Search

There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related 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 opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and two trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).We included RCTs with adults and adolescents 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. 2. Full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus non-opioid agonist treatments (detoxification, opioid antagonist, or psychological treatment without opioid agonist treatment).We used standard Cochrane methods.We identified eight RCTs that met inclusion criteria (709 participants). We found four studies that compared methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment, and four studies that compared buprenorphine maintenance to either buprenorphine taper (in addition to psychological treatment) or a non-opioid maintenance treatment comparison. We found low-certainty evidence from three studies of a difference between methadone and buprenorphine in favour of methadone on self-reported opioid use at end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.86; 165 participants), and low-certainty evidence from four studies finding a difference in favour of methadone for retention in treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; 379 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from three studies showing no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on substance use measured with urine drug screens at end of treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 206 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence from one study of no difference in days of self-reported opioid use (mean difference 1.41 days, 95% CI 3.37 lower to 0.55 days higher; 129 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.93; 206 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from four studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over non-opioid treatments in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests at end of treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84; 270 participants), and very low-certainty evidence from four studies finding no difference on self-reported opioid use in the past 30 days at end of treatment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01; 276 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in the number of days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.09; 205 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from four studies favouring buprenorphine maintenance over non-opioid treatments on retention in treatment (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.27; 333 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in adverse effects between buprenorphine maintenance and non-opioid treatments (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.48; 252 participants). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs, and difference in follow-up rates between treatment arms.There is very low- to moderate-certainty evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine did not differ on some outcomes, although on the outcomes of retention and self-reported substance use some results favoured methadone. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appears more effective than non-opioid treatments. Due to the overall very low- to moderate-certainty evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.

There are a range of models and structures that determine features of alcohol and other drug treatment. Despite some structures being long-established, less is known about how specific aspects of service delivery impact treatment-seeking for people who use alcohol and other drugs. This Australian qualitative study explored both people with lived experience of problematic alcohol and other drug use, and health care staff's experiences of service delivery.Thirty-nine semi-structured interviews with people with lived experience and staff from either alcohol and other drug specialist, or broader health-care services, explored experiences of service delivery processes and procedures. Transcripts were thematically analysed and guided by a broad interest in barriers to treatment-seeking.Within alcohol and other drug specialist services (i) time spent on wait lists; and (ii) poor implementation of assessment processes were identified barriers to treatment-seeking and engagement. Within broader health-care services (i) organisational expectations around behaviour and engagement; (ii) alcohol and other drugs viewed as separate to service role; and (iii) limited opportunities to informally engage were identified barriers to treatment-seeking.Results suggest opportunities to engage and undertake needs-based care planning are yet to be fully realised, particularly at the intake and assessment stages of alcohol and other drug service delivery; with frequent reassessment resulting in people repeatedly recounting traumatic experiences, often to different people, only to be placed back on wait lists with no support. Within broader health-care services aspects of service delivery may perpetuate stigma that places such people outside the purview of health care.

Persistent high rates of prescription opioid use and harms remain a concern in Australia, Europe and North America. Research priority setting can inform the research agenda, strategic responses and evidence-based interventions. The objective of this study was to establish research priorities related to the safe and effective use of prescription opioids in general practice.Consumers, clinicians and policy makers were invited to participate in a structured consensus workshop in May 2021. A modified nominal group technique was used to explore research priorities for the safe and effective use of opioids in Australian general practice. Research priorities were identified, consolidated and prioritised using a structured process.Seventeen consumer, medical, pharmacy, nursing, allied health and policy participants generated 26 consolidated priorities across three domains: (i) consumer-focused priorities; (ii) clinician and practice-focused priorities; and (iii) system and policy-focused priorities. The highest ranked research priorities in each of the domains were consumer characteristics that influence opioid prescribing and outcomes, opioid deprescribing strategies, and system-level barriers to prescribing alternatives to opioids, in the consumer, clinician and practice, and system and policy domains, respectively.The priorities reflect opportunities for research priority setting within Australian general practice. The priorities provide a map for future qualitative and quantitative research that will inform safe and effective opioid prescribing.

