Search

Background: Long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine is an important new treatment option for the management of opioid dependence, delivering therapeutic doses in weekly or monthly formulations. Depot buprenorphine aims to overcome challenges associated with traditional opioid agonist therapy (OAT), including: poor patient adherence; inconvenience of regular attendance for dosing; and, risk of non-medical use of takeaway doses. However, little is known about patients' experiences of depot buprenorphine. This qualitative study aimed to explore patients' experiences of the practical and social affordances of depot buprenorphine., Methods: Participants were recruited from sites in Sydney, regional New South Wales, and Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Thirty participants (16 men, 14 women; mean age 47.3 years) participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants had histories of both heroin and prescription opioid use, and previous OAT including daily dosing of buprenorphine and methadone., Findings: Depot buprenorphine afforded positive benefits for many participants, including: opportunities to avoid stigma experienced at pharmacies/clinics; time to engage in activities (e.g., travel, work) by releasing participants from previous OAT treatment regimens; and, cost savings by not having to pay pharmacy fees associated with daily dosing. However, for some participants, moving to depot buprenorphine: disrupted engagements with important social/practical supports available at pharmacies/clinics; constrained their control over dosing; and, constrained their ability to generate income via the sale of takeaway doses., Conclusions: While generally experienced as affording benefits, depot buprenorphine can have differing social and practical impacts. Clinicians should monitor patients receiving depot buprenorphine to reduce the risk of unintended consequences including disruption to clinical supports., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: Pregabalin use was common, but for most people use was not associated with clinically meaningful improvements in pain or functioning., (© 2020 British Pharmacological Society.)

Introduction: Despite decreasing consumption by general populations, use of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs) persists in some marginalised groups, including those who use other substances. This article explores SCRA consumption in an Australian cannabis treatment sample, comparing those who report ever using SCRAs with those who have never used SCRAs., Methods: A questionnaire orally administered in person to a convenience sample of 154 cannabis treatment service clients from New South Wales, Australia (71% male, median age 35) collected information regarding cannabis and SCRA use including motivations, effects and health-related consequences of use, demographics, other substance use and overall health. Demographic profiles and between-group differences were explored. McNemar tests compared effects of SCRA and cannabis. Logistic regression analysis determined predictors of SCRA use., Results: Half (53%) reported lifetime SCRA use; 20% reported previous-month use. The SCRA + cannabis group displayed greater polysubstance use and psychological distress. Reduced dependence on cannabis but higher levels of other substance use may predict SCRA use. Although curiosity motivated initial SCRA consumption, perceived psychoactive strength drove continued use. SCRAs appear to induce more negative side-effects than cannabis. Of the SCRA + cannabis group, 27% sought medical assistance for SCRA use. Most (90%) preferred cannabis to SCRAs, citing superior safety, effects and consistency of cannabis., Conclusions: Among clients seeking treatment for cannabis use, SCRA use was relatively common, although not a preferred substance. Hazardous substance use and poor mental health characterised SCRA consumers, highlighting the need for continued monitoring by researchers and treatment providers of SCRA consumption in populations who use substances., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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., (© 2020 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Sleep disturbance is a common symptom encountered by cannabis-dependent individuals abstaining from cannabis use. In the present study, we investigated the effect of daily aerobic cycling exercise versus control stretching on sleep quality during inpatient cannabis withdrawal in treatment-seeking dependent cannabis users. The protocol incorporated three consecutive phases: a 4-Day (4-Night) (at-home) 'Baseline' phase, a 6-Day (5-Night) 'Treatment' phase (within a 7-Day inpatient hospital stay) and a 3-Day (4-Night) (at-home) 'Post-Treatment' phase. Participants performed 35 min of monitored activity per day during the Treatment phase. The intervention group (n = 19) cycled at ~60% aerobic capacity (VO 2max ), while the control group (n = 12) performed a stretching routine. Objective sleep quality was measured nightly throughout the study using wrist actigraphy ratings of subjective sleep quality were also recorded during the Treatment phase. There were no group differences in sleep measures during the Baseline phase (all p > .05). Objective sleep onset latency increased from the Baseline to the Treatment phase in the control (stretching) group (p = .042). In contrast, the Cycling group exhibited improvements in sleep duration (p = .008) and sleep efficiency (p = .023) during the Treatment phase compared to the Baseline phase. Cycling also increased sleep duration (p = .005), decreased average wake bout (p = .040) and tended to increase sleep efficiency (p = .051) compared to stretching during the Treatment phase. Subjective sleep quality ratings did not differ between groups (p > .10). These preliminary findings suggest that moderate-intensity aerobic exercise may attenuate the sleep disturbances associated with cannabis withdrawal., (© 2020 European Sleep Research Society.