The rate of all-cause mortality for people on Opioid Agonist Treatment (buprenorphine or methadone) was 53% LOWER than the rate when people were not on these medications. (1/x)
“This association was consistent regardless of patient sex, age, geographic location, HIV status, and hepatitis C virus status and whether drugs were taken through injection."
AND
“Associations were not different for methadone vs buprenorphine” (2/x)
The researchers found there was:
➡️52% lower risk of suicide,
➡️28% lower risk of cancer,
➡️59% lower drug-related,
➡️41% lower alcohol-related , and
➡️ 31% lower cardiovascular-related mortality during treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. (3/x)
Important note: “In the first 4 weeks of methadone treatment, rates of all-cause mortality and drug-related poisoning were almost double the rates during the remainder of OAT but not for buprenorphine" (first 4 weeks associated with 42% less likelihood of any cause death). (4/x)
The above information should be noted insofar as patients need to receive support and education to reduce risk during early days of methadone. It is not reason to avoid methadone treatment or to say it 'doesn't work' bc it does the longer you're on it. (5/x)
“All-cause mortality was 6 times higher in the 4 weeks after OAT cessation, remaining double the rate for the remainder of time not receiving OAT.”
Currently our jails/prisons force people off these medications, increasing mortality risk.
(6/x)
Many of us already knew this, but this study is the first of its kind to pull together all research on OAT and mortality due to a number of causes and synthesize the findings together.
Many of you in the US might wonder why this study uses "OAT" vs. "MAT." This is done to include methadone and buprenorphine while excluding naltrexone.
➡️Methadone is an opioid agonist.
➡️Buprenorphine is a partial opioid agonist.
➡️Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist. (8/x)
Naltrexone is rarely used as a medication to treat Opioid Use Disorder globally, but it holds a very special place in the hearts of folks in the US - particularly those in the criminal legal system, our abstinence-only settings, etc. (9/x)
Globally, there is clearer consensus that Opioid Use Disorder treatment with opioid agonists or substitutes is actually the best approach with folks currently using unregulated street opioids.
You may find folks using "OAT" or "OST" - Opioid Substitution Treatment abroad. 10/x
Thanks for reading! Done now!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The drug war and criminalization are the unmeasured confounding variables that impact ALL other variables and outcomes in drug and drug policy research.
We don't even know the full extent of how they impact everything we THINK we know about drugs.
FULL STOP.
(1/x)
Some examples:
➡️Any study about the supposed effects of an illicit drug on emotional, mental, physical health and well-being of users.
As long as the participants used the unmonitored and unregulated illicit supply, you never really know what you're measuring. (2/x)
➡️Any study abt the association btwn illicit drug use & outcomes like risk behaviors, treatment engagement, 'recidivism,' housing, employment, etc.
If ppl fear arrest, incarceration, or having a criminal record bars you from accessing these services, we can't pin it on use (3/x)
This is a bit of a tricky issue to explain, but basically - the DEA wants to preemptively schedule every fentanyl analogue in existence and that will ever exist as a Schedule 1 drug with 'high abuse potential and no medical use.' BUT THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA...
1) Not every fentanyl analogue is necessarily even psychoactive, let alone MORE potent than fentanyl.
With class-wide scheduling, someone could get a harsh sentence for trace detectable amounts of a non-psychoactive or less potent fentanyl analogue.
On Monday, JAMA Pediatrics published a new study about the time from drug use initiation to substance use disorder among young people 12-17 and 18-25 for different drugs.
Some politicized it's findings. But they're complicated.
It's tricky to design a study that looks at someone's drug use independent of all their life circumstances and to draw a straight line from that use to the development of a substance use disorder.
Drug use doesn't occur in a bubble.
Though they controlled for some variables like gender, race, family income, ever having a depressive episode, and other substance use disorders, that may not capture other pre-existing personal, social, familial, and environmental factors that may surround a person's drug use.
1) There is clearly this belief that because they are available for free, that somehow every vaccinated person will show up every day for their daily free donut.
They won't. Some might. But that's not how most people work. Most people moderate pleasure.
2) It's also clearly *RICH* to individualize something as policy-driven as sugar consumption, weight, and obesity. An innocent campaign for a free donut isn't going to undo systemic policy choices. (Not my wheelhouse, so I defer to the other tweets on this)
2) Just in time for #NDAFW (National Drug and Alcohol Facts Week) which ends up being a week about fear and stigma, we have released our "10 facts about methamphetamine" page and fact sheet!