Cannabinoid co-administration may enable reduced opioid doses for analgesia. This updated systematic review on the opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids considered preclinical and clinical studies where the outcome was analgesia or opioid dose requirements. We searched Scopus, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Medline, and Embase (2016 onwards). Ninety-two studies met the search criteria including 15 ongoing trials. Meta-analysis of seven preclinical studies found the median effective dose (ED50) of morphine administered with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol was 3.5 times lower (95% CI 2.04, 6.03) than the ED50 of morphine alone. Six preclinical studies found no evidence of increased opioid abuse liability with cannabinoid administration. Of five healthy-volunteer experimental pain studies, two found increased pain, two found decreased pain and one found reduced pain bothersomeness with cannabinoid administration; three demonstrated that cannabinoid co-administration may increase opioid abuse liability. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found no evidence of opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids in acute pain. Meta-analysis of four RCTs in patients with cancer pain found no effect of cannabinoid administration on opioid dose (mean difference −3.8 mg, 95% CI −10.97, 3.37) or percentage change in pain scores (mean difference 1.84, 95% CI −2.05, 5.72); five studies found more adverse events with cannabinoids compared with placebo (risk ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.03, 1.24). Of five controlled chronic non-cancer pain trials; one low-quality study with no control arm, and one single-dose study reported reduced pain scores with cannabinoids. Three RCTs found no treatment effect of dronabinol. Meta-analyses of observational studies found 39% reported opioid cessation (95% CI 0.15, 0.64, I2 95.5%, eight studies), and 85% reported reduction (95% CI 0.64, 0.99, I2 92.8%, seven studies). In summary, preclinical and observational studies demonstrate the potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids in the context of analgesia, in contrast to higher-quality RCTs that did not provide evidence of opioid-sparing effects.

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) clients frequently bear costs associated with their treatment, including dosing fees. This study aimed to explore the financial and social impact of dosing fees upon clients.Cross-sectional survey of people who use opioids regularly (N = 402) between December 2017 and March 2018, conducted in Australia. Dosing fees were calculated and expressed as percentage of income, by OAT type. Consequences and strategies for difficulties making payments were examined as proportions.A total of N = 360 participants had ever been in OAT and N = 245 participants currently engaged in OAT reported data on dosing fees, of them 53% (n = 129) reported paying dosing fees. Compared to clients with high levels of dosing supervision, those with moderate or low levels of supervision were more likely to pay dosing fees. The median 28-day dosing fee was AUD$110 (interquartile range AUD$80); median 28-day income was AUD$1520 (interquartile range AUD$700). For those who paid dosing fees, the fee comprised10% of total monthly income for 70% of participants; however, 23% of participants paid fees comprising 10% to 20%, and 7% of participants paid fees comprising 20% or more of monthly income. Among those that had ever been in OAT, 72% experienced difficulties in paying treatment costs; 36% left treatment earlier than intended and 25% had been excluded due to payment difficulties.Negative consequences of treatment costs to clients, particularly dosing fees, are evident. These costs impact treatment access and retention that may negatively impact clients' physical health, mental health and social wellbeing.

Illicit drug use disorders are the most stigmatised health conditions worldwide, and stigma acts as a meaningful barrier to treatment entry and treatment provision. In the context of dramatically rising opioid-related harms, it is critical that we understand the drivers of stigma and how it affects opioid use disorder treatment and policy. The aim of this narrative review is to discuss how opioid-related stigma impacts treatment provision and harm reduction, and provide potential strategies to reduce stigma at a social and structural level. We used the Framework for Integrating Normative Influences on Stigma (FINIS) to identify sources of opioid-related stigma at the macro (structural stigma), meso (public stigma) and micro (internalised stigma) levels. Reducing stigma requires strategies that target multiple levels, however addressing inequity in the laws, regulations, and rules that segregate people with opioid and other substance use disorders from mainstream society is essential.

