Search

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a debilitating and common health issue. General Practitioners (GPs) often prescribe opioids to treat chronic pain, despite limited evidence of benefit and increasing evidence of harms, including prescription Opioid Use Disorder (pOUD). Australian GPs are worried about the harms of long-term opioids, but few are involved in the treatment of pOUD. There is little research on GPs' experiences diagnosing and managing pOUD in their chronic pain patients. METHODS: This qualitative research used semi-structured interviews and a case study to investigate GPs' experiences through the lens of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). TPB describes three factors, an individual's perceived beliefs/attitudes, perceived social norms and perceived behavioural controls. Participants were interviewed via an online video conferencing platform. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-four GPs took part. Participants were aware of the complex presentations for chronic pain patients and concerned about long-term opioid use. Their approach was holistic, but they had limited understanding of pOUD diagnosis and suggested that pOUD had only one treatment: Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT). Participants felt uncomfortable prescribing opioids and were fearful of difficult, conflictual conversations with patients about the possibility of pOUD. This led to avoidance and negative attitudes towards diagnosing pOUD. There were few positive social norms, few colleagues diagnosed or managed pOUD. Participants reported that their colleagues only offered positive support as this would allow them to avoid managing pOUD themselves, while patients and other staff were often unsupportive. Negative behavioural controls were common with low levels of knowledge, skill, professional supports, inadequate time and remuneration described by many participants. They felt OAT was not core general practice and required specialist management. This dichotom

OBJECTIVE: Although most unintentional opioid deaths in Australia are attributed to pharmaceutical opioids, take-home naloxone (THN) programmes have to date predominantly targeted people using illicit opioids in drug treatment and harm reduction settings. We sought to examine the feasibility of delivering THN brief interventions (THN-BIs) with intranasal naloxone in EDs. METHODS: This pilot feasibility study was conducted across three major metropolitan EDs in Sydney and Melbourne. ED staff were surveyed about their perspectives regarding THN before completing a 30-min training programme in THN-BI delivery. Patients presenting with opioid overdose or considered high risk for future overdose were eligible to receive the THN-BI. Staff survey responses were compared between hospitals and provider types using one-way analysis of variances. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were extracted from medical records and compared between hospitals and overdose type using Fisher's exact test and one-way analysis of variances. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-two ED staff completed the survey. One hundred and ten (90.2%) agreed that EDs should provide THN-BIs, whereas 23 (19.2%) identified time constraints and 17 (12.9%) felt uncomfortable discussing overdose with patients. Fifty-seven patients received the THN-BI, with the majority (n = 50, 87.7%) having presented following opioid overdose. The median age was 44 years and 40 (71.4%) were men. Two-thirds of the overdoses (n = 31, 66.0%) were attributed to heroin with one-third (n = 16, 34%) being attributed to pharmaceutical opioids. CONCLUSIONS: ED-based delivery of THN-BIs can reach a wide range of individuals at-risk of overdose. The present study supports the feasibility of THN interventions in EDs and underscores the importance of addressing implementation barriers including staff training.

Summary of recommendations and levels of evidence: Chapter 2: Screening and assessment for unhealthy alcohol use Screening Screening for unhealthy alcohol use and appropriate interventions should be implemented in general practice (Level A), hospitals (Level B), emergency departments and community health and welfare settings (Level C). Quantity–frequency measures can detect consumption that exceeds levels in the current Australian guidelines (Level B). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is the most effective screening tool and is recommended for use in primary care and hospital settings. For screening in the general community, the AUDIT-C is a suitable alternative (Level A). Indirect biological markers should be used as an adjunct to screening (Level A), and direct measures of alcohol in breath and/or blood can be useful markers of recent use (Level B). Assessment Assessment should include evaluation of alcohol use and its effects, physical examination, clinical investigations and collateral history taking (Level C). Assessment for alcohol-related physical problems, mental health problems and social support should be undertaken routinely (GPP). Where there are concerns regarding the safety of the patient or others, specialist consultation is recommended (Level C). Assessment should lead to a clear, mutually acceptable treatment plan which specifies interventions to meet the patient’s needs (Level D). Sustained abstinence is the optimal outcome for most patients with alcohol dependence (Level C). Chapter 3: Caring for and managing patients with alcohol problems: interventions, treatments, relapse prevention, aftercare, and long term follow-up Brief interventions Brief motivational interviewing interventions are more effective than no treatment for people who consume alcohol at risky levels (Level A). Their effectiveness compared with standard care or alternative psychosocial interventions varies by treatment setting. They are most effective in prim

Objectives To examine the safety of an agonist-type treatment, lisdexamfetamine (LDX), at 250 mg/day among adults with methamphetamine (MA) dependence. Design A dose-escalating, phase-2, open-label, single-group study of oral LDX at two Australian drug treatment services. Setting The study was conducted at two Australian stimulant use disorder treatment clinics. Participants There were 16 participants: at least 18 years old, MA dependent for at least the preceding 2 years using ICD-10 criteria, reporting use of MA on at least 14 of the preceding 28 days. Interventions Daily, supervised LDX of 100-250 mg, single-blinded to dose, ascending-descending regimen over 8 weeks (100-250 mg over 4 weeks; followed by 4-week dose reduction regimen, 250-100 mg). Participants were followed through to week 12. Outcomes Primary outcomes were safety, drug tolerability and regimen completion at the end of week 4. Participants were followed to week 12. Secondary outcomes included: change in MA use; craving; withdrawal; severity of dependence; risk behaviour; change in other substance use; medication acceptability; potential for non-prescription use; adherence and neurocognitive functioning. Results Fourteen of 16 participants (87.5%) completed escalation to 250 mg/day. Two participants withdrew from the trial in the first week: one relocated away from the study site, the other self-withdrew due to a possible, known side effect of LDX (agitation). There was one serious adverse event of suicidal ideation which resolved. All other adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and known side effects of LDX. No participant was withdrawn due to adverse events. MA use decreased from a median of 21 days (IQR: 16-23) to 13 days (IQR: 11-17) over the 4-week escalation period (p=0.013). Conclusions LDX at a dose of up to 250 mg/day was safe and well tolerated by study participants, warranting larger trials as a pharmacotherapy for MA dependence. Trial registration number ACTRN12615000391572.

OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Chapter 2: Screening and assessment for unhealthy alcohol use Screening Screening for unhealthy alcohol use and appropriate interventions should be implemented in general practice (Level A), hospitals (Level B), emergency departments and community health and welfare settings (Level C). Quantity-frequency measures can detect consumption that exceeds levels in the current Australian guidelines (Level B). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is the most effective screening tool and is recommended for use in primary care and hospital settings. For screening in the general community, the AUDIT-C is a suitable alternative (Level A). Indirect biological markers should be used as an adjunct to screening (Level A), and direct measures of alcohol in breath and/or blood can be useful markers of recent use (Level B). Assessment Assessment should include evaluation of alcohol use and its effects, physical examination, clinical investigations and collateral history taking (Level C). Assessment for alcohol-related physical problems, mental health problems and social support should be undertaken routinely (GPP). Where there are concerns regarding the safety of the patient or others, specialist consultation is recommended (Level C). Assessment should lead to a clear, mutually acceptable treatment plan which specifies interventions to meet the patient's needs (Level D). Sustained abstinence is the optimal outcome for most patients with alcohol dependence (Level C). Chapter 3: Caring for and managing patients with alcohol problems: interventions, treatments, relapse prevention, aftercare, and long term follow-up Brief interventions Brief motivational interviewing interventions are more effective than no treatment for people who consume alcohol at risky levels (Level A). Their effectiveness compared with standard care or alternative psychosocial interventions varies by treatment setting. They are most effective in primary care