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: NE and AC are employed by St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney, a public health service funded by the NSW Ministry of Health. BC is employed by St Vincent’s Health Australia and has no conflicts to declare. AD is employed by Hunter New England Local Health District, a public health service funded by NSW Health and reports research and travel support from Braeburn/Camurus, research support from Indivior, and has served on an advisory board for Mundipharma, all for unrelated work. RB has received investigator-initiated untied educational grants from Reckitt Benckiser/Indivior for the development of an opioid-related behaviour scale and a study of opioid substitution therapy uptake among chronic non-cancer pain patients. RB has received an untied educational grant from Mundipharma for a postmarketing study of reformulated oxycodone. AC has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, and ViiV Healthcare; lecture and travel sponsorships from Gilead Sciences and ViiV Healthcare; and has served on advisory boards for Gilead Sciences, MSD and ViiV Healthcare, all of which are unrelated to this present study. ZL is employed by UNSW and has no competing interests to declare. KJS is employed by UNSW and has received unrelated travel sponsorship from Gilead Sciences. NL is employed by South East Sydney Local Health District, a public health service funded by the NSW Ministry of Health; he has received research funding from Camurus, and has served on Advisory Boards for Mundipharma, Camurus and Indivior for work unrelated to this study., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Patient-reported outcomes in the treatment of opioid dependence may differ between subcutaneously administered depot buprenorphine and daily sublingual buprenorphine., Objective: To compare patient satisfaction between depot buprenorphine and sublingual buprenorphine in adult outpatients with opioid dependence., Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, randomized clinical trial was conducted among adult patients with opioid dependence at 6 outpatient clinical sites in Australia from October 2018 to September 2019. Data analysis was conducted from October 2019 to May 2020., Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive treatment with weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine or daily sublingual buprenorphine over 24 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the difference in global treatment satisfaction, assessed by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 (range, 0-100; higher score indicates greater satisfaction) at week 24. Secondary end points included other patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life, treatment burden, and health-related outcomes, as well as measures of opioid use, retention in treatment, and safety., Results: A total of 119 participants (70 [58.8%] men; mean [SD] age, 44.4 [10.5] years) were enrolled, randomized to, and received either depot buprenorphine (60 participants [50.4%]) or sublingual buprenorphine (59 participants [49.6%]). From the initial sample of 120, a participant (0.8%) in the sublingual buprenorphine group withdrew consent and did not receive study treatment. All participants were receiving sublingual buprenorphine when enrolled. The mean TSQM global satisfaction score was significantly higher for the depot group compared with the sublingual group at week 24 (mean [SE] score, 82.5 [2.3] vs 74.3 [2.3]; difference, 8.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 14.6; P = .01). Improved outcomes were also observed for several secondary end points after treatment with depot buprenorphine (eg, mean [SE] treatment burden assessed by the Treatment Burden Questionnaire global score, on which lower scores indicate lower burden: 13.2 [2.6] vs 28.6 [2.5]; difference, -15.4; 95% CI, -22.6 to -8.2; P < .001). Thirty-nine participants (65.0%) in the depot buprenorphine group experienced 117 adverse drug reactions, mainly injection site reactions of mild intensity following subcutaneous administration, and 12 participants (20.3%) in the sublingual buprenorphine group experienced 21 adverse drug reactions. No participants withdrew from the trial medication or the trial due to adverse events., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, participants receiving depot buprenorphine reported improved treatment satisfaction compared with those receiving sublingual buprenorphine. The results highlight the application of patient-reported outcomes as alternative end points to traditional markers of substance use in addiction treatment outcome studies., Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ANZCTR12618001759280.