Brief interventions (BIs) delivered in primary care can reduce harmful alcohol consumption. Yet, clinicians do not routinely offer BIs to reduce harmful alcohol use.We explored the perspectives of clinicians and patients about the use of alcohol BIs during consultations in Australian primary care.Semi-structured interviews and focus groups (face-to-face and virtual) were undertaken with 34 general practitioners, eight practice nurses and 17 patients. Field notes were made from audio-recordings and themes were identified using a descriptive qualitative approach with the field notes as the point of data analysis.Participants identified barriers within the consultation, practice setting and wider healthcare system plus across the community which reduce the delivery of BIs in primary care including: Australian drinking norms; inconsistent public health messaging around alcohol harm; primary care not recognized as a place to go for help; community stigma towards alcohol use; practice team culture towards preventive health, including systems for recording alcohol histories; limitations of clinical software and current patient resources.Multiple layers of the healthcare system influence the use of BIs in primary care. Identified facilitators for embedding BIs in primary care included: (i) raising community and clinician awareness of the health harms of alcohol, (ii) reinforcing a primary care culture that promotes prevention and, (iii) supportive resources to facilitate discussion about alcohol use and strategies to reduce intake. Alcohol BIs in primary care could be further supported by community public health messages about alcohol use.Alcohol is a major source of harm in the community and primary care (including family doctor and general practice settings) can play a role in reducing harmful alcohol use. When clinicians talk to their patients about alcohol use, research has shown they can reduce how much they drink each week. We spoke with general practitioners, nurses and patients in Australia to work out what is getting in the way of conversations about alcohol in primary care. We found that both clinicians and patients think we need to raise community awareness about the health harms of alcohol, that there are health system barriers, and there could be better resources to use in consultations. Low-income patients are particularly disadvantaged by financial costs associated with alcohol and counselling services when they seek help. To increase conversations about alcohol in primary care, it could be more helpful to target the broader community, the health system and primary care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted seeking and delivery of healthcare. Different Australian jurisdictions implemented different COVID-19 restrictions. We used Australian national pharmacy dispensing data to conduct interrupted time series analyses to examine the incidence and prevalence of opioid dispensing in different jurisdictions. Following nationwide COVID-19 restrictions, the incidence dropped by -0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.50, -0.31), -0.33 (95% CI: -0.46, -0.21) and -0.21 (95% CI: -0.37, -0.04) per 1000 people per week and the prevalence dropped by -0.85 (95% CI: -1.39, -0.31), -0.54 (95% CI: -1.01, -0.07) and -0.62 (95% CI: -0.99, -0.25) per 1000 people per week in Victoria, New South Wales and other jurisdictions, respectively. Incidence and prevalence increased by 0.29 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.44) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.11, 1.33) per 1000 people per week, respectively in Victoria post-lockdown; no significant changes were observed in other jurisdictions. No significant changes were observed in the initiation of long-term opioid use in any jurisdictions. More stringent restrictions coincided with more pronounced reductions in overall opioid initiation, but initiation of long-term opioid use did not change.

PurposeThe OPPICO cohort is a population-based cohort based on non-identifiable electronic health records routinely collected from 464 general practices in Victoria, Australia, created with the aim of understanding opioid prescribing, policy impacts and clinical outcomes. The aim of this paper is to provide a profile of the study cohort by summarising available demographic, clinical and prescribing characteristics.ParticipantsThe cohort described in this paper comprises people who were aged at least 14 years at cohort entry, and who were prescribed an opioid analgesic at least once at participating practices for a total of 1 137 728 person-years from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2020. The cohort was formed using the data collected from electronic health records through the Population Level Analysis and Reporting (POLAR) system. The POLAR data primarily consist of patient demographics, clinical measurements, Australian Medicare Benefits Scheme item numbers, diagnoses, pathology testing and prescribed medications.Finding to dateIn total, the cohort consists of 676 970 participants with 4 389 185 opioid prescription records from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2020. Approximately half (48.7%) received a single opioid prescription, and 0.9% received more than 100 opioid prescriptions. The mean number of opioid prescriptions per patient was 6.5 (SD=20.9); prescriptions for strong opioids accounted for 55.6% of all opioid prescriptions.Future plansThe OPPICO cohort data will be used for various types of pharmacoepidemiological research, including examining the impact of policy changes on coprescription of opioids with benzodiazepines and gabapentin, and monitoring trends and patterns of other medication utilisation. Through data-linkage between our OPPICO cohort and hospital outcome data, we will examine whether policy changes for opioid prescribing lead to changes in prescription opioid-related harms, and other drug and mental health-related outcomes.Trial registration numberEU PAS Register (EUPAS43218, prospectively registered).

