EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2002; 12: 228–234

Heroin-assisted treatment as a response to

the public health problem of opiate dependence
BENEDIKT FISCHER, JÜRGEN REHM, MARITT KIRST, MIGUEL CASAS, WAYNE HALL, MICHAEL KRAUSZ,
NICKY METREBIAN, JEAN REGGERS, AMBROS UCHTENHAGEN, WIM VAN DEN BRINK, JAN M. VAN REE *

Injection drug use (involving the injection of illicit opiates) poses serious public health problems in many countries.
Research has indicated that injection drug users are at higher risk for morbidity in the form of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis
B and C, and drug-related mortality, as well as increased criminal activity. Methadone maintenance treatment is the
most prominent form of pharmacotherapy treatment for illicit opiate dependence in several countries, and its
application varies internationally with respect to treatment regulations and delivery modes. In order to effectively
treat those patients who have previously been resistant to methadone maintenance treatment, several countries have
been studying and/or considering heroin-assisted treatment as a complementary form of opiate pharmacotherapy
treatment. This paper provides an overview of the prevalence of injection drug use and the opiate dependence
problem internationally, the current opiate dependence treatment landscape in several countries, and the status of
ongoing or planned heroin-assisted treatment trials in Australia, Canada and certain European countries.

Keywords: clinical trials, heroin-assisted treatment, opiate dependence, opiate pharmacotherapy treatment,
public health

ILLICIT OPIATE USE AS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE
Illicit opiate use is a considerable public health problem
in established market economies (EMEs). Due to the
nature of illicit drug use behaviour, exact prevalence and
incidence estimates are difficult to obtain. However,
based on advanced epidemiological methods and
monitoring techniques, it is suggested that in the majority
of EMEs, 0.1 to 0.5% of the total population are illicit
opiate users.1 More specifically, Farrell et al.2 estimate
that European Union countries feature opiate-dependent
populations in a range of 94 to 400 persons per 100,000
adult population aged 15 to 64, and that therefore ‘despite
some variation, each [EU] country now has a sizable and
comparable long-term opiate dependent population’
following the ‘epidemic growth of heroin addiction’ in the
1970s and 1980s. The illicit opiate using population is
estimated to be around 600,000 in the United States and
* B. Fischer1,2, J. Rehm1,2,3, M. Kirst2, M. Casas4, W. Hall5, M. Krausz6,
N. Metrebian7, J. Reggers8, A. Uchtenhagen3, W. van den Brink9,
J.M. van Ree9
1 Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Canada
2 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada
3 Addiction Research Institute, Zürich, Switzerland
4 Servicio de Psiquiatria, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
5 Institute of Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, St. Lucia,
Australia
6 Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Hamburg, Germany
7 Department of Social Science & Medicine, Imperial College School of
Medicine, London, UK
8 Department of Psychiatry, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire du Sart Tilman,
Liège, Belgium
9 Central Committee Treatment Heroin Addicts, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Correspondence: Benedikt Fischer, PhD, Department of Public Health
Sciences, University of Toronto, McMurrich Bldg., 109C, Toronto, ON,
M5S 1A8, Canada, tel. +416 946 5792, fax +416 260 4156,
228 e-mail: benedikt.fischer@utoronto.ca
60,000–90,000 in Canada, or around 330 (US) and 290–
430 (Canada) per 100,000 adult population aged 15 to 64
respectively.3,4 Australia has an estimated 67,000–92,000
illicit heroin users (540–750 per 100,000 population aged
15 to 64), which is a higher rate than in the European
countries (see table 1 for recent illicit opiate user popula-
tion estimates).5,6
While these user population fractions appear relatively
minor, illicit opiate users have considerably higher risks
for morbidity, mortality and disability than the general
population.7 There is also empirical evidence that 1–2%
of illicit opiate users die per annum from drug-related
mortality.5,8,9 In EU countries, the total number of acute
drug-related deaths was estimated to be 7,419 in 1996,
having increased from 6,819 in 1992.10 For North
America, the number of drug-related deaths is estimated
in the 4,000–5,000 range per annum;3,4 and 737 opiate-
related deaths were estimated in Australia in 1998.11
With few notable exceptions, data from most EME coun-
tries suggest that more than two-thirds of illicit opiate
users use their substance of choice intravenously.10 This
goes hand in hand with the fact that an increasing pro-
portion of illicit opiate users in North America and
Europe are also (injection) cocaine users, prompting
numerous injection episodes per day, resulting in extremely
high levels of risk for infectious disease transmission as
well as overdose episodes. In fact, estimates suggest that
in the European Union, HIV prevalence within injection
drug user (IDU) populations in different countries ranges
from 0.5–32%.10 Figures for HIV infection prevalence
among the estimated IDU population in North America
range from 10–40%.12 The proportional connection
between IDU and HIV is less in Australia, where 5% of
 Heroin-assisted treatment and public health

Table 1 Overview of environmental characteristics of selected planned and ongoing heroin-assisted treatment studies

Estimated Proportion
heroin of heroin
addict Pop. addicts in Status of methadone Status of Kind of study Study target
popula- in treatment maintenance and other heroin-assisted planned/ group focus/
Country tion 1,000 system treatment treatment ongoing remarks References
Australia 67,000– 18,751 20–50% 25,000 in MMT; MMT Extensive RCT: co- Standard trial Hall,
92,000 widely established feasibility research prescribed outcomes: Lynskey,
through clinics and and preparation for heroin vs. health, crime, Degenhardt
GPs; other opiate controlled heroin methadone social (1999)5;
pharmacotherapies in tx trial since 1991, alone functioning. Bammer
experimental stage but no political Full trial only (1995)6
approval after successful
pilot
Belgium under 10,204 approx. About 7,000 in MMT; Heroin trial RCT: heroin- Specific target Reggers
40,000 20% in Insufficient number of protocol exists; assisted on methadone (2001)26;
MMT, MMT spots in north of approved by treatment plus resistant and Farrell et al.