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Not all people experiencing opioid dependence benefit from oral opioid agonist treatment. The aim of this study was to examine perceptions of (supervised) injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) (described as 'an opioid similar to heroin self-injected at a clinic several times a day') among people who regularly use opioids and determine how common iOAT eligibility criteria accord with interest in iOAT. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey SETTING: Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, Australia PARTICIPANTS: A total of 344 people (63% male) who use opioids regularly and had ever injected opioids, interviewed December 2017-March 2018. The mean age of participants was 41.5 years [standard deviation (SD) = 8.5]. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome measures were interest in iOAT, factors associated with interest and the proportion of participants who would be eligible using common criteria from trials and guidelines. We examined willingness to travel for iOAT, medication preferences and perspectives on whom should receive iOAT. FINDINGS: Overall, 53% of participants (n = 182) believed that iOAT would be a good treatment option for them. Participants who believed that iOAT was a good treatment option for them were more likely to be male [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-2.82], have used heroin in the past month (aOR = 6.03, 95% CI = 2.86-12.71), currently regularly inject opioids (aOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.16-2.91) and have met ICD-10 criteria for opioid dependence (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.65-7.24). Those interested in iOAT had commenced more treatment episodes (aOR =1.06, 95% CI = 1.00-1.12). Among those interested in iOAT (n = 182), 26% (n = 48) met common eligibility criteria for iOAT. CONCLUSIONS: Interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment does not appear to be universal among people who regularly use opioids. Among study participants who expressed interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment, most did not meet common elig

The impact of COVID-19 across health services, including treatment services for people who use drugs, is emerging but likely to have a high impact. Treatment services for people who use drugs provide essential treatment services including opiate agonist treatment and needle syringe programmes alongside other important treatment programmes across all substance types including withdrawal and counselling services. Drug and alcohol hospital consultation-liaison clinicians support emergency departments and other services provided in hospital settings in efficiently managing patients who use drugs and present with other health problems. COVID-19 will impact on staff availability for work due to illness. Patients may require home isolation and quarantine periods. Ensuring ongoing supply of opiate treatment during these periods will require significant changes to how treatment is provided. The use of monthly depot buprenorphine as well as moving from a framework of supervised dosing will be required for patients on sublingual buprenorphine and methadone. Ensuring ready access to take-home naloxone for patients is crucial to reduce overdose risks. Delivery of methadone and buprenorphine to the homes of people with confirmed COVID-19 infections is likely to need to occur to support home isolation. People who use drugs are likely to be more vulnerable during the COVID-19 epidemic, due to poorer health literacy and stigma and discrimination towards this group. People who use drugs may prioritise drug use above other health concerns. Adequate supply of clean injecting equipment is important to prevent outbreaks of blood-borne viruses. Opiate users may misinterpret SARS-CoV2 symptoms as opiate withdrawal and manage this by using opioids. Ensuring people who use drugs have access to drug treatment as well as access to screening and testing for SARS-CoV2 where this is indicated is important.

Introduction Opioid agonist treatment is effective for opioid dependence and newer extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) injections represent a significant development. The Community Long-Acting Buprenorphine (CoLAB) study aims to evaluate client outcomes among people with opioid dependence receiving 48 weeks of BUP-XR treatment, and examines the implementation of BUP-XR in diverse community healthcare settings in Australia. Methods and analysis The CoLAB study is a prospective single-arm, multicentre, open-label trial of monthly BUP-XR injections in people with opioid dependence. Participants are being recruited from a network of general practitioner and specialist drug treatment services located in the states of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia in Australia. Following a minimum 7 days on 8-32 mg of sublingual buprenorphine (±naloxone), participants will receive monthly subcutaneous BUP-XR injections administered by a healthcare practitioner at intervals of 28 days (-2/+14 days). The primary endpoint is participant retention in treatment at 48 weeks after treatment initiation. Secondary endpoints will evaluate dosing schedule variations, craving, withdrawal, substance use, health and well-being, and client-reported treatment experience. Qualitative and costing substudies will examine implementation barriers and facilitators at the client and provider level. Ethics and dissemination The study has received ethics approval from the St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref. HREC/18/SVH/221). The findings will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at national and international scientific conferences, and in relevant community organisation publications and forums. Trial registration number NCT03809143 Protocol identifier CoLAB1801, V.4.0 dated 01 August 2019

BACKGROUND: Interest in the use of cannabis and cannabinoids to treat chronic non-cancer pain is increasing, because of their potential to reduce opioid dose requirements. We aimed to investigate cannabis use in people living with chronic non-cancer pain who had been prescribed opioids, including their reasons for use and perceived effectiveness of cannabis; associations between amount of cannabis use and pain, mental health, and opioid use; the effect of cannabis use on pain severity and interference over time; and potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabis. METHODS: The Pain and Opioids IN Treatment study is a prospective, national, observational cohort of people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids. Participants were recruited through community pharmacies across Australia, completed baseline interviews, and were followed up with phone interviews or self-complete questionnaires yearly for 4 years. Recruitment took place from August 13, 2012, to April 8, 2014. Participants were asked about lifetime and past year chronic pain conditions, duration of chronic non-cancer pain, pain self-efficacy, whether pain was neuropathic, lifetime and past 12-month cannabis use, number of days cannabis was used in the past month, and current depression and generalised anxiety disorder. We also estimated daily oral morphine equivalent doses of opioids. We used logistic regression to investigate cross-sectional associations with frequency of cannabis use, and lagged mixed-effects models to examine temporal associations between cannabis use and outcomes. FINDINGS: 1514 participants completed the baseline interview and were included in the study from Aug 20, 2012, to April 14, 2014. Cannabis use was common, and by 4-year follow-up, 295 (24%) participants had used cannabis for pain. Interest in using cannabis for pain increased from 364 (33%) participants (at baseline) to 723 (60%) participants (at 4 years). At 4-year follow-up, compared with people with no cannabis use, we