Buprenorphine is a partial opioid agonist commonly used to treat opioid dependence. The pharmacology of buprenorphine increases the risk of a precipitated opioid withdrawal when commencing patients on buprenorphine treatment, particularly when transferring from long acting opioids (e.g. methadone). There is little documented experience regarding the management of precipitated withdrawal. In our case, a patient developed a significant precipitated opioid withdrawal following buprenorphine administration, and was able to be successfully treated in hospital with further buprenorphine. This demonstrates that rapid increases in buprenorphine dose can be used as an effective treatment for buprenorphine-induced precipitated opioid withdrawal. The use of buprenorphine to manage withdrawal then allows the individual to continue on this highly effective treatment., (© 2021 The Authors. Drug and Alcohol Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Background and Aims: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) is a brief instrument measuring recent substance use, risk profile and general health and wellbeing among clients attending alcohol and other drug (AoD) treatment services. This study evaluates the ATOP for concurrent validity, inter-rater and test-re-test reliability among alcohol and opioid treatment groups., Design: For concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability, participants completed an ATOP with a clinician and an ATOP plus standardized questionnaires (time-line follow-back, Opiate Treatment Index, Kessler-10, 12-item Short Form Survey, World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF, Personal Wellbeing Index) with a researcher within 3 days. For test-re-test reliability, participants completed two ATOPs with a researcher within a 3-day interval., Setting: Outpatient AoD treatment centres in Australia., Participants: For testing concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability, 278 participants were recruited by advertisements in waiting-rooms or clinician invitation during 2016 to 2018. A further 94 participants were recruited to examine test-re-test reliability., Measurements: Statistical tests used for concurrent validity and test-re-test reliability were Pearson's and Spearman's rank order correlations for continuous variables, and Cohen's κ for nominal variables. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Krippendorf's α., Findings: Most Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile items returned excellent or moderate validity and reliability. For the main substances used-alcohol, cannabis and benzodiazepines-concurrent validity, inter-rater reliability and test-re-test reliability all reached excellent or good agreement (0.72-0.96). Psychological health, physical health and quality of life showed fair to strong agreement with their comparator scales (0.47-0.85)., Conclusions: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile is a validated and reliable instrument for assessing recent substance use and clinical risk, health and welfare among alcohol and opioid clients in alcohol and other drug treatment settings. Its ability to reliably measure complex constructs, such as psychological and physical health, against longer scales makes it suitable for integration into routine clinical care, enabling regular monitoring of patient outcomes and safety parameters., (© 2020 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented challenges for traditional models of opioid use disorder treatment worldwide. Depot buprenorphine became available in Australia shortly before the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. This timing provided us an opportunity to examine the utilization and uptake of depot buprenorphine, and to understand the particular benefits and implementation challenges associated with this new formulation of opioid agonist treatment., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Importance: Despite concern about harms related to long-term prescribed opioid use among individuals with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), no study has examined whether the same patients engage in a risky pattern of use consistently for the long term., Objective: To examine the prevalence, incidence, persistence, and cessation of a range of opioid behaviors, indicators of extramedical use, and harm among individuals who are prescribed opioids., Design, Setting, and Participants: This 5-year prospective cohort study in communities across Australia included 1514 adults who were prescribed opioids for CNCP. Data collection took place from August 2012 to December 2018, and data analysis took place from February to November 2020., Exposure: Prescription opioid use., Main Outcomes and Measures: High-dose opioid use (≥200 oral morphine equivalent [OME] mg/d); requesting an increase in opioid dose; requesting an early prescription renewal; tampering with opioid medication; diversion of medication to others; and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision opioid dependence. Cessation of opioid use was also assessed., Results: Of the 1514 participants, 672 (44.39%) were men, the mean (SD) age was 58 (19) years, and 737 (48.68%) were unemployed. At each annual interview, approximately 1 in 8 people (10.98% [95% CI, 10.33%-11.63%] to 14.73% [95% CI, 13.98%-15.48%] at any given interview) were taking more than 200 OME mg/d; comparatively more had requested an increased dosage in the previous 3 months (8.46% [95% CI, 7.89%-9.03%] to 23.77% [95% CI, 22.82%-24.73%]); and fewer asked for an early prescription renewal (4.61% [95% CI, 4.19%-5.03%] to 13.97% [95% CI, 13.24%-14.70%]). In any given interview, between 3.06% (95% CI, 2.72%-3.40%) and 7.86% (95% CI, 7.31%-8.41%) of respondents reported tampering and between 0.47% (95% CI, 0.33%-0.60%) and 1.39% (95% CI, 1.16%-1.62%) reported diversion to others. Between 8.28% (95% CI, 7.71%-8.84%) and 13.06% (95% CI, 12.35%-13.77%) met criteria for opioid dependence at each interview. Opioid cessation increased across interviews, from year 1 (9.15% [95% CI, 8.55%-9.74%]) to year 5 (20.02% [19.14%-20.89%]). There was considerable incidence and cessation in all behaviors from 1 interview to the next: most who engaged in any of these behaviors only did so at only 1 interview. For pharmaceutical opioid dependence, between 55.26% (95% CI, 53.81%-56.71%) and 64.44% (95% CI, 62.87%-66.00%) of cases in 1 interview did not meet dependence criteria in the following interview., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest considerable fluidity in opioid use, extramedical behaviors, and opioid dependence among people with CNCP. This reinforces the need for reassessment of the effectiveness and safety of prescription opioid use over time.