but no country (waiting lists); regional medical methadone vs. untreated (2001)2
coordinated in south wide authorities as standard
registry or availability of necessary methadone
control of methadone including condition for
MMT low threshold heroin
prescription;
no decision or
timelines on
realization
Canada 60,000– 30,301 25–30% MMT became widely Trial proposal RCT: heroin- Outcomes Fischer
90,000 in MMT available after 1995; submitted for assisted include (2001)27;
(IDU) regional differences; review for March treatment vs. attraction and Fischer and
low threshold partly 2001; proposal optimized retention Rehm
available; places in reviewed and methadone (1997)28;
abstinence treatment recommended for treatment Fischer
not clear funding by (2000)29
Canadian
institutes of
Health Research;
ethical review not
yet completed in
all study sites;
2003 potential
start date
France 160,000 58,874 approx. About 10,000 in MMT Protocol for heroin RCT (three Comparison Farrell et al.
60% and 90,000 in trial submitted in arms): MMT to methadone (2001)2;
buprenorphine 1999; no decision waiting list vs. which is not Barrau,
substitution treatment; yet nor clear heroin up to 3 the standard Thirion,
regional and urban/rural timelines available times daily with alternative in Micallef et al.
differences in treatment on realization MMT vs. heroin France (2001)30;
availability; waiting lists once a day and Barbier
for MMT; additional MMT (2001)31
buprenorphine available
through GPs,
methadone in treatment
clinics
Germany 150,000 82,047 more than 40,000–45,000 MMT Heroin trial RCT: 2∗2∗2; Randomisation Krausz
33% spots; regional approved by two randomized of psychosocial (2001)32;
differences; partly government; factors (heroin treatment Kalke,
low-threshold MMT; trial started vs. MMT and conditions Verthein,
10,000 codeine in 2002 psychosocial tx) (case Raschke
substituted persons; and one factor management & (1998)33;
small number of persons self-selection motivational Farrell et al.
in buprenorphine (not reached by interviewing vs. 20012
substitution treatment; treatment psychosocial
majority of opiate system and counseling)
substitution available failures of
through GPs MMT)
Netherlan 26,000 15,698 70% in 12,500 in MMT; 4,500 Heroin trial Multi-site RCT: First results: van den
ds regular treatment in drug-free treatment; ongoing with randomized recruitment was Brink, van
users; system; low threshold available; separate protocols waiting list successful with Ree (2001)34;
24,000 50% in small scale studies on for inhalable design MMT vs. N=600 subjects van den
addicts MMT i.v. morphine, i.v. and i.v. heroin-assisted and experiences Brink,
methadone, oral administration; treatment positive Hendriks,
dextramoramide final results in including MMT van Ree
2002 (1999)35

Table continued
229
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH VOL. 12 2002 NO. 3

the reported HIV infections for 1994 were attributed to
injection drug use.13 A great number of local and national
epidemiological surveys also indicate that the majority of
injection drug users are Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C
infected.2,12 In many local populations, Hepatitis B and
C prevalence rates reach up to 90%,14–17 although
considerable differences exist across systems. Also,
recently in some local and regional drug use cultures (i.e.
Netherlands, Southern Spain), the majority (up to
80–90%) of illicit opiate users has switched from injecting
to smoking/inhaling opiates as the dominant route of
administration, and initial evidence suggests that this has
had some impact towards reducing related morbidity as
well as mortality.
