Opioid agonist treatment, including methadone, is the safest and most effective method for treating opioid use disorders and reduces opioid overdose deaths. While access to methadone is highly regulated by federal law, a substantial portion of states impose stricter barriers.

Opioid misuse and its rising rates of morbidity and associated mortality is an increasing area of concern worldwide. The licit/illicit consumption of opioids ranging from plant-based substances and pharmaceutical drugs (particularly analgesia) to the new synthetic opioids, has brought opioid use disorder (OUD) back to the public health concerns, including not only prevention but also availability of evidence-based treatments. Agonist opioids have demonstrated by long high efficacy and effectiveness for OUD treatment. Although methadone has been the more prescribed drug in most of the countries where opioid agonist treatment is available, other agonist opioids can be prescribed. We will present a start of the art of other agonist opioids available for the treatment of OUD, emphasizing in the differences among them, in line with of personalizing treatment in addiction. We will focus on morphine slow release, buprenorphine (with or without naloxone, sublingual or long-lasting) and diacetylmorphine.

In this paper, I reflect on two of my intertwined research interests. The first is my professional engagement with researching drug use and abuse in Ireland, especially heroin addiction, in applied ethnographic projects, generally answering a specific set of questions on how services for ‘drug addiction’ work. My second interest is the historical construction of ‘addiction’ and the discursive intersections that produce various kinds of power, subjects, and techniques around this concept. I find the dialectical relationship between heroin and methadone in Ireland, especially the emergence of heroin ‘injecting rooms’, as a window into how drugs are social things. Drugs and the bodies who take them live in complex moral worlds, not as inert objects surrounded by abstract human creations. These worlds are an integral part of how ‘addiction’ works and how drugs treating addiction are actually used. Without a deeper understanding of such complexities we will continue to miss key issues in the lives of people we hope to help.

A 31-year-old patient of post-surgical recurrent buccal carcinoma (post-chemo and radiotherapy) on multimodal analgesia with methadone, paracetamol and gabapentin presented to pain clinic with occasional bleeding from tumor area and incidental hypercalcemia. The hypercalcemia was attributed to adrenal insufficiency due to methadone, with no other obvious reasons identified for hypercalcemia or adrenal insufficiency. The patient was managed with the change of opioid, regular aseptic wound dressings and management of hypercalcemia with hydration, calcitonin and steroid therapy. Hypercalcemia in a cancer patient can have multiple other causes like hypercalcemia of malignancy and primary or secondary parathyroid carcinoma. A strong clinical suspicion and appropriate battery of tests may be required to arrive at the diagnosis. Prompt management, including identification and management of the primary pathology along with aggressive hydration with hormonal therapy, may prove to be life-saving.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of life of heroin dependent patients before and 1 year after the start of methadone maintenance treatment. Subjects were patients (n = 102) requesting treatment in a public methadone maintenance programme in Geneva (Switzerland). This was a prospective follow-up study using a validated questionnaire (SQLP). The SQLP was well accepted by patients and staff. Validity of the questionnaire was reconfirmed in this population. Compared to previously studied populations, the quality of life of heroin dependent patients before start of treatment was poor. More than half the patients were still in treatment after 1 year and their quality of life had clearly improved, in most domains. Like many of their peers in the psychiatric field, the patients had high initial expectations. Expectations decreased significantly over time. It was found that the higher were the initial expectations, the poorer was the quality of life after 1 year. The quality of life of heroin abusers requesting treatment is mediocre, and improved considerably after 1 year of comprehensive methadone maintenance treatment. Quality of life evaluation is feasible in this population and can offer an additional evaluation of quality of substance abuse treatment.

Harm reduction program in Bosnia and Herzegovina exist only in a form of methadone treatment. This program started in early eighties of the last century.

During the war, this program was unfortunately interupted, and it is revitalized at the beginning of 2002, as an answer to increasing number of addicts during the post-war period.

Recently, we atarted to make first steps in implementation of other harm reduction programs such as needle exchange, prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, and similar.

In this paper we will present three year experience in application of methadone in treatment in our Methadone Maintenance Treatment Center for 190 clients.

We will also try to present our experiences and effectiveness of this type of treatment trough examples from practice, as well as by epidemiological and statistical data.