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Despite large increases in pharmaceutical opioid dependence and related mortality, few studies have focused on the characteristics and treatment experiences of those with pharmaceutical opioid dependence. We describe the formation of a prospective cohort of people receiving treatment for pharmaceutical opioid dependence and describe their baseline characteristics. DESIGN AND METHODS: People who had entered treatment for pharmaceutical opioid dependence (n = 108) were recruited through drug treatment services in New South Wales, Australia. We describe baseline characteristics of those that commenced pharmaceutical opioids for pain or other reasons and conducted a thematic analysis of responses regarding their treatment experience. RESULTS: Mean age was 41 years (SD 11), half were male (48%). Just over half reported lifetime heroin use (57%). Oxycodone (49%) and codeine (29%) were the most common opioids reported. Most (85%) reported past-year problematic pain, 38% reported chronic pain. Half (52%) reported moderate to severe depression symptoms. Most (66%) commenced opioids for pain, and this group were older, less likely to report a previous overdose and less likely to report use of illicit drugs compared to those commencing for other reasons. Five themes related to treatment expectations: (i) stigma; (ii) the restrictive nature of treatment; (iii) knowledge; (iv) pain; and (v) positive experience with buprenorphine. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the complexities in an important emerging treatment population of pharmaceutical opioid-dependent people. Findings highlights that addressing knowledge and perceptions around treatment may be critical to address the rising mortality associated with pharmaceutical opioid dependence.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Take-home naloxone (THN) programs commenced in Australia in 2012 in the Australian Capital Territory and programs now operate in five Australian jurisdictions. The purpose of this paper is to record the progress of THN programs in Australia, to provide a resource for others wanting to start THN projects, and provide a tool for policy makers and others considering expansion of THN programs in this country and elsewhere. DESIGN AND METHODS: Key stakeholders with principal responsibility for identified THN programs operating in Australia provided descriptions of program development, implementation and characteristics. Short summaries of known THN programs from each jurisdiction are provided along with a table detailing program characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: Data collected across current Australian THN programs suggest that to date over 2500 Australians at risk of overdose have been trained and provided naloxone. Evaluation data from four programs recorded 146 overdose reversals involving naloxone that was given by THN participants. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Peer drug user groups currently play a central role in the development, delivery and scale-up of THN in Australia. Health professionals who work with people who use illicit opioids are increasingly taking part as alcohol and other drug-related health agencies have recognised the opportunity for THN provision through interactions with their clients. Australia has made rapid progress in removing regulatory barriers to naloxone since the initiation of the first THN program in 2012. However, logistical and economic barriers remain and further work is needed to expand access to this life-saving medication.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. Introduction Methamphetamine dependence is a growing public health concern. There is currently no pharmacotherapy approved for methamphetamine dependence. Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) dimesylate, used in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and binge eating disorder, has potential as an agonist therapy for methamphetamine dependence, and possible benefits of reduced risk of aberrant use due to its novel formulation. Methods and analysis A double-blind randomised controlled trial will be used to evaluate the efficacy of LDX in reducing methamphetamine use. The target sample is 180 participants with methamphetamine dependence of =2 years, using =14 days out of the previous 28, who have previously attempted but not responded to treatment for methamphetamine use. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either a 15-week intervention consisting of induction (1 week of 150 mg LDX or placebo), maintenance (12 weeks of 250 mg LDX or placebo) and reduction (1 week of 150 mg LDX or placebo and 1 week of 50 mg LDX or placebo). All participants will be given access to four sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy as treatment as usual and receive a 4-week follow-up appointment. The primary outcomes are efficacy (change from baseline in days of methamphetamine use by self-report for the last 28 days at week 13 and urinalyses confirmation of methamphetamine use) and safety (treatment-related adverse events). Secondary outcomes are total number of days of self-report methamphetamine use over the 12-week active treatment, longest period of abstinence during treatment period, percentage of achieving =21 days abstinence, craving, withdrawal, dependence, retention, bloodborne virus transmission risk behaviour, criminal behaviour, as well measures of abuse liability, physical and mental health, other substance use, cognit

© 2018 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs. Introduction and Aims: Take-home naloxone (THN) programs commenced in Australia in 2012 in the Australian Capital Territory and programs now operate in five Australian jurisdictions. The purpose of this paper is to record the progress of THN programs in Australia, to provide a resource for others wanting to start THN projects, and provide a tool for policy makers and others considering expansion of THN programs in this country and elsewhere. Design and Methods: Key stakeholders with principal responsibility for identified THN programs operating in Australia provided descriptions of program development, implementation and characteristics. Short summaries of known THN programs from each jurisdiction are provided along with a table detailing program characteristics and outcomes. Results: Data collected across current Australian THN programs suggest that to date over 2500 Australians at risk of overdose have been trained and provided naloxone. Evaluation data from four programs recorded 146 overdose reversals involving naloxone that was given by THN participants. Discussion and Conclusions: Peer drug user groups currently play a central role in the development, delivery and scale-up of THN in Australia. Health professionals who work with people who use illicit opioids are increasingly taking part as alcohol and other drug-related health agencies have recognised the opportunity for THN provision through interactions with their clients. Australia has made rapid progress in removing regulatory barriers to naloxone since the initiation of the first THN program in 2012. However, logistical and economic barriers remain and further work is needed to expand access to this life-saving medication.

Introduction and Aims: Take-home naloxone (THN) programs have been operating in Australia since 2012 in a variety of settings. We examine whether THN programs were effective in increasing knowledge about opioid overdose and appropriate responses in program participants. Design and Methods: Data were obtained from pre- and post-training questionnaires administered as part of the early evaluations of THN naloxone programs operated in Sydney (n =67), Melbourne (n =280), Perth (n =153) and Canberra (n =183). Pooled data from comparable items, analysed in the domains specified in previously-developed evaluation scales, were compared using repeated-measures analysis of variance and random effects logistic regression. Results pre- and post-training were compared as well as results across sites. Results: High levels of knowledge about overdose risks and signs and appropriate actions to take were observed at baseline and this generally improved over time. No substantial differences were identified across cities. Knowledge also increased with participant age but the improvements over time were similar in each age group. There were small differences by participant gender with knowledge generally higher among females. Discussion and Conclusions: THN programs are effective in improving knowledge related to overdose response. Major improvements in knowledge were limited to overdose recognition and effect of naloxone suggesting that education may best be focused on overdose signs and the use of naloxone among populations accessed through these programs. A focus on younger people also appears warranted. Further work is needed to understand the impact of training and knowledge on actual behaviours around overdose events.

Methadone vs Buprenorphine Three studies compared methadone with buprenorphine (Table). No difference was found in the mean number of days of opioid use (assessed during final 30 days of the intervention, 1.51 days [SD, 4.97 days] for methadone vs 2.92 days [SD, 6.38 days] for buprenorphine; mean difference,-1.41 [95% CI,-3.37 to 0.55]; P = .16), opioid use as measured by opioid-positive urine drug screening (27 of 79 participants [34.2%] formethadone vs 51 of 117 participants [43.6%] for buprenorphine; risk ratio [RR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.18]; P = .28), and self-reported opioid use (11 of 66 participants [16.7%] for methadone vs 34 of 89 participants [38.2%] for buprenorphine; RR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.08 to 1.63]; P = .19). No between-group difference was found in treatment adherence for methadone (Table).

Cannabinoids, when co-administered with opioids, may enable reduced opioid doses without loss of analgesic efficacy (ie, an opioid-sparing effect). The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine the opioid-sparing potential of cannabinoids. Eligible studies included pre-clinical and clinical studies for which the outcome was either analgesia or opioid dose requirements. Clinical studies included controlled studies and case series. We searched Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, and Embase. Nineteen pre-clinical and nine clinical studies met the search criteria. Seventeen of the 19 pre-clinical studies provided evidence of synergistic effects from opioid and cannabinoid co-administration. Our meta-analysis of pre-clinical studies indicated that the median effective dose (ED 50) of morphine administered in combination with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) is 3.6 times lower (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95, 6.76; n=6) than the ED 50 of morphine alone. In addition, the ED 50 for codeine administered in combination with delta-9-THC was 9.5 times lower (95% CI 1.6, 57.5, n=2) than the ED 50 of codeine alone. One case series (n=3) provided very-low-quality evidence of a reduction in opioid requirements with cannabinoid co-administration. Larger controlled clinical studies showed some clinical benefits of cannabinoids; however, opioid dose changes were rarely reported and mixed findings were observed for analgesia. In summary, pre-clinical studies provide robust evidence of the opioid-sparing effect of cannabinoids, whereas one of the nine clinical studies identified provided very-low-quality evidence of such an effect. Prospective high-quality-controlled clinical trials are required to determine the opioid-sparing effect of cannabinoids.