The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study estimated
that in 1990, illicit drugs in the EMEs accounted for
28,800 deaths (=0.4% of total deaths); 717,000 years of
life lost (YLL) due to mortality (1.4% of total YLLs);
1,598,000 years of life lost due to disability (YLD) (3.3%
of total YLDs); 2,315,000 disability adjusted life years
(DALY) (2.3% of total DALY burden in established
market economies).7
Criminological estimates suggest that a considerable
share of property crime, especially in urban areas, occurs
in the form of acquisition crime committed by regular
illicit drug users.2,18–20 Self-report data from illicit opiate
users outside of treatment indicate that their illicit drug
purchasing expenses often accumulate to the equivalent
of $100–200 per day, depending on cultural and environ-
mental contexts.21 Research has also indicated that the
majority of illicit opiate users are unemployed, and use
welfare benefits and illicit activities, in the form of fre-
quent property crime and small-scale drug dealing, as their
major income sources.20–24
A recent cost of illness study on the basis of data from an
untreated illicit opiate user cohort in Toronto (N=114),
Canada found a total social cost burden of Cdn $45,000
per untreated user and year, due to lost productivity,
health and health care, and crime and criminal justice
costs.25 Similarly, Hartwig and Pies23 tabulated the direct
and indirect social costs from illicit heroin use in
Germany in 1992 at approximately US $6.5 billion, or
approximately $45,000 per estimated user/year.
THE OPIATE DEPENDENCE TREATMENT LANDSCAPE
A wide variety of treatment interventions exist for illicit
opiate dependence (including detoxification, residential/
abstinence treatments, behavioural interventions). Over
the past few decades, oral opiate pharmacotherapy – pre-
dominantly in the form of methadone maintenance treat-
ment (MMT) which is estimated to make up 90% of all
currently provided opiate pharmacotherapy (except for
France)2 – has become established as the main treatment
for illicit opiate dependence in EMEs. Current local or
national treatment regulations and delivery models,
driven by social, political and professional determinants,
differ considerably.2,38,42 For example, in some juris-
dictions, MMT is delivered through general practitioners
(GPs) or community pharmacies, while other countries
rely primarily on specialized drug treatment clinics (table
1). Differences also exist in terms of treatment require-
ments, i.e. treatment eligibility, psycho-social treatment

Table 1 continued Overview of environmental characteristics of selected planned and ongoing heroin-assisted treatment studies

Estimated Proportion
heroin of heroin
addict Pop. addicts in Status of methadone Status of Kind of study Study target
popula- in treatment maintenance and other heroin-assisted planned/ group focus/
Country tion 1,000 system treatment treatment ongoing remarks References
Spain 150,000– 39,371 40–60% MMT is widely Two heroin trial Andalusia: Objective to Casas
250,000 available mainly protocols exist – injectable ‘normalize’ (2001)36;
(mostly through specialized approved by heroin-assisted treatment of Farrell et al.
IDU) outpatient clinics; plan federal authorities vs. MMT; heroin (2001)2
for pharmacy delivery Catalonia: oral addiction (like
model for MMT for methadone vs ‘diabetes’)
stable patients oral heroin
Switzerlan30,000 7,106 more than Approx. 16,000 in Heroin-assisted Cohort study: Multitude of Rehm,
d 60% MMT; 2,100 in treatment is part of results positive additional Gschwend,
abstinence-based regular opiate with respect to studies Steffen et al.
treatments; 1,100 in treatment system somatic, mental (2001)37;
heroin-assisted by governmental health; Swiss
treatment decision criminality; Methadone
other indicators Report
of social (1996)38;
integration; Dobler-
consumption Mikola et al.
(1998)39;
Farrell et al.
(2001)2
United 150,000– 59,055 35,000 Oral MMT; injectable Injectable heroin Trial planned Which doctors Metrebian
Kingdom 270,000 MMT methadone and heroin available for opiate but unlikely; prescribe heroin (2001)40;
slots available for small addiction study examining to how many Metrebian et
number of patients treatment since current heroin drug users; why al. (1998)41;
1920; since 1968 prescription is treatment so Farrell et al.