Pregabalin has become widely used as an alternative to opioids in treating certain types of chronic non-cancer pain, but few studies have examined its clinical efficacy outside trials. We address this gap by examining the utilization, correlates and clinical outcomes of pregabalin use among an Australian community-based cohort of people prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Through a five-year prospective cohort study (n = 1514) we examined associations between pregabalin use and pain severity and interference, mental health, opioid dose and past month use of ambulance and emergency department services. We used fixed-effects regression models to examine within-participant differences, and random-effects regression models to examine within and between participant differences in clinical outcomes. In an analysis of cases with complete data over five-years (n = 896), the prevalence of pregabalin use ranged from 16% at cohort entry to 29% at 36- and 48-months, and 46% reported pregabalin use at any time during the five years.. Pregabalin use was associated with greater pain severity and interference and greater use of high-risk opioid doses (>90 oral morphine equivalents/day). Pregabalin use was not associated with changes in mental health symptoms, ambulance, or emergency department attendance in the fixed or random effects models. Pregabalin use was common, but for most people use was not associated with clinically meaningful improvements in pain or functioning.

IntroductionEach year, an estimated two million Australians commence opioids, with 50 000 developing longer-term (persistent) opioid use. An estimated 3%–10% of opioid-naïve patients prescribed opioids following surgery develop persistent opioid use. This study will compare rates of persistent opioid use between two commonly used postoperative opioids, oxycodone and tapentadol, to understand if initial postoperative opioid type is important in determining longer-term outcomes.Methods and analysisA retrospective data linkage study that analyses administrative data from hospital and community pharmacies. Data will be obtained from at least four pharmacies that service large hospitals with comparable supplies of oxycodone and tapentadol. The study will include at least 6000 patients who have been dispensed a supply of oxycodone or tapentadol to take home following their discharge from a surgical ward. The primary outcome measure will be persistent opioid use at 3 months postdischarge for opioid naïve people who receive either immediate release tapentadol or immediate release oxycodone. Hierarchical logistic regression models will be used to predict persistent opioid use, controlling for covariates including comorbidities.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained through the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (29977). We will present project findings in a peer-reviewed journal article, in accordance with the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data statement.

Naloxone is a life-saving medication that reverses opioid overdose; naloxone can be provided on a 'take-home' basis so naloxone can be administered outside of the health-care setting. The Overdose Response and Take Home Naloxone (ORTHN) project established a model of care for take-home naloxone (THN) interventions across alcohol and other drug and harm reduction services in NSW, Australia. This paper evaluates the staff training and credentialing program, and examines staff attitudes and perspectives regarding the provision of THN interventions in these settings.Staff across seven services were trained through a 'train-the-trainer' credentialing model to deliver ORTHN, including naloxone supply. Staff were surveyed regarding their experience, attitudes and knowledge on THN prior to and after training, and after 6 months. At the 6 months follow up, staff were asked about the interventions they provided, barriers and enablers to uptake, and opinions regarding future rollout.A total of 204 staff were trained and credentialed to provide the ORTHN intervention. Most (60%) were nurses, followed by needle syringe program workers and allied health/counsellors (32%). Linear and logistic regression analyses indicated that the training program was associated with significant improvements in staff knowledge and attitudes towards overdose and THN; however, only attitudinal improvements were maintained over time. There were high rates of staff satisfaction with the ORTHN intervention and training.The ORTHN program is 'fit for purpose' for broad implementation in these settings. A number of potential barriers (e.g. time, medication and staffing costs) and enablers (e.g. peer engagement, regulatory framework for naloxone supply) in implementing THN interventions were identified.

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 eligibility criteria.

ObjectiveThe Routine Opioid Outcome Monitoring (ROOM) tool measures outcomes with opioids using an established framework which includes domains such as pain, mood, opioid use disorder, alcohol use, and constipation. This study aims to validate and establish the test-retest reliability of the computer-administered ROOM tool.Design and SettingCross-sectional analysis of an online sample.SubjectsParticipants comprised those with chronic noncancer pain who regularly used prescription opioids.MethodsParticipants self-completed the online ROOM tool along with other validated measures (validation questionnaire), and those who were agreeable also completed the online test-retest questionnaire approximately two weeks later. Subcomponents of the ROOM tool (i.e., pain, mood, alcohol use, opioid use disorder, and constipation) were validated against longer measures of the same construct using Pearson correlation coefficients. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to assess the stability of the ROOM tool over time.ResultsA total of 324 participants completed the validation questionnaire, of whom 260 also completed the test-retest questionnaire. The opioid use disorder domain showed good sensitivity (73.6) and specificity (75.8) against the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, any opioid use disorder. All ROOM components showed moderate correlation (r = 0.55–0.73) with their longer counterparts. Test-retest reliability was fair (0.58–0.75), indicating that responses were relatively stable over time. Reliability did vary, however, based on the components being measured and how certain tools were scored.ConclusionThe computer-administered ROOM tool is a valid approach for brief monitoring of outcomes with prescribed opioids in primary care settings and appears to be acceptable to people who are using prescribed opioids for chronic pain.

