldwin (2012) discovered that interviewees who had been recruited in clinics reported significantly lower diversion (11% in the past year) than those recruited elsewhere (28%). Written questionnaires also constitute a problematic data-gathering method, partly because of the risk of biased selection, as well as respondents’ doubts regarding confidentiality since the honorarium is paid out afterwards.

The aim of this study is to examine the prevalence of self-reported diversion of methadone and buprenorphine in OST programs in the south of Sweden. We also investigate if demographic, treatment-related, or social factors can be linked to an increased risk of diversion. In order to assess the reliability of previous research we have used two different data-gathering methods: on-site interviews carried out by the researchers and peer interviews done by specially trained patients, so called ‘privileged access interviewing’. The hypothesis is that the peer-interviewers, by virtue of being ‘insiders’ with personal experience of both drug use and treatment, may be able to obtain more honest answers to sensitive questions.

Section snippets

Participants and recruitment

A total of 411 participants (219 on methadone and 192 on buprenorphine) were recruited from nine public and two private OST programs in five cities and towns in southern Sweden. Structured interviews were conducted between May and December of 2012. The inclusion criterion was that participants had been enrolled in OST for at least four weeks.

We utilized two different data-gathering methods: on-site interviews carried out by researchers and peer interviews done by patients. The on-site

Levels of diversion

Of the 411 patients, 24.1% (n = 99) stated that they had diverted part of their medication in the past month. Giving it away was most common (16.1%, n = 66), followed by selling (13.6%, n = 56) and trading it for other substances (3.4%, n = 14). The median extent of diversion activities (number of days in the past month) was two days for giving away and trading and four days for selling. A smaller group of patients, 8.5% (n = 35), stated that they had diverted (giving away, selling and/or trading) more

Discussion

Diversion of methadone and buprenorphine may be significantly more common than has been indicated by previous research. The levels we present for patients who have sold or shared at some point in their lives, are two to three times higher than in previous cross-sectional studies. The prevalence of current diversion (DPM) is significantly higher than the one-year prevalence rates hitherto reported. The differences become even greater when accounting for the strong interviewer effects we have

Contributors

BJ planned the original project. BJ and TR designed the study, developed the interview questionnaire and did most of the researcher interviews. BJ and TR conducted the analysis jointly. BJ wrote the first draft. Final revisions were made jointly by BJ and TR. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by FORTE, The Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (grant no. 2010-1144). We wish to thank all participants in the study, as well as our peer interviewers. We also wish to thank Robert Svensson for statistical aid and Anders Håkansson, Johan Nordgren, and Frida Petersson for their close readings and suggestions for this article.
Conflict of interest

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this

References (52)

  • P. Bourgois

    The moral economies of homeless heroin addicts: Confronting ethnography, HIV risk, and everyday violence in San Francisco shooting encampments

    Substance Use and Misuse

    (1998)
  • P. Bourgois et al.

    Righteous dopefiend

    (2009)
  • S.D. Comer et al.

    Abuse liability of intravenous buprenorphine/naloxone and buprenorphine alone in buprenorphine-maintained intravenous heroin abusers

    Addiction

    (2010)
  • A. Dale-Perera et al.

    Quality of care provided to patients receiving opioid maintenance treatment in Europe: Results from the EQUATOR analysis

    Heroin Addiction and Related Clinical Problems

    (2012)
  • W.R. Davis et al.

    Prescription, opioid use, misuse, and diversion among street drug users in New York City

    Drug and Alcohol Dependence

    (2007)
  • P. Duffy et al.

    The nature of methadone diversion in England: A Merseyside case study

    Harm Reduction Journal

    (2012)
  • H.R. Ebaugh

    Becoming an ex: The process of role exit

    (1988)
  • E. Elliot et al.

    Harnessing expertise: Involving peer interviewers in qualitative research with hard-to-reach populations

    Health Expectations

    (2002)
  • A. Fugelstad et al.

    Allt fler dör av metadon: ‘Läckage’ från dagens mer liberala behandlingsprogram kan vara en orsak

    Läkartidningen

    (2010)
  • A. Fugelstad et al.

    Methadone maintenance treatment: The balance between life-saving treatment and fatal poisonings

    Addiction

    (2007)
  • P. Griffiths et al.

    Reaching hidden populations of drug users by privileged access interviewers: Methodological and practical issues

    Addiction

    (1993)
  • M.S. Gwin et al.

    Uses of diverted methadone and buprenorphine by opioid-addicted individuals in Baltimore, Maryland

    American Journal on Addictions

    (2009)
  • A. Håkansson et al.

    Buprenorphine misuse among heroin and amphetamine users in Malmö, Sweden: Purpose of misuse and route of administration

    European Addiction Research

    (2007)
  • M.T. Hall et al.

    Factors associated with high-frequency illicit methadone use among rural Appalachian drug users

    American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse

    (2013)
  • I.A. Havnes et al.

    ‘Diversion’ of methadone or buprenorphine: ‘Harm’ versus ‘helping’

    Harm Reduction Journal

    (2013)
  • B. Johnson

    After the storm. Developments in maintenance treatment policy and practice in Sweden 1987–2006

  • Cited by (43)

    • Public health risks associated with methadone in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      2022, International Journal of Drug Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The other half accessed methadone for self-management of their OUD through drug dealers, the black market of prescription drugs, or herbal shops (Rafiei et al., 2019). Diversion and non-prescribed use of methadone have been reported in other countries as well (Cicero et al., 2011; Johnson & Richert, 2015). In the US, 0.1% of individuals aged 12 years and above reported misuse of methadone in the last 12-month (Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, 2019b).

    • Understanding the use of diverted buprenorphine

      2018, Drug and Alcohol Dependence
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text