As the use of cannabis for medical purposes becomes increasingly prevalent, driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) is emerging as a major public health issue. Understanding current behaviours, attitudes and perceptions around DUIC in medical cannabis users is an important first step in addressing this issue. Here we present the results from the driving-related subsection of the Cannabis as Medicine 2018-2019 Survey (CAMS18) of current Australian medical cannabis users (n = 1388). Of the 806 respondents who reported driving a motor vehicle in the last month, 34.6% said they typically drive within 3 hours of cannabis use, thereby risking DUIC, while more than 50% waited at least 7 hours before driving. A majority of respondents thought that their medical cannabis use did not affect their driving ability, and most denied any specific effects of cannabis on speeding, risk taking, reaction time, attentiveness or lane departures. A substantial majority (70.9%) felt confident in accurately assessing their own driving ability after using medical cannabis. Binary logistic regression showed that frequency of use and confidence to assess driving ability were strongly related to DUIC behaviour (i.e. driving soon after cannabis use). These results suggest a relatively high prevalence of DUIC and low perception of risk among this sample of medical cannabis users. Further research is needed to better understand the acute and chronic effects of medical cannabis use on driving and the relation between perceived and actual driving ability., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The literature suggests patient characteristics and higher opioid doses and long-term duration are associated with problematic opioid behaviours but no one study has examined the role of all these factors simultaneously in a long-term prospective cohort study., Methods: Five-year, community-based, prospective cohort of people prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Logistic mixed effect models with multiple imputation were used to address missing data. Oral morphine equivalent (OME) mg per day was categorised as: 0 mg OME/day, 1-49 mg OME/day (reference), 50-89 mg OME/day, 90-199 mg OME/day and 200mg+ OME/day. Patient risk factors included: age, gender, substance use, mental health history and pain-related factors. Main outcomes included: Prescribed Opioids Difficulties Scale (PODS), Opioid-Related Behaviours In Treatment (ORBIT) scale, and ICD-10 opioid dependence. Multiple confounders for problematic opioid behaviours were assessed., Findings: Of 1,514 participants 44.4% were male (95%CI 41.9-46.9) and their mean age was 58 years (IQR 48-67). Participants had a mean duration of pain of 10 years (IQR 4.5-20.0) and had been taking strong opioids for a median of four years (IQR 1.0-10.0). At baseline, median OME/day was 73 (IQR 35-148). At 5-years, 85% were still taking strong opioids. PODS moderate-high scores reduced from 59.9% (95%CI 58.8-61.0) at baseline to 51.5% (95%CI 50.0-53.0) at 5-years. Around 9% met criteria for ICD-10 opioid dependence at each wave. In adjusted mixed effect models, the risk factors most consistently associated with problematic opioid use were: younger age, substance dependence, mental health histories and higher opioid doses., Interpretation: Both patient risk factors and opioid dose are associated with problematic opioid use behaviours., Competing Interests: GC, LD, MF, RB, MC and SN report grants for the conduct of this study from the National Health and Medical Research Centre (NHMRC). The funder had no input into the design, conduct, data collection, analyses or publication of study findings In the past 36 months some authors have received investigator-driven untied educational grants for unrelated work from Indivior (LD, BL, MF, SN), Mundipharma (MF, RB, NL), Seqirus (LD, MF, BL, SN) and Camurus AB (NL). No company had input into the design, conduct, data collection, analyses or publication of study findings. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Introduction and Aims: Previous studies suggest cannabinoid agonist treatment is effective in reducing cannabis use in dependent treatment seekers, however few studies have reported on post-treatment outcomes. We examine cannabis use outcomes 12 weeks after cessation of treatment from a randomised placebo-controlled trial of nabiximols for the treatment of cannabis dependence., Method: 128 participants received either nabiximols (n = 61) or placebo (n = 67) for 12 weeks, in combination with psychosocial interventions. Self-reported number of days of cannabis use in the previous 28 days was measured at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 weeks (end of treatment) and again at 24 weeks (3 months after treatment ceased). Urinalysis was used to confirm self-report data at Week 24 interview., Results: A factorial mixed-effects model for repeated measures regression revealed that the nabiximols group used cannabis on 6.8 fewer days in the previous 28 days at week 12 (end of treatment) than the placebo group (p = 0.002, CI: 2.1,11.4), and 6.7 fewer days in the previous 28 days at the week-24 follow-up than the placebo group (p = 0.006, CI: 1.4,12.1). A significantly higher proportion of the nabiximols group (14/61; 23 %) than the placebo group (6/67; 9%) reported