ObjectiveThe OWLS is a screening tool for prescription opioid use disorder designed for use in primary care. This study aimed to confirm the optimal wording, scoring methods, and cutoff for the OWLS.Design and SettingCross-sectional analysis of an online sample.SubjectsParticipants comprised those with chronic noncancer pain who regularly used prescription opioids.MethodsEligible participants self-completed an online version of the OWLS prescription opioid use disorder screening tool and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse module. Receiver operating characteristics were calculated for three scoring methods for the OWLS, and these were compared with DSM-5 classification of any use disorder and moderate to severe opioid use disorder.ResultsAmong the sample (N = 324), utilizing scoring method (i) (i.e., positive endorsement ≥ response option “a little bit”) and a cutoff of 3 increased the percentage of correctly classified participants, with concurrent increases in specificity and decreases in false discovery rate, and false positive rate.ConclusionOWLS utilizing scoring method (i) with a cutoff of 3 was shown to be the optimal version and scoring method of this tool. This represents a time-efficient, simple scoring method, allowing for quick and accurate screening for opioid use disorder to occur.

Objectives To characterise the community pharmacy supply of naloxone by supply type - individual prescription, prescriber bag, and non-dispensed (supplied over the counter or expired) - during 2014-2018; to examine whether the 2016 rescheduling of naloxone as an over-the-counter drug influenced non-dispensed naloxone supply volume. Design, setting Analysis of monthly naloxone prescriptions (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) and sales data (IQVIA), 2014-2018, for Australia and by state and territory; time series analysis of non-dispensed naloxone supply to assess effect of rescheduling on naloxone supply. Major outcomes Total naloxone supply to community pharmacies; prescribed and non-dispensed naloxone supply. Results During 2014-2018, 372 351 400 μg units of naloxone were sold to community pharmacies: non-dispensed naloxone accounted for 205 866.5 units (55.3%), prescriber bags for 155 841 units (41.8%), and individual prescriptions for 10 643.5 units (2.9%). Population-adjusted national naloxone sales to community pharmacies increased between 2014 and 2018 (per year: incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-2.22). This increase was primarily attributable to increased volumes of prescriber bag naloxone (IRR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.50-1.78) and, to a lesser extent, increased individual prescription supply (IRR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.85-2.26). Non-dispensed naloxone supply volume was unchanged at the national level (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.01); changes in non-dispensed supply immediately following rescheduling and subsequently were not statistically significant in time series analyses for most jurisdictions. Conclusions Total naloxone supply to community pharmacies in Australia increased between 2014 and 2018, but rescheduling that enabled over-the-counter access did not significantly influence the volume of non-dispensed naloxone.

Aims To examine perceptions of extended‐release (XR) buprenorphine injections among people who regularly use opioids in Australia. Design Cross‐sectional survey prior to implementation. XR‐buprenorphine was registered in Australia in November 2018. Setting Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart. Participants A total of 402 people who regularly use opioids interviewed December 2017 to March 2018. Measurements Primary outcome concerned the proportion of participants who believed XR‐buprenorphine would be a good treatment option for them, preferred weekly versus monthly injections and perceived advantages/disadvantages of XR‐buprenorphine. Independent variables concerned the demographic characteristics and features of current opioid agonist treatment (OAT; medication‐type, dose, prescriber/dosing setting, unsupervised doses, out‐of‐pocket expenses and travel distance). Findings Sixty‐eight per cent [95% confidence interval (CI) = 63–73%] believed XR‐buprenorphine was a good treatment option for them. They were more likely to report being younger [26–35 versus > 55 years; odds ratio (OR) = 3.16, 95% CI = 1.12–8.89; P = 0.029], being female (OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.04–2.69; P = 0.034)