only by doctors practices limited? (2001)2
with special licence underway
230
 Heroin-assisted treatment and public health
requirements, dosing, length of treatment, and behavi-
oural surveillance.2,38 Research over the last few decades
consistently shows that for those illicit opiate users who
are successfully attracted into and retained in treatment,
methadone maintenance treatment is generally effective
in improving health status and facilitating socio-eco-
nomic stabilization as well as reducing illicit/injection
drug use and criminal activity.3,43,44
However, although a number of countries have made
oral methadone treatment widely available in diverse
modalities, there is evidence that a considerable propor-
tion of illicit opiate users could not be effectively retained
or attracted into methadone treatment. Treatment study
reviews suggest that 30–70% of subjects leave methadone
treatment within the first 12–24 months,44–46 and many
resist methadone treatment altogether. A rather narrow
empirical basis suggests that these methadone treatment
‘failures’ are linked to a variety of reasons, including
pharmacological properties and side effects of methadone,
route of administration, dosing and delivery charac-
teristics, lack of injection and drug-related euphoria.47–51
From a public health perspective, it is predominantly the
most difficult and problematic opiate users (i.e. in terms
of drug use histories and patterns, somatic and psychiatric
health status, injection risks) who cannot be attracted
into or retained in methadone treatment. These apparent
constraints in the desirability and effectiveness of metha-
done treatment have set ‘natural limits’ for the role and
effectiveness of this form of treatment on a population
level. Illustrative case studies are countries like the
Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Australia where
methadone treatment is most widely and diversely avail-
able yet ‘only’ 50–60% of illicit opiate user populations
are currently in treatment.2,13
In light of the obvious limitations of conventional metha-
done treatment on the one hand, and the severe public
health consequences of untreated illicit opiate use on the
other hand, much time has been invested in searching for
effective complementary forms of opiate pharmaco-
therapy treatment, especially for treatment-resistant
users. The more conventional pharmacotherapy agents
which are either being tested or, by now, used as standard
medication in various local settings are Buprenorphine
(France, Austria, Denmark, US, UK and Australia),
LAAM (Portugal, Denmark, Spain, Germany, US), slow-
release morphine (Austria) and Dihydrocodeine
(Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg).2,10,52,53
HEROIN-ASSISTED TREATMENT AS A THERAPEUTIC
OPTION
The most controversial modality in complementary
opiate pharmacotherapy treatment comes in the form of
heroin-assisted treatment, in which heroin is used as the
main pharmaco-therapeutic agent.42,54,55This discussion
has recently been intensified both on a scientific and
political level with the completion of the large-scale Swiss
heroin-assisted treatment study, 1994–1997, aiming to
answer the fundamental questions of whether heroin-
assisted treatment is: i) effective for users who have failed
in other modes of treatment; and ii) effective in producing
improved health and social outcomes.55,56 Based on the
above described constellations with regards to illicit
opiate dependence, and the successes and limitations of
conventional opiate pharmacotherapy treatment, a num-
ber of Western countries (namely: Australia, Belgium,
Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain,
Switzerland, United Kingdom) have embarked on im-
plementing or developing scientific studies to explore the
potential benefits of heroin-assisted treatment within
their national boundaries. Although the basic context
and rationale for these studies is similar, the specific
approaches, parameters, design, questions and environ-
ments of these studies differ considerably.
Table 1 provides an overview of countries with a proposal
for a heroin-assisted treatment study officially submitted
or to be submitted to the responsible scientific/political
authorities for approval or funding. In the Netherlands,
a large multi-site clinical heroin-assisted treatment trial
is just completed;35 in Germany a multi-site clinical
heroin-assisted treatment trial started in 2002, and the
proposal for a Canadian heroin-assisted treatment
trial has recently been reviewed and recommended for
funding by the country’s main health research funding
organization. In Switzerland and the UK, heroin-assisted
treatment is currently part of the regular treatment
system. The other countries listed in the table are all at
various stages in the planning phase of a heroin-assisted
treatment study.
The UK is in a distinct situation compared to other
countries, as heroin has been allowed as regular medication
in the treatment of opiate dependence since the 1920s,
although it is limited to a select number of specialized,
licensed doctors. A research application for a study ex-
ploring the effectiveness of heroin-assisted treatment has
been developed, but funding is unlikely. However, a study
to examine the current practice of prescribing heroin in
the UK began in 2000.57,58 The policy priorities in the
area of opiate dependence treatment in the UK seem to
be focused on improving the efficacy of MMT at this
point.
Switzerland has completed the original PROVE cohort
study56 examining the impact of heroin-assisted treat-
ment on treatment non-responders. Results showed sub-
stantial improvements in physical and mental health
status, social integration (including a reduction of drug-
related criminal activity), as well as reductions in illicit
drug use.22,37,56 Furthermore, a cost-benefit analysis in-
dicated that the monetary savings due to the listed bene-
fits from heroin-assisted treatment outweigh the financial
costs of this form of treatment.59 Heroin-assisted treat-
ment is now available as one, yet quantitatively limited,
opiate dependence treatment option in Switzerland,
within a wide range of treatments. Altogether, this treat-
ment system has expanded substantially over the past two
decades, from about 700 MMT spaces in 1979, about
10,000 in 1991, to about 18,000 treatment spaces cur-
rently. Abstinence-based treatment increased from 1,900
spaces in 1993 to 2,100 in 1996, and heroin-assisted 231
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH VOL. 12 2002 NO. 3

treatment from 250 treatment spaces in 1994 to 1,100 in In France, a protocol was submitted to health authorities
1998.60 in 1999, and is still awaiting a decision. This protocol uses
The Netherlands had a similar pattern of substantial an RCT design with three arms dividing heroin-assisted
opiate treatment expansion as that in Switzerland, treatment into two components distinguished by
although this expansion began some years earlier. The frequency of delivery (one vs up to three times a day).31
Dutch heroin-assisted treatment study was designed as a The discussion on substitution in France centres mostly
randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) of ‘last resort’ on the role of buprenorphine vs methadone,65 and a
treatment for treatment-resistant subjects, comparing decision in support of the trial is not expected to be
co-prescribed heroin and methadone treatment with finalized soon. Finally, Spain has two protocols for
methadone treatment alone, consisting of separate ex- heroin-assisted treatment trials approved by regional
perimental ‘inhalation’ and ‘injection’ arms. The trial health authorities, and both have recently been approved
began in 1998 with two pilot sites, and then expanded to by federal authorities. One protocol’s design builds on an
six more sites in 2000 with a total of 600 trial subjects. RCT design studying injectable heroin vs MMT (Andalu-
The final results of the study were just released.61 sia), while the other protocol proposes to study oral heroin
Germany’s authorities have approved a multi-site heroin- vs oral methadone (Catalonia). The Catalonian study
assisted treatment study that began in 2002. The final would add significantly to new empirical knowledge, and
revisions of the design have been negotiated between the if successful has obvious public health relevance as the use
regulatory agency (BfArM) and the study group in Ham- of oral opiate substitution treatment would potentially
burg. All study sites have confirmed their participation. reduce the risk of viral infection.
