Feasibility, safety, and acceptability of intranasal heroin-assisted treatment in Switzerland: protocol for a prospective multicentre observational cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) is a proven effective treatment option for individuals with severe opioid use disorder (OUD). In Switzerland, pharmaceutical heroin (diacetylmorphine, DAM) is available in tablet form or as injectable liquid. This creates a large barrier for individuals who require the rapid onset of effect but are either unable or do not want to inject, or who primarily snort opioids. Early experimental data has demonstrated that intranasal DAM administration can be a viable alternative to the intravenous or intramuscular route of administration. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of intranasal HAT. METHODS: This study will assess intranasal DAM using a prospective multicentre observational cohort study design in HAT clinics across Switzerland. Patients will be offered to switch from oral or injectable DAM to intranasal DAM. Participants will be followed-up over 3 years, with assessments at baseline, and after 4, 52, 104 and 156 weeks. The primary outcome measure (POM) is retention in treatment. Secondary outcomes (SOM) include prescriptions and routes of administration of other opioid agonists, illicit substance use, risk behaviour, delinquency, health and social functioning, treatment adherence, opioid craving, satisfaction, subjective effects, quality of life, physical health, and mental health. CONCLUSIONS: The results derived from this study will generate the first major body of clinical evidence on the safety, acceptability, and feasibility of intranasal HAT. If proven to be safe, feasible and acceptable, this study would increase the accessibility of intranasal OAT for individuals with OUD globally as a critical improvement in risk reduction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".