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The current phase of the North American 'opioid crisis' is characterised by illicit fentanyl use; however, the presence of illicit fentanyl in Australia is unknown. This study aimed to monitor unintentional fentanyl consumption in Australia. DESIGN: Rapid Urine Drug Screens (UDS) paired with surveys conducted within Supervised Injecting Facilities (SIFs), and confirmatory laboratory testing. SETTING: Sydney and Melbourne, Australia PARTICIPANTS: Clients who used heroin within the past 2 days (n=911 tests, 2017-2021). Participants were demographically similar to the overall client base (median age 43, 72% male). MEASUREMENTS: UDS were conducted using BTNX Rapid Response™ fentanyl urine strip tests with cross-reactivity to numerous fentanyl analogues. Positive urine samples were analysed using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. Surveys covered past 3 day drug use and lifetime report of fentanyl in heroin. FINDINGS: Two percent of participants reported intentional use of fentanyl, mostly through fentanyl patches. Of the 911 rapid UDS conducted, 17 (1.9%) yielded positive results. Eight of these (all from Melbourne) were not explained by survey-reported fentanyl use in the past 3 days. Of these 8 unexplained positives, confirmatory laboratory analysis was conducted on 6, with 4 deemed to be false positives, and 2 confirmed for the presence of fentanyl. This represents the first confirmation of unintended use of fentanyl type substances in this population. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence of unintentional fentanyl use among people in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia who regularly inject heroin, suggesting that, currently, there is very little illicit fentanyl in Australian drug markets accessed by Supervised Injecting Facilities attendees. This study demonstrates the feasibility of quick onsite testing to cost-effectively screen large samples for fentanyl; however, the high false positive rate emphasises the need for confirmation of positive tests through advanced analytical techniques.

Focus and outcomes for participants This symposium will focus on evidence from pharmacoepidemiological research on prevalence and incidence of prescription opioid prevalence, opioid utilisation patterns and related harms in Australia. The symposium will also discuss interventions to reduce opioid-related harm. The speakers will discuss how opioid use and prescribing culture has evolved over the last two decades and provide insight from recent research using big data analysis on prescription opioid use and related outcomes. Rationale for the symposium, including for its inclusion in the Congress In 2016, there were 679 overdose deaths involving opioid pain medications in Australia, with the majority of these deaths unintentional. There is growing concern that harm from opioid pain medications in Australia may mimic the situation in the United States and Canada, where the problem has been labelled an epidemic. Recent Monash led research using Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data for 2013 to 2018 found that approximately 3 million Australians adults use opioids each year and approximately 1.9 million adults start taking opioids. Of this population of adults that start using opioids, 2.6% become long-term users for over a year. Long-term use and the use of strong opioids are associated with a range of adverse health outcomes. High-dose opioid use has also been associated with falls, fractures, hospitalisations and motor vehicle injuries. The rationale of this symposium is to draw on the expertise of the presenters and share innovative epidemiological and data analysis methods to understand opioid use in the Australian context. The creation of such a forum at the World Congress will allow for enhanced knowledge sharing on both a national and international platform and assist in planning strategies to better anticipate and manage potential harms when opioid pain medications are initiated. Presentation program The Symposium consists of four presentations: Names of presenters Names of facilitator or chair Professor Danny Liew, Deputy Head of School, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Ms. Michelle Steeper, Research Officer, Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Background Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is an effective intervention for opioid dependence. Extended-release buprenorphine injections (BUP-XR) may have additional potential benefits over sublingual buprenorphine. This single-arm trial evaluated outcomes among people receiving 48 weeks of BUP-XR in diverse community healthcare settings in Australia, permitting examination of outcomes when BUP-XR is delivered in standard practice. Methods Participants were recruited from a network of specialist public drug treatment services, primary care and some private practices in three states. Following a minimum 7 days on 8–32 mg of sublingual buprenorphine (±naloxone), participants received monthly subcutaneous BUP-XR injections administered by a healthcare practitioner and completed monthly research interviews. The primary endpoint was retention in treatment at 48 weeks. Findings Participants (n = 100) were 28% women, mean age 44 years with a long history of OAT (median 5.8 years); heroin was the most common opioid of concern (58%). Treatment retention at 24 and 48 weeks was 86% and 75%, respectively. Participants with past-month injecting drug use (OR 0.23; 95%CI: 0.09–0.61) or heroin use (OR 0.23; 95%CI: 0.08–0.65) at baseline had lower odds of being retained in treatment to 48 weeks. Reductions in multiple forms of extra-medical drug use were observed. Improvements in quality of life, participation in employment, and treatment satisfaction measures were also observed. Interpretation This real-world implementation study of BUP-XR demonstrated high retention and treatment satisfaction. This study provides important additional data on the uptake and experience of clients, with relevance for policy makers, health service planners, administrators, and practitioners. Funding Indivior. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03809143