Introduction: Use of opioid agonist treatments for prescription opioid (PO) dependence is rapidly increasing. Current guidelines are based on research with heroin users. This study aimed to examine methadone and buprenorphine dose requirements for PO-dependent people. Design and Methods: A retrospective case series of PO-dependent patients entering methadone and buprenorphine treatment. Daily oral morphine equivalent (OME) doses at baseline were calculated using standard dose conversion calculations. Dose conversion tables were used to estimate opioid agonist doses, based on starting dose of PO. Baseline methadone and buprenorphine dose at days 7 and 28 were examined. Linear models were fit to the data. Results: Participants (n = 44) were 67% male, mean age 41 years (SD 10 years); 69% reported a pain condition. The methadone group (n = 21) had a mean PO dose of 704.5 mg OME (SD 783.5 mg) prior to treatment, and mean methadone dose of 45.3 mg (SD 13.1 mg) at day 7 and 61.6 mg (SD 20.8 mg) at day 28. The buprenorphine group (n = 23) had a mean PO dose of 771.7 mg OME (SD 867.7 mg) prior to treatment, with a mean dose of 14.6 mg (SD 8.3 mg) at day 7 and 18.1 (SD 8.9 mg) at day 28. Linear relationships were not found between OME and opioid agonist dose. Conclusions: Opioid agonist dosages varied substantially between individuals, and from predicted dosages based on dose conversion tables. Use of conversion tables to guide selection of opioid agonist dosage may compromise patient safety. [Nielsen S, Bruno R, Degenhardt L, Demirkol A, Lintzeris N. Opioid agonist doses for oxycodone and morphine dependence: Findings from a retrospective case series Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;36:311–316].

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) are routinely used in diagnosing illicit substance use disorders, but for people taking prescribed opioids they remain controversial. In pain medicine, the concept of "Addiction" is preferred with reduced emphasis on tolerance and withdrawal. This article examines the prevalence and characteristics of pharmaceutical opioid dependence/disorder according to ICD, DSM, and the pain medicine concept of "Addiction," among chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) patients prescribed opioids. In the current study, we used data from a national sample of 1134 people prescribed opioids for CNCP. Past 12-month "Addiction" (based on Pain Medicine definition), DSM, and ICD dependence definitions were assessed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Twenty-four percent of the cohort met the criteria for "Addiction," 18% for DSM-5 use disorder and 19% for ICD-11 dependence. There was "substantial" concordance between "Addiction" and both DSM-5 use disorder and ICD-11 dependence, although concordance was much greater with ICD-11 dependence (kappa 0.63 and 0.79, respectively). Participants meeting the criteria for "Addiction" only were older, less likely to engage in nonadherent behaviours, self-reported fewer problems or concerns with their medication, and had lower rates of psychological distress than those who also met the DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria. The definition of "Addiction" captures a larger group of patients than other classification systems and includes people with fewer "risk" behaviours. Despite removal of tolerance and withdrawal for prescribed opioid use for DSM-5, we found that "Addiction" was more closely related to an ICD-11 diagnosis of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.

Introduction and Aims: Codeine dependence is an emerging public health concern, yet no studies have specifically examined the treatment of codeine dependence. Given the lower potency of codeine it cannot be assumed that buprenorphine dose requirements for heroin dependence will generalise to codeine. This is the first study to examine buprenorphine treatment for codeine dependence.Design and Methods: Retrospective case series of 19 codeine-dependent treatment entrants who received sublingual buprenorphine maintenance treatment through six specialist inpatient and outpatient treatment centres. Baseline codeine doses and buprenorphine dose at days 7 and 28 were collected, in addition to details on general demographics, pain and mental health, substance use and outcomes after 28 days of buprenorphine treatment.Results: A significant linear relationship was found between initial codeine dose and dose of buprenorphine given at days 7 and 28 for the codeine dose range of 50-960 mg day-1 (mean: 564 mg; 95% confidence interval 431-696 mg). Median buprenorphine dose was 12.0 mg (interquartile range 9.5 mg, range 4-32 mg) at day 7 and 16.0 mg (interquartile range 13.5 mg, range 4-32 mg) at day 28. Buprenorphine doses received were markedly higher than estimated codeine doses based on standard dose conversion tables.Discussion and Conclusions: With increasing presentations relating to codeine dependence, these findings provide important guidance to clinicians. Buprenorphine doses were consistently higher than doses estimated based on the dose of codeine consumed, and were comparable with doses used in the treatment of dependence with heroin and more potent prescription opioids. [Nielsen S, Bruno R, Murnion B, Dunlop A, Degenhardt L, Demirkol A, Muhleisen P, Lintzeris N. Treating codeine dependence with buprenorphine: Dose requirements and induction outcomes from a retrospective case series in New South Wales, Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev 2015].

Background: There are increasing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid harms including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin. Objectives: To assess the effects of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Search methods: The search included the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Specialised Register of Trials; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 5); PubMed (January 1966 to May 2015); EMBASE (Ovid) (January 1974 to May 2015); CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1982 to May 2015); ISI Web of Science (to May 2014); and PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to May 2014). Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons: 1. full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment and 2. full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus placebo, detoxification only, or psychological treatment (without opioid agonist treatment). Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Main results: We identified six randomised controlled trials that met inclusion criteria (607 participants). We found moderate quality evidence from two studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine in self reported opioid use (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 1.63) or opioid positive urine drug tests (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.18). There was low quality evidence from three studies of no difference in retention between buprenorphine and methadone maintenance treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22). T

Study Objectives: To examine sleep disturbances in the POINT cohort study consisting of participants prescribed long-term opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), and to examine the relationship between sleep and measures of pain, physical and mental health, substance use, and medication use at the baseline interview. Methods: A convenience sample of 1243 participants with current CNCP and prescription opioid use were recruited from community settings and underwent a structured interview examining subjective sleep symptoms (Medical Outcomes Study [MOS] Sleep Scale and the Sleep Problems Index [SLP-9]), the pain severity and interference using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), mental and physical health symptoms, and recent substance and medication use. Linear regression models assessed independent predictors of SLP-9 scores. Results: The median hours of sleep per night was 6 (IQR, 5 to 7.5), with 26% reporting optimal sleep (7 to 8 hours), and a mean SLP-9 score of 47.3 (SD=20.9). In multivariate analysis, age, frequent/severe headaches, BPI pain severity and pain interference scores, moderate to severe anxiety or depression, daily tobacco use, and benzodiazepine use in the past week were significant predictors of SLP-9 scores and sleep quality. Higher MOS respiratory impairment was observed in men, in those with a high body mass index, frequent/severe headaches, and high pain interference scores, and in patients taking anticonvulsants and antipsychotic medications. Opioid use was not associated with SLP-9 or respiratory sleep impairment. Conclusions: High levels of sleep problems were reported in this community sample of CNCP patients prescribed long-term opioids, and were associated with mental health problems and increased medication use. Nonmedication approaches to addressing sleep problems should be prioritized in this population.

© 2016 . Background: The utilisation of pharmaceutical opioids has increased internationally, and there is evidence of increasing risky alcohol consumption with ageing. This study examines the patterns and correlates of risky drinking among people with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) prescribed opioids, and the associations between alcohol consumption and pain. Methods: The Pain and Opioids IN Treatment cohort comprises 1514 people in Australia prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for CNCP. Participants reported lifetime, past year and past month alcohol use, as well as mental and physical health, other substance use, pain characteristics, and current opioid dose. Results: Less than one-tenth of the sample were 'lifetime abstainers' (7%); 34% were 'former drinkers'; 34% were 'non-risky drinkers' (i.e., past 12 month use ≤4 standard drinks); 16% were 'occasional risky drinkers'; and 8% were 'regular risky drinkers' (i.e., ≥weekly use of >4 standard drinks). Males reported greater levels of alcohol use, and a third (33%) of the total sample reported a lifetime alcohol use disorder. Controlling for demographics, mental health, physical health and substance use disorder history, 'former drinkers' (cf. 'non-risky drinkers') reported higher pain severity and interference ratings, and lower pain coping. 'Occasional risky drinkers' and 'regular risky drinkers' (cf. 'non-risky drinkers') reported higher levels of pain interference. Conclusions: Among people with CNCP, those who abstained from alcohol or drank at risky levels reported poorer pain outcomes compared with moderate drinkers. Early identification and intervention for risky drinking among people is critical, particularly given the risks associated with co-administration of alcohol and opioids.

