scholarly journals Health of cohort of heroin addicts from London clinics: 22 year follow up

BMJ ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 312 (7044) ◽  
pp. 1458-1458 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Tobutt ◽  
E. Oppenheimer ◽  
R. Laranjeira
Keyword(s):  
1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Gutiérrez ◽  
J Ballesteros ◽  
R González-Oliveros ◽  
J Ruíz de Apodaka

SummaryThe main finding of a former Spanish multicenter study (SMS) on the effectiveness of naltrexone maintenance in heroin addicts, was the high retention rate achieved at 24 weeks of follow-up since naltrexone induction (40%). The authors claimed this rate was one of the highest ever reported in the literature for a non-selected sample of opiate addicts and discussed the possible relevance of a set of variables — like motivations and expectations due to a new treatment — on the findings. To assess the possible effects of these variables, we have compared the retention rates in two similar naltrexone programmes. The first programme (hospital sample) included 56 individuals who were also included in the SMS where they accounted for 37% of the total sample. That programme was developed formerly to the naltrexone marketing. The second sample (ambulatory sample) included 67 individuals who were recruited at least a year apart since naltrexone marketing was approved by the Spanish Health Boards. The time-lag between the beginnig of both studies was in the range of 15 to 25 months.The subjects in both programmes had similar distributions regarding age (p = 0.27), sex (p = 0.79), weeks on treatment after naltrexone induction (p = 0.20), and program compliance (p = 0.78). The retention rates evaluated over a period of 24 weeks were also similar (p = 0.45). The only difference appeared at 12 weeks of follow-up, showing in higher retention the hospital sample than the ambulatory sample (+23%; p < 0.05). The results are discussed according to other studies and it is concluded that findings reported in the former SMS and in this study are not unusual but compatible with recent research. Also underlined is the potential importance of naltrexone as a concomitant treatment for extinguishing high risk behaviours and the conditional stimuli associated with treatment relapse in heroin addicts.


1977 ◽  
Vol 130 (6) ◽  
pp. 565-569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Thorley ◽  
Edna Oppenheimer ◽  
Gerry V. Stimson

SummaryHome Office records were used to trace the current status of a sample of 128 persons for whom heroin was prescribed in 1969 at Drug Dependence Clinics in London. In October 1975, after a mean time since self-reported first use of heroin of 11 · 25 years, 51 per cent were attending clinics, 40 per cent alive and not attending, and 9 per cent dead. One third of the sample were still receiving heroin on prescription, and 23 per cent appeared to have received heroin without interruption since 1969. The report points to the need for career studies of addicts' lives and the need for follow-up interviews, especially for the 40 per cent no longer attending clinics.


BMJ ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 1 (6121) ◽  
pp. 1190-1192 ◽  
Author(s):  
G V Stimson ◽  
E Oppenheimer ◽  
A Thorley
Keyword(s):  
Drug Use ◽  

Addiction ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 86 (8) ◽  
pp. 983-990 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. SAN ◽  
G. POMAROL ◽  
J. M. PERI ◽  
J. M. OLLE ◽  
J. CAMI

Addiction ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 89 (10) ◽  
pp. 1299-1308 ◽  
Author(s):  
EDNA OPPENHEIMER ◽  
CLIVE TOBUTT ◽  
COLIN TAYLOR ◽  
TOBY ANDREW

1997 ◽  
Vol 171 (4) ◽  
pp. 335-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Strang ◽  
Isaac Marks ◽  
Sharon Dawe ◽  
Jane Powell ◽  
Michael Gossop ◽  
...  

BackgroundGeneral psychiatrists have recently been encouraged to provide treatment to heroin addicts, including in-patient detoxification. No comparison has previously been made of specialist versus general psychiatric in-patient care.MethodDuring a randomised study of cue exposure, 186 opiate addicts were also randomised to either specialist in-patient (DDU; n=115) or general psychiatric (GEN; n=71) wards in the same hospital.ResultsFrom pre-treatment (post-randomisation) onwards, patient outcomes differed across the two in-patient settings. Of the original randomised sample, significantly more DDU than GEN subjects accepted their randomisation (100 v. 77%), were subsequently admitted (60 v. 42%), and completed in-patient detoxification (45 v. 18%). Of patients admitted, more DDU than GEN patients completed detoxification (75 v. 43%). During seven-month follow-up, of those 43 patients who reached the end of treatment, significantly more ex-DDU than ex-GEN subjects were opiate-free.ConclusionsFrom pre-treatment onwards, significant differences in process and outcome were found after allocation to treatment on either DDU or GEN. Further randomised studies are required to replicate and explain these findings.


1997 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 158S-159S
Author(s):  
P. Blin ◽  
A. Nouveau ◽  
Y. Charpak ◽  
M.P. Martin ◽  
N. Scherbaum ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document