BackgroundAlcohol is a major source of harm in Australia that disproportionately affects low-income communities. Alcohol brief interventions (ABIs) combine an assessment of a person’s alcohol use with advice to reduce health risks. Despite their effectiveness, ABIs are not routinely performed by clinicians. This article presents a protocol for a feasibility trial of pragmatic implementation strategies and a new set of resources to support clinicians to complete ABIs in Australian general practices.AimTo explore the facilitators and barriers to increasing the uptake of ABIs in primary care, including acceptability, reach, adoption, fidelity, and sustainability.Design & settingA mixed-methods evaluation of the uptake of ABIs in general practice clinics serving low-income communities in Melbourne, Australia. The approach is informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT).MethodThe implementation strategies and resources will be trialled in five general practices over 12 months. The primary outcome will be change in the proportion of adult patients with a complete alcohol history in their electronic medical records. Baseline data collection includes a practice survey to describe practice routines for ABIs and de-identified patient medical record data on completed alcohol histories (repeated at 3, 6, 9, and 12-months post-intervention). Survey and interview data will also be collected from clinicians, patients, and primary health network staff to assess acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.ConclusionThe study will explore how the implementation strategies and resources can improve alcohol screening and management among low-income patients in general practice.

Summary Background The syndemic of injection drug use and serious injection-related infections is leading to increasing mortality in the USA. Although outpatient treatment with medications for opioid use disorder reduces overdose risk and recurrent infections, hospitalisation remains common. We evaluated the clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based strategies to address the US opioid epidemic. Methods We developed a microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of: standard hospital care—detoxification for opioids, no addiction consult service (status quo); expanded inpatient prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder, including bridge prescriptions (ie, medication until they can see an outpatient provider) when possible (medications for opioid use disorder with bridge); implementation of addiction consult services within the hospital (addiction consult services alone); and a combined medication for opioid use disorder with addiction consult services strategy (combined). We used clinical trials and observational cohorts to inform model inputs. Outcomes were life-years, discounted costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, hospitalisations, and deaths. We did deterministic sensitivity analyses on key model inputs related to costs and sequelae of drug use and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to further address uncertainty. Findings Among people who inject opioids in the USA, we estimated that expanding medications for opioid use disorder with bridge prescriptions would reduce hospitalisations and overdose deaths by 3·2% and 3·6%, respectively, and the combination of expanded medications with opioid use disorder along with addiction consult sevices would reduce hospitalisations and overdoses by 5·2% and 6·6%, respectively, compared with the status quo. Mean lifetime costs ranged from US$731 400 (95% credible interval 447 911–859 189 for the medications for opioid use disorder strategy) to $741 200 (470 930–868 551 for the combined strategy) per person. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-year gained, medications for opioid use disorder with bridge and combined strategies were cost-effective ($7600 and $14 300, respectively). A scenario that assumed ideal access to harm reduction services came to the same conclusions as the base case and our results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Interpretation The combined interventions of expanding hospital-based prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder and implementing addiction consult services could improve life expectancy, be cost-effective, and could be the basis for a comprehensive hospital-based strategy for addressing the opioid epidemic in the USA and countries with similar opioid epidemics. Funding National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