There are two target populations in the trial (methadone
non-responders and opiate addicts currently not in treat- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
ment), and the effectiveness of heroin-assisted treatment Illicit opiate dependence is a major public health problem
will be compared to that of MMT, with an additional in EMEs. Heroin-assisted treatment may help reduce this
experimental variation of psychosocial care (traditional problem by attracting new illicit opiates users into therapy
drug-counselling vs. case management and motivational as well as by offering an alternative treatment for users
therapy). who have failed in conventional treatment modes. The
In the other countries listed in table 1, the time at which Dutch, Swiss, and UK experiences have clearly shown
a systematic heroin-assisted treatment trial will com- that such treatment is feasible. Moreover, the Swiss study
mence is not yet clear. In Australia, a protocol for an RCT has shown overall effectiveness of the combination of
of heroin plus methadone vs methadone alone has been heroin and methadone pharmacotherapy and psycho-
in development since the early 1990s, based on an extens- social care, and the Dutch trial provided data on
ive feasibility research programme.6 The Australian differential effectiveness of heroin vs methadone, avail-
heroin treatment trial was approved by the Ministerial able as of spring 2002. However, basically all newly pro-
Council on Drug Strategy in 1997,13 but was subsequently posed trials attempt to re-demonstrate both feasibility and
blocked by political decision makers.62,63 At this point, effectiveness of heroin-assisted treatment in comparison
the history of the trial and its failure is the subject of to methadone treatment as the ‘gold standard’.
scientific investigation,64 but there are no signs that the Since clinical, injection heroin-assisted treatment trials
project will be revived or implemented soon. However, are very expensive,66 this replication of similar studies in
an upcoming federal election in Australia that could national contexts seems a potential waste of resources.
cause a change in government, may allow a heroin- However, different socio-cultural contexts limit the
assisted treatment trial to proceed. In Belgium, a heroin- generalizability of such trials from one country to another,
assisted treatment trial protocol was submitted to the and the controversy associated with the treatment seems
health authorities in 2000 and is now awaiting approval. to require the national reproduction of these trials for
The Belgian trial proposal is also based on an RCT model. political and symbolic reasons.42 From a public health
Canada submitted a protocol to the national Canadian point of view, it would likely be a more sensible approach
Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) in spring 2001. This to consider heroin like any other pharmaceutical agent
protocol was originally developed in the context of a for the purposes of treatment and try to answer the
multi-centre American study group named the North following questions:
American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI),12 Is heroin-assisted treatment as cost-effective as metha-
and the trial is based on an RCT design with patient done treatment? Are there differences in cost-effect-
attraction and retention as main outcomes. The CIHR iveness for different subgroups of users?
has scientifically reviewed and recommended the trial for What are the differential indications for different forms
funding, and has also recently funded an interdisciplinary of opiate pharmacotherapy?67 Do we really have
opiate-dependence research programme across Canada evidence-based decision criteria which allow one to
including a small-scale heroin-assisted treatment feasibil- match patient characteristics with form of treatment?
ity study. Optimistically, the larger-scale Canadian What are the best overall treatment systems for illicit
heroin-assisted treatment trial could start in three sites opiate dependence or, as more and more patients are
(Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal) in 2003, ethics poly-drug users at treatment entry, for illicit poly-drug
232 review has been obtained for all study sites. dependence? Is heroin-assisted treatment a necessary
 Heroin-assisted treatment and public health
component in such treatment systems? Does it make
sense to establish heroin-assisted treatment when
methadone is not widely and diversely available?
While some country systems may insist on having their
‘own’ trials and findings, also with respect to the point of
cultural specificity or to instill some order into rather
unstructured treatment systems, answering the above
questions would likely contribute far more in dealing with
the overall public health challenge of untreated illicit
opiate dependence in EMEs rather than re-hashing the
questions of overall feasibility and effectiveness of heroin
as a pharmaceutical agent. In this sense, it is hoped
that some of the planned or contemplated trials will
fundamentally re-consider directions and objectives.