Background Alprazolam, has been associated with disproportionate harms compared to other benzodiazepines, especially among people in opioid substitution treatment (OST). We examine the effect of the rescheduling of alprazolam in Australia, from Schedule 4 to Schedule 8 in February 2014 amongst a high-risk population of clients in OST. Methods OST participants who reported recent (last month) alprazolam use were recruited from three Sydney clinics. Participants (n = 57) were interviewed immediately prior to rescheduling and again three months and 12 months after rescheduling. We examined self-reported patterns of drug use, drug availability, mental and physical health. A linear mixed models approach was used to analyse changes in alprazolam and other benzodiazepine use. Results Mean days of alprazolam use in the past 28 days decreased from 13.7 to 7.1 days, and mean weekly alprazolam dose decreased from 15.1 mg to 6.1 mg at 12 months follow-up (p = 0.001). Total weekly benzodiazepine use also reduced from a mean of 222 mg diazepam equivalent to 157 mg (p = 0.044). Other substance use did not change significantly. Reported mode of cost price of street alprazolam doubled from $5 to $10 over the 12-month period. Conclusion Alprazolam rescheduling resulted in an overall reduction in alprazolam and total benzodiazepine use, without substitution with other drugs, in the short term. Unintended harms were not observed. Rescheduling appears to have been effective in reducing alprazolam use in this high-risk population.

Objective The aims were to determine: (i) quantity and frequency of same-day use of opioids with benzodiazepines and/or alcohol amongst people who regularly tamper with pharmaceutical opioids; and (ii) socio-demographic, mental health, harms and treatment profile associated with same-day use of high doses. Method The cohort (n = 437) completed a retrospective 7-day diary detailing opioid, benzodiazepine, and alcohol intake. Oral morphine equivalent (OME) units and diazepam equivalent units (DEU) were calculated, with >200 mg OME, >40 mg DEU and >4 standard alcoholic drinks (each 10 g alcohol) considered a “high dose”. Results One-half (47%) exclusively consumed opioids without benzodiazepines/alcohol; 26% had days of opioid use with and without benzodiazepines/alcohol; and 26% always used opioids and benzodiazepines/alcohol. Same-day use of opioids with benzodiazepines/alcohol typically occurred on 1–3 days in the past week. Six in ten (61%) participants reported high dose opioid use on at least one day; one in five (20%) reported high dose opioid and high dose benzodiazepine/alcohol use on at least one day. The latter group were more likely to use prescribed opioid substitution therapy, often alongside diverted pharmaceutical opioids. Socio-demographic and clinical profiles did not vary according to high dose opioid, alcohol and benzodiazepine use, and there was no association with harms. Conclusions Same-day use of opioids with benzodiazepines/alcohol, and high dose combinations, are common amongst people who tamper with pharmaceutical opioids. Assessment of concomitant benzodiazepine/alcohol use during opioid therapy, implementation of real-time prescription monitoring systems, and research to clarify upper safe limits for polydrug depressant use, are potential implications.

Background: Australian clinical trials are planned to evaluate medicinal cannabis in a range of clinical contexts. Aims: To explore the preferences, attitudes and beliefs of patients eligible and willing to consider participation in a clinical trial of medicinal cannabis for poor appetite and appetite-related symptoms from advanced cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional anonymous survey was administered from July to December 2015 online and in eight adult outpatient palliative care and/or cancer services. Respondents were eligible if they were ≥18 years, had advanced cancer and poor appetite/taste problems/weight loss and might consider participating in a medicinal cannabis trial. Survey items focused on medicinal rather than recreational cannabis use and did not specify botanical or pharmaceutical products. Items asked about previous medicinal cannabis use and preferences for delivery route and invited comments and concerns. Results: There were 204 survey respondents, of whom 26 (13%) reported prior medicinal cannabis use. Tablets/capsules were the preferred delivery mode (n = 144, 71%), followed by mouth spray (n = 84, 42%) and vaporiser (n = 83, 41%). Explanations for preferences (n = 134) most commonly cited convenience (n = 66; 49%). A total of 82% (n = 168) of respondents indicated that they had no trial-related concerns, but a small number volunteered concerns about adverse effects (n = 14) or wanted more information/advice (n = 8). Six respondents volunteered a belief that cannabis might cure cancer, while two wanted assurance of efficacy before participating in a trial. Conclusion: Justification of modes other than tablets/capsules and variable understanding about cannabis and trials will need addressing in trial-related information to optimise recruitment and ensure that consent is properly informed.

© 2016 Royal Australasian College of Physicians Background: Australian clinical trials are planned to evaluate medicinal cannabis in a range of clinical contexts. Aims: To explore the preferences, attitudes and beliefs of patients eligible and willing to consider participation in a clinical trial of medicinal cannabis for poor appetite and appetite-related symptoms from advanced cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional anonymous survey was administered from July to December 2015 online and in eight adult outpatient palliative care and/or cancer services. Respondents were eligible if they were ≥18 years, had advanced cancer and poor appetite/taste problems/weight loss and might consider participating in a medicinal cannabis trial. Survey items focused on medicinal rather than recreational cannabis use and did not specify botanical or pharmaceutical products. Items asked about previous medicinal cannabis use and preferences for delivery route and invited comments and concerns. Results: There were 204 survey respondents, of whom 26 (13%) reported prior medicinal cannabis use. Tablets/capsules were the preferred delivery mode (n = 144, 71%), followed by mouth spray (n = 84, 42%) and vaporiser (n = 83, 41%). Explanations for preferences (n = 134) most commonly cited convenience (n = 66; 49%). A total of 82% (n = 168) of respondents indicated that they had no trial-related concerns, but a small number volunteered concerns about adverse effects (n = 14) or wanted more information/advice (n = 8). Six respondents volunteered a belief that cannabis might cure cancer, while two wanted assurance of efficacy before participating in a trial. Conclusion: Justification of modes other than tablets/capsules and variable understanding about cannabis and trials will need addressing in trial-related information to optimise recruitment and ensure that consent is properly informed.

© 2016 Royal Australasian College of Physicians Background: Australian clinical trials are planned to evaluate medicinal cannabis in a range of clinical contexts. Aims: To explore the preferences, attitudes and beliefs of patients eligible and willing to consider participation in a clinical trial of medicinal cannabis for poor appetite and appetite-related symptoms from advanced cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional anonymous survey was administered from July to December 2015 online and in eight adult outpatient palliative care and/or cancer services. Respondents were eligible if they were ≥18 years, had advanced cancer and poor appetite/taste problems/weight loss and might consider participating in a medicinal cannabis trial. Survey items focused on medicinal rather than recreational cannabis use and did not specify botanical or pharmaceutical products. Items asked about previous medicinal cannabis use and preferences for delivery route and invited comments and concerns. Results: There were 204 survey respondents, of whom 26 (13%) reported prior medicinal cannabis use. Tablets/capsules were the preferred delivery mode (n = 144, 71%), followed by mouth spray (n = 84, 42%) and vaporiser (n = 83, 41%). Explanations for preferences (n = 134) most commonly cited convenience (n = 66; 49%). A total of 82% (n = 168) of respondents indicated that they had no trial-related concerns, but a small number volunteered concerns about adverse effects (n = 14) or wanted more information/advice (n = 8). Six respondents volunteered a belief that cannabis might cure cancer, while two wanted assurance of efficacy before participating in a trial. Conclusion: Justification of modes other than tablets/capsules and variable understanding about cannabis and trials will need addressing in trial-related information to optimise recruitment and ensure that consent is properly informed.