Research suggests that buprenorphine may possess antidepressant activity. The Beck Depression Inventory was completed at baseline and 3 months by heroin dependent subjects receiving either buprenorphine or methadone maintenance as part of a larger, pre-existing, double blind trial conducted by NDARC (Australia). Depressive symptoms improved in all subjects, with no difference between methadone and buprenorphine groups, suggesting no differential benefit on depressive symptoms for buprenorphine compared to methadone.

Buprenorphine is a partial μ-opioid receptor agonist that is being increasingly used in clinical practice in the treatment of opioid dependence in the UK, USA, and, elsewhere. Its unique pharmacological properties mean it is a relatively safe drug, it can be given by alternate day dispensing, and it is associated with relatively mild symptoms on withdrawal. The interpretation of the research literature on buprenorphine is however, complex, and often appears to be in conflict with how buprenorphine is used in clinical practice. This article describes these apparent contradictions, their likely explanations, and how these may further inform our clinical practice. The article also describes the clinically relevant pharmacological properties of buprenorphine, compares it to methadone, relates the evidence to clinical experience, and provides practical advice on how to manage the most common clinical techniques. The best quality evidence suggests that very rapid buprenorphine induction is not associated with a higher drop-out rate than methadone, that buprenorphine is probably as good as methadone for maintenance treatment, and is superior to methadone and α-2 adrenergic agonists for detoxification. However, buprenorphine cannot yet be considered the ‘gold standard’ treatment for opiate dependence because of the higher drop-out rates that may occur on induction using current techniques, its high-cost relative to methadone, and because the place of buprenorphine in treatment is still continuing to evolve.

This study aimed to determine if morphine is effective in ameliorating Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) symptoms to non-opioid-exposed control levels in methadone- and buprenorphine-exposed infants. A prospective, non-randomized comparison study with flexible dosing was undertaken in a large teaching maternity hospital in Australia. Twenty-five infants in the groups of buprenorphine-, methadone- and control non-opioid-exposed infants were compared (total n = 75 infants). Oral morphine sulphate (1 mg/ml) was administered every 4 h to opioid agonist-exposed infants. Modified Finnegan Withdrawal Scale (MFWS) scores determined dosing: score of 8–10: 0.5 mg/kg/day, 11–13: 0.7 mg/kg/day and 14+: 0.9 mg/kg/day. Withdrawal score, amount of morphine administered and length of hospital stay, were used to assess NAS over a 4-week follow-up period. No controls achieved a score higher than 7 on the MFWS. There was no significant difference in the percentage of infants requiring treatment between methadone (60%) and buprenorphine (48%) infants. For treated infants, significantly (P < 0.01) more morphine was administered to methadone (40.07 ± 3.95 mg) compared with buprenorphine infants (22.77 ± 4.29 mg) to attempt to control NAS. Following treatment initiation, significantly more (P < 0.01) methadone (87%) compared with buprenorphine infants (42%) continued to exceed scoring thresholds for morphine treatment requirement, and non-opioid-exposed control infant scores. For treated infants, there was no significant difference in length of hospital stay between methadone and buprenorphine infants. Morphine treatment was not entirely effective in ameliorating NAS to non-opioid-exposed control symptom levels in methadone or buprenorphine infants. The regimen may be less effective in methadone compared with buprenorphine infants.

Objectives: This study assessed patients' views of a methadone programme in a Dublin general practice including the degree to which the patients were ‘involved in decisions about their treatment’.

Method: All patients receiving methadone were asked to participate. A face to face questionnaire, with open and closed questions, was administered. Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analysed using a thematic approach.

Results: Forty one (87%) of the 47 patients attending the general practice methadone service were interviewed. Of the 39 patients who had used heroin on admission, 69% had stopped and 31% reduced heroin use since starting methadone treatment. A total of 71% reported that the doctor either always involved (59%) or sometimes involved (12%) them in decisions about their treatment. Involvement was interpreted as ‘being listened to’ or ‘having a say’ in deciding methadone dose. Surprisingly those who reported that they were not involved in treatment decisions were more likely to have stopped heroin use (10/11). A significant majority of patients (81%) expressed the desire to stop taking methadone.

Conclusion: Most patients receiving methadone in general practice were listened to and had a say in deciding their methadone dose but did not have an opportunity to engage in more structured or contractual forms of involvement in treatment such as written care plans. In line with a patient centred approach, treatment providers should set their sights beyond the safe delivery of methadone, to provide a service which is centred on patient goals, expectations and choice.