ObjectiveThe study objective was to identify the analgesic efficacy of three different pharmacological strategies in patients receiving methadone or buprenorphine as opioid agonist treatment (OAT). The three pharmacological approaches, a) increasing maintenance methadone/buprenorphine dose by 30%, b) adding oxycodone, or c) adding a single dose of gabapentin, were compared with a control condition of the participant’s usual OAT dose.DesignA randomized, controlled, double-blinded, double-dummy, within-subject crossover study.SubjectsNine participants on stable doses of methadone and eight participants on stable doses of buprenorphine were recruited.SettingAn outpatient opioid treatment clinic in inner city Sydney, Australia.MethodsThe cold pressor tolerance test was used to examine experimental pain threshold and tolerance. Ratings of subjective drug effects and safety measures (physiological and cognitive) were assessed.ResultsThere was no difference in the primary outcome measures of pain thresholds or tolerance between the conditions examined. Interindividual variability was evident. Differences in some subjective measures were identified, including lower pain recall, lower “bad effects,” and higher global satisfaction in the additional methadone condition. In the buprenorphine arm, increased drug liking and “bad effects” were detected with oxycodone administration, while increased subjective intoxication was identified with gabapentin.ConclusionsThere was no evidence of an objective improvement in analgesia with any condition compared with control. Further research is required to optimize pain management strategies in this population.

This review summarizes studies that examined the effectiveness of cannabinoids in treating spasticity, with a focus on understanding the relevance of the existing evidence to paediatric populations. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies that examined the use of cannabinoids in spasticity. We identified 32 studies in adult and paediatric populations. Results were summarized by condition, with adult and paediatric studies considered separately. There is evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials that cannabinoids are more effective than placebo in reducing symptoms of spasticity in adults with multiple sclerosis. Most positive effects were based on patient-rated rather than clinician-rated measures, were modest in size, and should be considered in the context of the narrow therapeutic index of cannabinoids for spasticity and adverse effects. There were comparatively few, and no large studies, of spasticity in conditions other than multiple sclerosis. Few studies have been conducted in paediatric populations. Paediatric studies of spasticity provide low quality evidence and are inadequate to inform clinical practice. Cannabinoids have modest efficacy in reducing muscle spasticity in adults with multiple sclerosis. There is limited evidence of efficacy for cannabinoid use in other conditions, particularly in paediatric populations. Studies in paediatric populations have been of low quality and are insufficient to inform clinical practice.Esta revisión resume los estudios que examinaron la efectividad de los cannabinoides en el tratamiento de la espasticidad, con un enfoque en la comprensión de la relevancia de la evidencia existente para las poblaciones pediátricas. Se realizaron búsquedas en Medline, Embase, PsycINFO y la Biblioteca Cochrane para identificar estudios que examinaron el uso de cannabinoides en la espasticidad. Se identificaron 32 estudios en poblaciones adultas y pediátricas. Los resultados se resumieron por condición, con estudios en adultos y pediátricos considerados por separado. Existe evidencia de ensayos clínicos controlados aleatorios de que los cannabinoides son más efectivos que el placebo para reducir los síntomas de la espasticidad en adultos con esclerosis múltiple. La mayoría de los efectos positivos se basaron en las medidas clasificadas por el paciente en lugar de las clasificadas por el médico, fueron de tamaño modesto y deben considerarse en el contexto del estrecho índice terapéutico de los cannabinoides para la espasticidad y los efectos adversos. Hubo comparativamente pocos, y no hay estudios grandes, de espasticidad en afecciones distintas a la esclerosis múltiple. Se han realizado pocos estudios en poblaciones pediátricas. Los estudios pediátricos de espasticidad proporcionan evidencia de baja calidad y son inadecuados para informar la práctica clínica.CANABINÓIDES PARA O TRATAMENTO DA ESPASTICIDADE: Esta revisão sintetiza estudos que examinaram a efetividade de canabinóides no tratamento da espasticidade, com foco na compreensão da relevância da evidência existente para populações pediátricas. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, e Cochrane Library foram pesquisados para identificar estudos que examinaram o uso de canabinóides na espasticidade. Identificamos 32 estudos em populações adultas e pediátricas. Os resultados foram sintetizados por condição com estudos em adultos e pediátricos considerados separadamente. Há evidência de ensaios clínicos randomizados controlados de que os canabinóides são mais efetivos do que placebos na redução de sintomas de espasticidade em adultos com esclerose múltipla. A maioria dos efeitos positivos foram baseados em medidas fornecidas por pacientes e não por clínicos, eram de tamanho modesto, e devem ser considerados no contexto do estreito índice terapêutico dos canabinóides para espasticidade e efeitos adversos. Houve comparativamente menos, e nenhum grande estudo, da espasticidade em condições diferentes da esclerose múltipla. Poucos estudos foram conduzidos em populações pediátricas. Estudos pediátricos da espasticidade fornecem baixa evidência de qualidade e são inadequados para informar a prática clínica.