Introduction and Aims: Opioid overdose prevention programs providing take-home naloxone have been expanding internationally. This paper summarises findings and lessons learnt from the Overdose Prevention and Emergency Naloxone Project which is the first take-home naloxone program in Australia implemented in a health care setting. Methods: The Project intervention provided education and take-home naloxone to opioid-using clients at Kirketon Road Centre and The Langton Centre in Sydney. The evaluation study examined uptake and acceptability of the intervention; participants' knowledge and attitudes regarding overdose and participants' experience in opioid overdose situations six months after the intervention. Participants completed baseline, post-training and follow-up questionnaires regarding overdose prevention and management which were analysed using repeated measures analysis of variance. Results: Eighty-three people participated in the intervention, with 35 (42%) completing follow-up interviews-51% reporting using naloxone with 30 overdoses successfully reversed. There were significant improvements in knowledge and attitudes immediately following training with much retained at follow-up, particularly regarding feeling informed enough (97%) and confident to inject naloxone (100%). Discussion: Take-home naloxone programs can be successfully implemented in Australian health settings. Barriers to uptake, such as lengthy processes and misperceptions around interest in overdose prevention, should be addressed in future program implementation.

Background: There has been a well-documented increase in the non-medical use of pharmaceutical opioids (PO) worldwide. However, there has been little detailed examination of treatment demand, or the characteristics of those presenting for treatment, particularly for treatments other than opioid substitution. Methods: Data from closed drug and alcohol treatment episodes from the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Services National Minimum Data Set (AODTS-NMDS, representing non-opioid substitution treatment) in Australia for 2002-2003 to 2010-2011 were examined. In the four jurisdictions where detailed data were available, episodes where heroin was the principal drug of concern were compared to episodes for the four most frequently reported pharmaceutical opioids (morphine, codeine, fentanyl and oxycodone). Results: In 2002-2003, most (93%) opioid treatment was related to heroin with seven percent of all opioid treatment episodes reporting a PO as the principal drug of concern. In 2010-2011, 20% of all opioid treatment episodes were attributed to POs. Distinct changes over time were observed for different opioids. There was an increase in the average age at the start of treatment for heroin and oxycodone episodes, and a reduction in the proportion of females for codeine episodes, with 67% in 2002-2003 compared with 44% in 2010-2011. Codeine and oxycodone episodes had the lowest current or past injection rates. Conclusions: Clear differences were observed over time and between different opioids. Monitoring these emerging patterns will be important to inform treatment needs, particularly in light of different patterns of poly drug use, different routes of administration and changing demographic characteristics.

Background: Classification of patients with pharmaceutical opioid use disorder and dependence varies depending on which definition is used. We compared how WHO's ICD-10 and proposed ICD-11 and the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV and DSM-5 classified individuals in a community-based sample of Australians with chronic non-cancer pain for which opioids have been prescribed. Methods: We studied participants in the Pain and Opioid IN Treatment (POINT) cohort, a 2 year prospective cohort study of 1514 people prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for their chronic pain who were recruited in 2012-13 from community-based pharmacies across Australia. After giving patients the Composite International Diagnostic Interview about their opioid use, we assessed which patients would be categorised as having disorders of pharmaceutical opioid use by ICD-10, the draft ICD-11, DSM-IV, and DSM-5. We examined agreement between classification systems, and tested the unidimensionality of the syndrome with confirmatory factor analysis. Findings: We included 1422 participants (median time of pain disorder 10 years [IQR 5-20]; median length of strong opioid prescription 4 years [IQR 1·5-10·0]; mean age 58 years). Similar proportions of individuals met lifetime criteria for dependence with DSM-IV (127; 8·9%), ICD-10 (121; 8·5%), and ICD-11 (141; 9·9%). Criteria in DSM-5 classified 127 (8·9%) participants with moderate or severe use disorder. There was excellent agreement between ICD-10, ICD-11 and DSM-IV dependence (κ>0·90). However, there was only fair to moderate agreement between ICD-10 and DSM-IV dependence diagnoses, and DSM-5 use disorder (mild, moderate, or severe). There was only good agreement between moderate to severe use disorder in DSM-5 and the other definitions. Criteria for all definitions loaded well on a single factor; the best model fit was for the definition for dependence in the draft ICD-11, the worst was in DSM-5. Interpretation: Classification of problematic pharm

Introduction and Aims: Few studies have described those seeking treatment for codeine dependence. This study aimed to compare patients presenting for treatment where either codeine or a strong pharmaceutical opioid (oxycodone or morphine) was the principal drug of concern to understand if codeine users may have unique treatment needs. Design and Methods: Retrospective case review of 135 patients from three geographical areas in New South Wales, Australia. Cases where the principal drug of concern was codeine (n=53) or a strong pharmaceutical opioid (oxycodone or morphine, n=82) were compared. Differences in demographic characteristics, pain history, mental health, substance use history and, subsequently, the treatment that was received were examined. Results: People whose principal drug of concern was codeine were more likely to be female (66% vs. 37%, P<0.001), employed (43% vs. 22%, P<0.01) and use only one pharmaceutical opioid (91% vs. 49%, P<0.001). There was no difference in age between the codeine group (mean 38.6 years) and the strong opioid group (39.3 years). Opioid substitution therapy was the most common treatment received by both groups although codeine patients were more likely to be treated with buprenorphine than methadone (odds ratio=7.7, 95% confidence interval 2.2-27.2, P<0.001) and more likely to attempt withdrawal (odds ratio=2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.2-5.3, P=0.010). Discussion and Conclusions: There are important differences between codeine-dependent patients and strong prescription opioid-dependent patients. Further work should explore the outcomes of withdrawal versus maintenance treatment for codeine users.

Objective: There is increasing concern about the appropriateness of prescribing pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), given the risks of problematic use and dependence. This article examines pharmaceutical opioid dose and dependence and examines the correlates of each. Design: Baseline data were obtained from a national sample of 1,424 people across Australia (median 58 years, 55% female and experiencing pain for a median of 10 years), who had been prescribed opioids for CNCP. Current opioid consumption was estimated in oral morphine equivalent (OME; mg per day), and ICD-10 pharmaceutical opioid dependence was assessed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Results: Current opioid consumption varied widely: 8.8% were taking <20 mg OME per day, 52.1% were taking 21-90 mg OME, 24.3% were taking 91-199 mg OME, and 14.8% were taking >= 200 mg OME. Greater daily OME consumption was associated with higher odds of multiple physical and mental health issues, aberrant opioid use, problems associated with opioid medication and opioid dependence. A significant minority, 8.5%, met criteria for lifetime ICD-10 pharmaceutical opioid dependence and 4.7% met criteria for past year ICD-10 pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Multivariate analysis found past-year dependence was independently associated with being younger, exhibiting more aberrant behaviors and having a history of benzodiazepine dependence. Conclusions: In this population of people taking opioids for CNCP, consumption of higher doses was associated with increased risk of problematic behaviors, and was more likely among people with a complex profile of physical and mental health problems.