abstinence from cannabis in the previous 28 days at the week-24 research interview OR=3.0, CI: 1.1, 9.1; p=0.035, NNT=8, CI: 4, 71)., Discussions and Conclusions: The benefits of treatment incorporating nabiximols with psychosocial interventions in reducing cannabis use appears to persist for up to 3 months after the cessation of treatment. A stepped care model of treatment is proposed., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000103460) https://www.anzctr.org.au., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Many of the investigators have received investigator-initiated, untied educational grants for opioid-related studies from: Indivior (Briony Larance, Louisa Degenhardt, Nicholas Lintzeris, Michael Farrell, Suzanne Neilsen); Reckitt Benckiser (Briony Larance, Louisa Degenhardt, Nicholas Lintzeris, Michael Farrell, Suzanne Nielsen, Robert Ali, Adrian Dunlop); Mundipharma (Briony Larance, Louisa Degenhardt, Nicholas Lintzeris, Michael Farrell); and Seqirus (Briony Larance, Louisa Degenhardt, Michael Farrell, Suzanne Nielsen)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction and Aims: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) is a brief clinical tool measuring recent substance use, health and wellbeing among clients attending alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services. It has previously been assessed for concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability. In this study we examine whether it is suitable for administration over the telephone., Design and Methods: We recruited a sample of 107 AOD clients across public sector specialist AOD treatment services in New South Wales, Australia between 2016 and 2018. Participants had a mean age of 47 years and 46% were female. Participants completed a face-to-face ATOP and a phone ATOP with a researcher within 5 days. Comparisons between the two administration modes were undertaken using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for continuous or ordinal variables, and Cohen's Kappa for nominal variables., Results: Among 107 participants, 59% were attending for alcohol treatment and 41% for opioid treatment. Most ATOP items (76%) reached above 0.7 (good) or 0.9 (excellent) agreement between face-to-face and telephone use., Discussion and Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the ATOP is a suitable instrument for telephone monitoring of recent substance use, health and social functioning among AOD clients. Its validation for remote use over the telephone will support staff to monitor clients' risks and outcomes-of particular relevance in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in which services are increasingly relying on telework approaches to client monitoring., (© 2020 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Background: In 2016, the Australian federal government passed legislation enabling a range of cannabis-based products to be prescribed to patients by registered healthcare professionals. An online survey conducted immediately prior to these legislative changes found that the vast majority of respondents at the time were illicitly sourcing cannabis plant matter, smoking was the preferred route of administration and mental health, chronic pain, and sleep conditions were the most frequently cited reasons for medical cannabis use. This manuscript reports the results of a follow-up survey conducted in 2018-2019, the Cannabis As Medicine Survey (CAMS-18). The goal of this second questionnaire was to examine patterns of use and consumer perspectives regarding medical cannabis use in Australia, 2 years after the introduction of legal access pathways., Methods: Anonymous online cross-sectional survey with convenience sample, recruited mainly through online media between September 2018 and March 2019. Participants were adults (18 years or over) residing in Australia who reported using a cannabis product for self-identified therapeutic reasons during the preceding 12 months. The survey measured consumer characteristics, indications and patterns of medical cannabis use, routes and frequency of administration, perceived benefits and harms, experiences and preferred models of access to medical cannabis., Results: Data were available for 1388 respondents. The main categories of condition being treated with medical cannabis were pain (36.4%), mental health (32.8%), sleep (9.2%), neurological (5.2%) and cancer (3.8%). Respondents reported using medical cannabis on 15.8 (11.2) days in the past 28, by inhaled (71.4%) or oral (26.5%) routes and spending AUD$82.27 ($101.27) per week. There were high levels of self-reported effectiveness, but also high rates of side effects. There was uncertainty regarding the composition of illicit cannabinoid products and concerns regarding their possible contamination. Few respondents (2.7%) had accessed legally prescribed medical cannabis, with the main perceived barriers being cost, disinterest from the medical profession and stigma regarding cannabis use., Conclusions: Chronic pain, mental health and sleep remain the main clinical conditions for which consumers report using medical cannabis. Despite 2 years of legal availability, most consumers in Australia reported accessing illicit cannabis products, with uncertainty regarding the quality or composition of cannabis products.