It has been shown, that harms and costs related to illicit
drug use on system levels can be substantially reduced
with focused policies.68,69 Heroin-assisted treatment may
play a role in these efforts in established market eco-
nomies. To define and shape this role is one of the
challenges of future systematic and policy-relevant re-
search in this area. We hope that such research will be
driven by a meaningful search for relevant evidence from
a public health perspective rather than be primarily based
on ideology or politics.
This article is based on proceedings of the Satellite meeting of the
International Network Conference in Berne, Switzerland, 23–24
February 2001, organized and funded by the Swiss Federal Office of
Public Health (SFOPH; see www.admin.bag.ch for further details).
Financial support for research for this article was in part provided by
the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, Reference #00.000972,
and the Connaught Fund, University of Toronto, Grant #417623,
and the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR).
REFERENCES
1 United Nations International Drug Control (UNDCP).
World Drug Report. New York, Oxford University Press, 2000.
2 Farrell M, Verster A, Davoli M, Nilson M, Merino PP.
Reviewing current practice in drug-substitution treatment in the
European Union. Luxembourg, European Monitoring Centre for
Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2001.
3 National Institutes of Health. National consensus
development panel on effective medical treatment of opiate
addiction. JAMA 1998;280(22):1936-43.
4 Fischer B, Rehm J. The case for a heroin substitution
treatment trial in Canada. Can J Public Health 1997;88(6):367-70.
5 Hall W, Lynskey M, Degenhardt L. Heroin use in Australia:
its impact on public health and public order. NDARC Monograph
No. 42. Sydney, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 1999.
6 Bammer G. Report and recommendations: feasibility
research into the controlled availability of opioids. Canberra,
National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health and the
Australian Institute of Criminology, 1995.
7 Murray CJ, Lopez AD. The global burden of disease: a
comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from
diseases, injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1996.
8 Waal H. Overstating the case: methodological comments
on ‘The effects of harm reduction in Amsterdam’ by Buning and
van Brussel. Eur Addict Res 1997;31(4):99-204.
9 Rehm J. Situation sociale des consommateurs de drogues.
In: Fahrenkrug H, Rehm J, Müller R, Klingemann H, Linder R,
editors. Drogues illégales en Suisse, 1990-1993. Zürich: Seismo,
1995:35-54.
10 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug
Addiction. Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in
the European Union. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publicaitons
of the European Communities, 2000.
11 Warner-Smith M, Lynskey M, Darke S, Hall W. Heroin
overdose: prevalence, correlates, consequences and interventions.
NDARC Monograph No. 46. Sydney, National Drug and Alcohol
Research Centre, 2000.
12 Kuo I, Fischer B, Vlahov D. Consideration of a North
American heroin-assisted trial for the treatment of
opiate-dependent individuals. Int J Drug Policy 2000;11(5):357-70.
13 Wodak A, Lurie P. A tale of two countries: attempts to
control HIV among injecting drug users in Australia and the
United States. J Drug Issues 1996;21(1):117-34.
14 Loxley W. Doing the possible: harm reduction, injecting
drug use and blood borne viral infections in Australia. Int J Drug
Policy 2000;11(6):407-16.
15 Poulin C, Single E, Fralick P. Canadian Community
Epidemiology Network on Drug Use (CCENDU): Second National
Report. Ottawa, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 1999.
16 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug
Addiction. Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in
the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities, 1999
17 Des Jarlais D. Hepatitis C among drug users: deja vu all
over again? Am J Public Health 2001;91(1):21-2.
18 Kreuzer A, Römer-Klees R, Schneider H.
Beschaffungskriminalität Drogenabhängiger. BKA -
Forschungsreihe, 1991.
19 Brochu S. Drogue et criminalité: une relation complexe.
Montreal: Les Presses de L’Université d’Ottawa et Les Presses de
L’Université de Montréal, 1995.
20 Fischer B, Medved W, Kirst M, Rehm J, Gliksman L. Illicit
opiates and crime: results of an untreated user cohort study in
Toronto. Can J Crim 2001;43(2):197-217.
21 Bretteville-Jensen A, Sutton M. The income-generating
behaviour of injecting drug-users in Oslo. Addiction
1996;91(1):63-79.
22 Killias M, Rabasa J. Does heroin prescription reduce crime?
Results from the evaluation of the Swiss Heroin Prescription
Projects. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 1998;7(1):127-33.
23 Hartwig K, Pies I. Rationale Drogenpolitik in der
Demokratie. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995.
24 Nurco DW. Narcotic drugs and crime: addict behaviour
while addicted versus nonaddicted. NIH Consensus Development
Conference on Effective Medical Treatment of Heroin Addiction,
Bethesda, MD, 17-19 November 1997.