There has been a recent increase in public and professional concern about the prescription of strong prescription opioids for pain. Despite this concern, research to date has been limited because of a number of factors such as small sample sizes, exclusion of people with complex comorbidities, and studies of short duration. The Pain and Opioids IN Treatment is a 2-year prospective cohort study of 1500 people prescribed with pharmaceutical opioids for their chronic pain. This article provides an overview of the demographic and clinical characteristics of the cohort using the baseline data of 1514 community-based people across Australia. Participants had been in pain for a period of 10 years and had been on prescription opioids for approximately 4 years. One in 10 was on a daily morphine equivalent dose of $200 mg. Employment and income levels were low, and two-thirds of the sample reported that their pain had impacted on their employment status. Approximately 50% screened positive for current moderate-to-severe depression, and 1 in 5 had made a lifetime suicide attempt. There were a number of age-related differences. The younger groups experienced higher levels of pain and pain interference, more mental health and substance use issues, and barriers to treatment, compared with the older group. This study found that the people who have been prescribed strong opioids for chronic pain have very complex demographic and clinical profiles. Major age-related differences in the experiences of pain, coping, mental health, and substance use suggest the necessity of differential approaches to treatment.

Introduction and Aims: Experiences of buprenorphine-naloxone (BNX) sublingual film injection are not well documented or understood. We examined how people who inject BNX film seek and share information about this practice, document the methods used to prepare BNX film for injection, and report participants' experiences of this practice. Design and Methods: Interviews were (n=16) conducted with people who indicated that they had injected BNX film since its introduction onto the Australian market. Semistructured interviews were recorded and transcribed. NVivo10 program (QSR International) was used to analyse the data using qualitative description methodology. Results: Participants largely reported similar BNX film preparation techniques, although the texture of BNX film during preparation to inject was reported to be unusual (gluggy), and there were many varied accounts associated with the amount of water used. Physical harms reported as associated with injecting BNX film were described (including local and systemic issues); participants reported injecting the film to enhance its immediate effects, yet generally reported that sublingual administration provided longer-lasting effects. Discussion and Conclusions: Understanding knowledge acquisition about injecting new formulations of opioid substitution therapy is crucial in developing more effective harm-reduction strategies. Dissemination by peer networks to those who are currently or planning to inject BNX film regarding the 'gelatine like' texture when mixing, using only cold water and double filtering is important to ensure safer injecting practices. Findings from this study highlight the importance of peer networks for the dissemination of harm-reduction information. Introduction of new formulations internationally requires more qualitative studies to inform safer practices.

Background The regular use of simple analgesics in addition to opioids such as paracetamol (or acetaminophen) is recommended for persistent pain to enhance analgesia. Few studies have examined the frequency and doses of paracetamol among people with chronic non-cancer pain including use above the recommended maximum daily dose. Aims To assess (i) the prevalence of paracetamol use among people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids, (ii) assess the prevalence of paracetamol use above the recommended maximum daily dose and (iii) assess correlates of people who used paracetamol above the recommended maximum daily dose including: age, gender, income, education, pain severity and interference, use of paracetamol/opioid combination analgesics, total opioid dose, depression, anxiety, pain self-efficacy or comorbid substance use, among people prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Methods This study draws on baseline data collected for the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) study and utilises data from 962 interviews and medication diaries. The POINT study is national prospective cohort of people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids. Participants were recruited from randomly selected pharmacies across Australia. Results Sixty-three per cent of the participants had used paracetamol in the past week (95% CI = 59.7-65.8). Among the paracetamol users 22% (95% CI = 19.3-24.6) had used paracetamol/opioid combination analgesics and 4.8% (95% CI = 3.6-6.3) had used paracetamol above the recommended maximum daily dose (i.e. > 4000 mg/day). Following binomial logistic regression (χ2 = 25.98, df = 10, p = 0.004), people who had taken above the recommended maximum daily dose were less likely to have low income (AOR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.27-0.99), more likely to use paracetamol/opioid combination analgesics (AOR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.02-3.98) and more likely to take a higher opioid dose (AOR = 1.00, 95% CI = 1.00-1.01). Conclusion The majority of people with ch

Objective: Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are commonly used by chronic pain patients, despite limited evidence of any long-term benefits and concerns regarding adverse events and drug interactions, particularly in older patients. This article aims to: describe patterns of BZDs use; the demographic, physical, and mental health correlates of BZD use; and examine if negative health outcomes are associated with BZD use after controlling for confounders. Subjects: A national sample of 1,220 chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) patients prescribed long-term opioids. Methods: We report on baseline data from a prospective cohort study comparing four groups based on their current BZD use patterns. General demographics, pain, mental and physical comorbidity, and health service utilization were examined. Results: One-third (N=398, 33%) of participants reported BZD use in the past month, and 17% (N=212) reported daily BZD use. BZD use was associated with: 1) greater pain severity, pain interference with life, and lower feelings of self-efficacy with respect to their pain; 2) being prescribed "higher-risk" (>200mg oral morphine equivalent) doses of opioids; 3) using antidepressant and/or antipsychotic medications; 4) substance use (including more illicit and injection drug use, alcohol use disorder, and daily nicotine use); and 5) greater mental health comorbidity. After controlling for differences in demographic characteristics, physical and mental health, substance use, and opioid dose, BZD use was independently associated with greater past-month use of emergency health care such as ambulance or accident and emergency services. Conclusions: CNCP patients using BZDs daily represent a high-risk group with multiple comorbid mental health conditions and higher rates of emergency health care use. The high prevalence of BZD use is inconsistent with guidelines for the management of CNCP or chronic mental health conditions.

Introduction and Aims: Experiences of buprenorphine-naloxone (BNX) sublingual film injection are not well documented or understood. We examined how people who inject BNX film seek and share information about this practice, document the methods used to prepare BNX film for injection, and report participants' experiences of this practice. Design and Methods: Interviews were (n=16) conducted with people who indicated that they had injected BNX film since its introduction onto the Australian market. Semistructured interviews were recorded and transcribed. NVivo10 program (QSR International) was used to analyse the data using qualitative description methodology. Results: Participants largely reported similar BNX film preparation techniques, although the texture of BNX film during preparation to inject was reported to be unusual (gluggy), and there were many varied accounts associated with the amount of water used. Physical harms reported as associated with injecting BNX film were described (including local and systemic issues); participants reported injecting the film to enhance its immediate effects, yet generally reported that sublingual administration provided longer-lasting effects. Discussion and Conclusions: Understanding knowledge acquisition about injecting new formulations of opioid substitution therapy is crucial in developing more effective harm-reduction strategies. Dissemination by peer networks to those who are currently or planning to inject BNX film regarding the 'gelatine like' texture when mixing, using only cold water and double filtering is important to ensure safer injecting practices. Findings from this study highlight the importance of peer networks for the dissemination of harm-reduction information. Introduction of new formulations internationally requires more qualitative studies to inform safer practices.

