Is There a Need for Heroin Substitution Treatment in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside? Yes There Is, and in Many Other Places Too

Abstract

The prescription of medically-supervised diacetylmorphine, the active ingredient in heroin, to individuals with treatment-refractory opioid dependence is a controversial and often politically charged subject. Just as methadone maintenance was opposed in the 1960s by some treatment providers who preferred abstinence-based therapies, heroin-assisted therapy is now being opposed by some methadone treatment providers–this despite the fact that the effectiveness of heroin-assisted treatment has been demonstrated in no less than six randomized trials in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Canada and the UK. The North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI) trial in Canada clearly showed heroin-assisted therapy to be superior to methadone in individuals with chronic, treatment-refractory heroin addiction both in terms of retention in addiction treatment and clinical response. An international internal review panel, three Research Ethics Boards, the CIHR RCT review panel, the Therapeutic Products Directorate of Health Canada, and several journal peer-reviewers reviewed the NAOMI trial. Nevertheless, authors of a commentary in this issue of CJPH find fault with the trial in terms of methadone prescribing, use of intention-to-treat analysis, safety and cost. We take this opportunity to respond to the numerous misconceptions and errors in their commentary.