Objective: The 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., Design: A randomized, controlled, double-blinded, double-dummy, within-subject crossover study., Subjects: Nine participants on stable doses of methadone and eight participants on stable doses of buprenorphine were recruited., Setting: An outpatient opioid treatment clinic in inner city Sydney, Australia., Methods: The 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., Results: There 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., Conclusions: There 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., (© 2019 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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 and Aims: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) was developed as a clinical tool for monitoring the substance use, health and wellbeing of clients in alcohol and other drug treatment. This is the first psychometric validation of the ATOP in a cannabis-dependent treatment population., Design and Methods: A total of 128 individuals with cannabis dependence enrolled in an outpatient randomised controlled trial were administered the ATOP and gold-standard health and wellbeing questionnaires once by clinicians and once by researchers at baseline. Concurrent validity was assessed by testing ATOP Psychological Health, Physical Health and Quality of Life questions against concurrently administered gold-standard questionnaires: the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), the 21-item Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Interrater reliability was tested by comparing clinician-administered ATOP items at the medical screening interview to the same ATOP items administered by researchers at baseline., Results: ATOP Psychological Health showed moderate to strong correlations with SF-36 Mental Components, SF-36 Mental Health and DASS-21 scores (r = 0.40-0.52) and ATOP Physical Health with SF-36 Physical Components and SF-36 General Health scores (r = 0.36-0.67). The ATOP Quality of Life scale showed moderate agreement with the SDS and six-dimensional health state short form scales (r = 0.38-0.40). ATOP substance use, employment, education and child care items showed good to excellent interrater reliability (Krippendorff's α = 0.62-0.81), and tobacco use, Psychological Health, Physical Health and Quality of Life showed fair to moderate interrater reliability (Krippendorff's α = 0.42-0.53)., Discussion and Conclusions: The ATOP appears to be valid and reliable when tested in a population with cannabis-dependence, justifying its widespread use in clinical settings., (© 2020 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Background: Stimulant drugs are second only to cannabis as the most widely used class of illicit drug globally, accounting for 68 million past-year consumers. Dependence on amphetamines (AMPH) or methamphetamine (MA) is a growing global concern. Yet, there is no established pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence. A comprehensive assessment of the research literature on pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence may inform treatment guidelines and future research directions., Methods: We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature via the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS for randomised controlled trials reported in the English language examining a pharmacological treatment for AMPH/MA dependence or use disorder. We included all studies published to 19 June 2019. The selected studies were evaluated for design; methodology; inclusion and exclusion criteria; sample size; pharmacological and (if included) psychosocial interventions; length of follow-up and follow-up schedules; outcome variables and measures; results; overall conclusions and risk of bias. Outcome measures were any reported impact of treatment related to AMPH/MA use., Results: Our search returned 43 studies that met our criteria, collectively enrolling 4065 participants and reporting on 23 individual pharmacotherapies, alone or in combination. Disparate outcomes and measures (n = 55 for the primary outcomes) across studies did not allow for meta-analyses. Some studies demonstrated mixed or weak positive signals (often in defined populations, e.g. men who have sex with men), with some variation in efficacy signals dependent on baseline frequency of AMPH/MA use. The most consistent positive findings have been demonstrated with stimulant agonist treatment (dexamphetamine and methylphenidate), naltrexone and topiramate. Less consistent benefits have been shown with the antidepressants bupropion and mirtazapine, the glutamatergic agent riluzole and the corticotropin releasing factor (CRF-1) antagonist pexacerfont; whilst in general, antidepressant medications (e.g. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]) have not been effective in reducing AMPH/MA use., Conclusions: No pharmacotherapy yielded convincing results for the treatment of AMPH/MA dependence; mostly studies were underpowered and had low treatment completion rates. However, there were positive signals from several agents that warrant further investigation in larger scale studies; agonist therapies show promise. Common outcome measures should include change in use days. Future research must address the heterogeneity of AMPH/MA dependence (e.g. coexisting conditions, severity of disorder, differences between MA and AMPH dependence) and the role of psychosocial intervention.