Background: Internationally, there is concern about the increased prescribing of pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). In part, this is related to limited knowledge about the long-term benefits and outcomes of opioid use for CNCP. There has also been increased injection of some pharmaceutical opioids by people who inject drugs, and for some patients, the development of problematic and/or dependent use. To date, much of the research on the use of pharmaceutical opioids among people with CNCP, have been clinical trials that have excluded patients with complex needs, and have been of limited duration (i.e. fewer than 12 weeks). The Pain and Opioids In Treatment (POINT) study is unique study that aims to: 1) examine patterns of opioid use in a cohort of patients prescribed opioids for CNCP; 2) examine demographic and clinical predictors of adverse events, including opioid abuse or dependence, medication diversion, other drug use, and overdose; and 3) identify factors predicting poor pain relief and other outcomes. Methods/Design: The POINT cohort comprises around 1,500 people across Australia prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for CNCP. Participants will be followed-up at four time points over a two year period. POINT will collect information on demographics, physical and medication use history, pain, mental health, drug and alcohol use, non-adherence, medication diversion, sleep, and quality of life. Data linkage will provide information on medications and services from Medicare (Australia's national health care scheme). Data on those who receive opioid substitution therapy, and on mortality, will be linked. Discussion: This study will rigorously examine prescription opioid use among CNCP patients, and examine its relationship to important health outcomes. The extent to which opioids for chronic pain is associated with pain reduction, quality of life, mental and physical health, aberrant medication behavior and substance use disorders will be extens

BACKGROUND: Internationally, there is concern about the increased prescribing of pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). In part, this is related to limited knowledge about the long-term benefits and outcomes of opioid use for CNCP. There has also been increased injection of some pharmaceutical opioids by people who inject drugs, and for some patients, the development of problematic and/or dependent use. To date, much of the research on the use of pharmaceutical opioids among people with CNCP, have been clinical trials that have excluded patients with complex needs, and have been of limited duration (i.e. fewer than 12 weeks). The Pain and Opioids In Treatment (POINT) study is unique study that aims to: 1) examine patterns of opioid use in a cohort of patients prescribed opioids for CNCP; 2) examine demographic and clinical predictors of adverse events, including opioid abuse or dependence, medication diversion, other drug use, and overdose; and 3) identify factors predicting poor pain relief and other outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The POINT cohort comprises around 1,500 people across Australia prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for CNCP. Participants will be followed-up at four time points over a two year period. POINT will collect information on demographics, physical and medication use history, pain, mental health, drug and alcohol use, non-adherence, medication diversion, sleep, and quality of life. Data linkage will provide information on medications and services from Medicare (Australia's national health care scheme). Data on those who receive opioid substitution therapy, and on mortality, will be linked. DISCUSSION: This study will rigorously examine prescription opioid use among CNCP patients, and examine its relationship to important health outcomes. The extent to which opioids for chronic pain is associated with pain reduction, quality of life, mental and physical health, aberrant medication behavior and substance use disorders will be extens

Objectives: To describe benzodiazepine and prescription opioid use by clients of drug treatment services and the sources of pharmaceuticals they use. Design: Structured face-to-face interviews on unsanctioned use of benzodiazepines and prescription opioids were conducted between January and July 2008. Participants: Convenience sample of treatment entrants who reported regular (an average of ≥4 days per week) and unsanctioned use of benzodiazepines and/or prescription opioids over the 4 weeks before treatment entry. Setting: Drug treatment services in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. Main outcome measures: Participant demographics, characteristics of recent substance use, substance use trajectories, and sources of pharmaceuticals. Results: Two hundred and four treatment entrants were interviewed. Prescription opioids were predominantly obtained from non-prescribed sources (78%, 84/108). In contrast, medical practitioners were the main source for benzodiazepines (78%, 113/144). Forging of prescriptions was extremely uncommon. A mean duration of 6.3 years (SD, 6.6 years) for benzodiazepines and 4.4 years (SD, 5.7 years) for prescription opioids was reported between first use and problematic use - a substantial window for intervention. Conclusions: Medical practitioners are an important source of misused pharmaceuticals, but they are not the main source of prescription opioids. This has implications for prescription drug monitoring in Australia: current plans (to monitor only Schedule 8 benzodiazepines and prescription opioids) may have limited effects on prescription opioid users who use non-prescribed sources, and the omission of most benzodiazepines from monitoring programs may represent a lost opportunity for reducing unsanctioned use of benzodiazepines and associated harm.

Introduction and AimsThere has been an increase in prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, and concern exists over possible diversion of prescription opioids to the illicit marketplace. Recent media coverage suggests that elderly patients sell their prescribed opioids for additional income. This study investigated the extent to which an Australian community sample of chronic pain patients prescribed opioids reported supplying their prescribed opioids to others.Design and MethodsParticipants living with chronic non-cancer pain and prescribed opioids for their pain (n = 952) were recruited across Australia via advertisements at pharmacies. A telephone interview included questions about their pain condition and opioid medication.ResultsParticipants had been living with pain for a mean of 14.2 years; most common conditions included chronic back/neck problems and arthritis/rheumatism. Around half (43%) were currently prescribed one opioid, and 55% had been prescribed 2–5 opioids; the most common was oxycodone. Forty-two participants (4%) reported ever supplying prescribed opioids to another person; one participant reported receiving payment. Participants who supplied opioids to others were younger (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.95–0.99) and engaged in a greater number of aberrant behaviours relating to their opioid medication (odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.45–2.17), including tampering with doses, taking opioids by alternative routes, seeing doctors to obtain extra opioids and refilling prescriptions early.Discussion and ConclusionFew people with chronic non-cancer pain divert their opioids to others. Media reports of elderly patients selling their opioids to supplement their income may be reflective of exceptional cases. Future studies may investigate the extent to which other patient groups divert prescription opioids to the illicit marketplace.

Objectives: To describe benzodiazepine and prescription opioid use by clients of drug treatment services and the sources of pharmaceuticals they use. Design: Structured face-to-face interviews on unsanctioned use of benzodiazepines and prescription opioids were conducted between January and July 2008.Participants: Convenience sample of treatment entrants who reported regular(an average of 4 days per week) and unsanctioned use of benzodiazepines and/or prescription opioids over the 4 weeks before treatment entry. Setting: Drug treatment services in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. Main outcome measures: Participant demographics, characteristics of recent substance use, substance use trajectories, and sources of pharmaceuticals. Results: Two hundred and four treatment entrants were interviewed. Prescription opioids were predominantly obtained from non-prescribed sources (78%, 84/108). In contrast, medical practitioners were the main source for benzodiazepines (78%, 113/144). Forging of prescriptions was extremely uncommon. A mean duration of 6.3 years (SD, 6.6 years) for benzodiazepines and 4.4 years (SD, 5.7 years) for prescription opioids was reported between first use and problematic use — a substantial window for intervention. Conclusions: Medical practitioners are an important source of misused pharmaceuticals, but they are not the main source of prescription opioids. This has implications for prescription drug monitoring in Australia: current plans (to monitor only Schedule 8 benzodiazepines and prescription opioids) may have limited effects on prescription opioid users who use non-prescribed sources, and the omission of most benzodiazepines from monitoring programs may represent a lost opportunity for reducing unsanctioned use of benzodiazepines and associated harm.

Introduction and Aims. Non-prescribed use of pharmaceutical opioid analgesics (POA) has been escalating internationally. In Australia, few studies have examined if POA users have similar characteristics and treatment needs to heroin users. The aim of this study was to compare those presenting for treatment where heroin versus POA were the primary drugs of concern. Design and Methods. A convenience sample of 192 treatment entrants were recruited from alcohol and drug treatment services in four Australian jurisdictions. A structured interview collected data on demographic characteristics, substance use, self-perceived mental and physical health, crime and harms resulting from drug use. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify characteristics which may differentiate those seeking treatment for heroin compared with POA. Results. Most treatment entrants sampled reported a history of injection drug use and use of both heroin and POA. However, those with primary POA problems were less likely to report an overdose history (adjusted odds ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.81–0.99) and more likely to initiate opioid use for pain (adjusted odds ratio 2.52, 95% confidence interval 1.04–6.12) than those with primary heroin problems. Latent Class Analysis found that, while most of the POA group were similar to heroin users in demographics, health and injecting drug use, there was a small, distinct group of primary POA problem users that did not typically inject and who commonly initiated opioid use for pain and also experienced elevated physical and mental health disability.Discussion and Conclusions. While some differences existed, this study of Australian treatment seekers found many similar characteristics between those with primary problems with heroin and POA. Few non-injecting POA were recruited in this sample. This finding contrasts with reports of a growing population of opioid-dependent people with characteristics that are distinct from traditional opioid-depe