25 Wall R, Rehm J, Fischer B, et al. The social cost of untreated
opiate use. J Urban Health 2001;77(4):688-722.
26 Reggers J. International heroin prescription treatment
trials research - Belgium. Presented at the International Network
Conference on Heroin-assisted Treatment Satellite Meeting.
Berne, 22 February 2001.
27 Fischer B. International heroin prescription treatment
trials research - Canada. Presented at the International Network
Conference on Heroin-assisted Treatment Satellite Meeting.
Berne, 22 February 2001.
28 Fischer B, Rehm J. The case for a heroin substitution
treatment trial in Canada. Can J Public Health 1997;88(6):367-70.
29 Fischer B. Prescriptions, power and politics: the turbulent
history of methadone maintenance in Canada. J Public Health
Policy 2000;21(2):187-210.
30 Barrau K, Thirion X, Micallef J, Chuniaud-Louche C,
Bellemin B, San Marco J. Comparison of methadone and high
dosage buprenorphine users in French care centres. Addiction
2001;96(10):1433-41.
31 Barbier C. International heroin prescription treatment
trials research - France. Personal communication, 23-2-2001.
32 Krausz M. International heroin prescription treatment
trials research - Germany. Presented at the International Network
Conference on Heroin-assisted Treatment Satellite Meeting.
Berne, 22 February 2001.
33 Kalke J, Verthein U, Raschke P. 10 years of substitution
therapy in the German Federal Republic: political development
and evaluation results. Wiener Zeitschrift fur Suchtforschung
1998;21(4):47-54.
34 van den Brink W, van Ree JM. International heroin
prescription treatment trials research - the Netherlands.
Presented at the International Network Conference on
Heroin-assisted Treatment Satellite Meeting. Berne, 22 February
2001.
35 van den Brink W, Hendriks VM, van Ree JM. Medical
co-prescription of heroin to chronic, treatment-resistant
methadone patients in the Netherlands. J Drug Issues
1999;29(3):587-608.
36 Casas M. International heroin prescription treatment
trials research - Spain. Presented at the International Network
Conference on Heroin-assisted Treatment Satellite Meeting.
Berne, 22 February 2001.
37 Rehm J, Gschwend P, Steffen T, Gutzwiller F,
Dobler-Mikola A, Uchtenhagen A. Feasibility, safety and efficacy
of injectable heroin prescription for refractory opioid addicts: a
follow-up study. Lancet 2001;358:1417-20.
38 Swiss Methadone Report. Berne/Toronto,
ISBN 0-88868-277-8, Swiss Federal Office of Public
Health/Addiction Research Foundation, 1996. 233
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH VOL. 12 2002 NO. 3
39 Dobler-Mikola A, Pfeifer S, Müller V, Uchtenhagen A.
Methadon- und heroin-unterstützte Behandlung
Opiatabhängiger im Vergleich. Zürich, Institut für
Suchtforschung, 1998.
40 Metrebian N. International heroin prescription treatment
trials research - United Kingdom. Presented at the International
Network Conference on Heroin-assisted Treatment Satellite
Meeting. Berne, 22 February 2001.
41 Metrebian N, Shanahan W, Wells B, Stimson G. Feasibility
of prescribing injectable heroin and methadone to
opiate-dependent drug users: associated health gains and harm
reductions. MJA 1998;168(12):596-600.
42 Rehm J, Fischer B. Heroingestütze Therapie für
Opiatabhängige weder Allheilmittel noch Teufelswerk.
Suchttherapie 2000;01(02):57-62.
43 Ward J, Hall W, Mattick R. Role of methadone
maintenance in opioid dependence. Lancet 1999;353:221-6.
44 Bertschy G. Methadone maintenance treatment:
an update. Eur Arch Psych Clin Neurosci 1995;245(2):114-24.
45 Ball J, Ross A. The effectiveness of methadone
maintenance treatment: patients, programs, services and
outcome. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991.
46 NIDA. Methadone maintenance treatment: translating
research into policy. Bethesda: National Institute on Drug Abuse,
1995.
47 Koester S, Anderson K, Hoffer L. Active heroin injectors’
perceptions and use of methadone maintenance treatment:
cynical performance or self-prescribed risk reduction? Substance
Use Misuse 1999;34(14):2135-53.
48 Hunt D, Lipton D, Goldsmith D, Strug D, Spunt B. It takes
your heart: the image of methadone maintenance in the addict
world and its effects on recruitment into treatment. Int J of the
Addictions 1986;20(11-12):1751-71.
49 Zule WA, Desmond DP. Attitudes toward methadone
maintenance: implications for HIV prevention. J Psychoactive
Drugs 1998;30(1):89-97.
50 Caplehorn J, Bell J. Methadone dosage and retention of
patients in methadone maintenance. MJA 1991;154(3):195-9.
51 Fischer B, Chin A, Kuo I, Kirst M, Vlahov D. Opiate users’
views on methadone and other opiate prescription treatment in
Canada: a qualitative focus group study. Substance Use Misuse
2002;37(04):495-522.
52 Krausz M, Uchtenhagen A, van den Brink W. Medically
indicated heroin prescription in the treatment of drug addicts:
clinical trials and developments in research in Europe. Sucht
1999;45(3):171-86.
53 Ritter A, Kutin J, Lintzeris N, Bammer G. Expanding
treatment options for heroin dependence in Victoria:
buprenorphine, LAAM, naltrexone and slow-release oral morphine,
New Pharmacotherapies Project - Feasibility Phase. Victoria,
Australia, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre Inc, 1997.
54 Bammer G, Dobler-Mikola A, Fleming P, Strang J,
Uchtenhagen A. The heroin prescribing debate: integrating
science and politics. Science 1999;284(5418):1277-8.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2002; 12: 234–235
C O M M E N T A R Y
Heroin maintenance and attraction to treatment
ROBIN ROOM *
P rofessor Fischer and his colleagues1 offer a useful and
thoughtful overview of developments and plans for
heroin-assisted treatment studies in a total of NINE
countries. The practical problem from which all the trials
start is that some part of the population of regular users of
* Correspondence: Dr. R. Room, Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and
Drugs - SoRad, Stockholm University, Sveaplan, S 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden,
234 fax +46 8 674 7686, e-mail: robin.room@sorad.su.se
55 Ali R, Auriacombe M, Casas M, et al. Report of the
external panel on the evaluation of the Swiss Scientific Studies of
Medically Prescribed Narcotics to Drug Addicts. Sucht
1999;45(3):160-70.
56 Uchtenhagen A, Dobler-Mikola A, Steffen T, Gutzwiller F,
Blattler R, Pfeifer S. Prescription of narcotics for heroin addicts:
main results of the Swiss national cohort study. Medical
prescription of narcotics vol. 1. Basel: Karger, 1999:44-table 11.
57 Metrebian N, Shanahan W, Stimson G, et al. Prescribing
drug of choice to opiate dependent drug users: a comparison of
clients receiving heroin with those receiving injectable
methadone at a West London drug clinic. Drug Alcohol Rev
2001;20(3):267-76.
58 Metrebian N, Stimson G. Heroin prescribing in the UK:
lost opportunities for research. Addiction Res 2000;8(4):305-10.
59 Frei A, Greiner RA, Mehnert A, Dinkel R. Socioeconomic
evaluation of the trials for the medical prescription of opiates,
final report. In: Gutzwiller F, Steffen T, editors. Cost benefit
analysis of heroin maintenance treatment. Basel: Karger Verlag,
2000.
60 Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Die schweizerische
Drogenpolitik. Berne, Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, 1999.
61 van den Brink A, Hendriks V, Blanken P, Huijsman I,
van Ree J. Medical co-prescription of heroin: two randomized
controlled trials. Utrecht: Central Committee on the Treatment of
Heroin Addicts (CCBH), 2002.
62 Hamilton H. The road to nowhere: ACT drug trial.
Collegian 1997;4(4):5.
63 Alroe CJ. Public health and politics: the demise of the ACT
heroin trial. MJA 1998;168(10):527.
64 Lawrence G, Bammer G, Chapman S. ‘Sending the wrong
signal’: analysis of print media reportage of the ACT heroin
prescription trial proposal, August 1997. Aus NZ J Public Health
2000;24(3):254-64.
65 Weber JC, Kopferschmitt J. Les traitements de substitution
chez le toxicomane. Presse Med 1998;27(39):2088-99.
66 Rossier-Affolter R. Cost analysis on the medical
prescription of narcotics. In: Gutzwiller F, Steffen T, editors.
Cost-benefit analysis of heroin maintenance treatment. Basel:
Karger, 2000:9-35.
67 Seidenberg A, Honegger U. Methadon, Heroin und
andere Opioide: Medizinisches Manual für die Ambulante
Opioidgestütze Behandlung. Bern: Huber, 1998.
68 Fischer B, Rehm J, Blitz-Miller T. Injection drug use and
preventive measures: a comparison of Canadian and Western
European jurisdictions over time. CMAJ 2000;162(12):1709-13.
69 Flynn P. Social consequences of and responses to drug
misuse in member states of the Council of Europe. Strasbourg,
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, 2001.
Received 7 May 2001, accepted 3 December 2001
illicit heroin and other opiates does not come voluntarily
into treatment either with prevailing forms of opiate
maintenance or in various ‘drug-free’ treatment regimes,
even when the thresholds for entry to these treatment
modalities are lowered. As Fischer et al. note, in France
the prevailing form of opiate maintenance is with bupre-
norphine; elsewhere, it is with methadone.
The proposition that heroin users should be in treatment
rests on a variety of concerns and assumptions: a socio-