Objective: To develop a short, patient-administered screening tool that will allow for earlier assessment of prescription opioid dependence (often referred to as addiction) in primary care settings., Design and Setting: Cross-sectional analysis (N = 1,134) from the two-year time point of the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) cohort was used in the scale development., Subjects: Participants who completed two-year interviews in the POINT study, a prospective cohort study that followed people with chronic noncancer pain over a five-year period, and who were prescribed strong opioids for a minimum of six weeks at baseline., Methods: An advisory committee provided advice on wording and content for screening in primary care settings. Univariate logistic regression identified individual items that were significantly associated with meeting ICD-11 criteria for prescription opioid dependence. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) were conducted, and items were reduced to identify a small item set that were discriminative and shared a simple underlying structure., Results: Sixty-four variables associated with ICD-11 criteria for prescription opioid dependence were initially identified. Four rounds of EFA were performed, resulting in five items remaining. CFA identified two possible four-item combinations, with the final combination chosen based on greater item endorsement and the results of goodness-of-fit indices., Conclusions: Addressing prescription opioid dependence is an important part of the global public health challenge surrounding rising opioid-related harm. This study addresses an important initial requisite step to develop a brief screening tool. Further studies are required to validate the tool in clinical settings., (© 2019 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction and Designs: Take-home naloxone (THN) interventions are an effective response to preventing overdose deaths, however uptake across Australia remains limited. This project designed, implemented and evaluated a model of care targeting opioid users attending alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment, needle and syringe programs (NSP) and related health services targeting people who inject drugs., Design and Methods: Service providers, consumers and regulators collaboratively designed a THN brief intervention (ORTHN, Overdose Response with Take-Home Naloxone) involving client education and supply of naloxone in pre-filled syringes, delivered by nursing, allied health and NSP workers. ORTHN interventions were implemented in over 15 services across New South Wales, Australia. The evaluation included client knowledge, attitudes, substance use and overdose experiences immediately before and 3 months after ORTHN intervention in a subsample of participants., Results: Six hundred and sixteen interventions were delivered, with 145 participants recruited to the research subsample, of whom 95 completed the three-month follow up. Overdose-related attitudes amongst participants improved following ORTHN, with no evidence of increased substance use or failure to implement other 'first responses' (e.g. calling an ambulance). Nine participants (10%) reversed an overdose using THN in the follow-up period. Participants identified a willingness to access THN from a range of services. While a minority (16%) indicated they were unwilling to pay for THN, the median price that participants were willing to pay was $AUD20 (IQR $10.40)., Discussion and Conclusions: The ORTHN model of care for THN appears an effective way to disseminate THN to people who use opioids attending AOD, NSP and related health-care settings., (© 2019 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Objectives: Prescription opioid use disorder (POUD) is an established public health crisis in many countries, and current evidence indicates it is a growing problem in Europe. Many specialists play a role, including pain and addiction medicine specialists, in the diagnosis and management of POUD, but neither group can fully address these patients' needs alone. The purpose of this consensus process was to bring together experts from pain and addiction medicine to examine the positions of both specialties., Methods: In all, 13 international pain medicine, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry experts convened a meeting to formulate a set of consensus statements on the diagnosis and management of POUD. The statements were further refined by a wider group of 22 European expert clinicians. At a second meeting of all 35 participants, a set of controversy statements was also developed to recognize some of the key areas of divergent opinion., Results/conclusions: There was a high level of agreement between pain and addiction specialists. Key themes that emerged were the need to strengthen interdisciplinary communication, a desire for greater education and training for clinicians in both specialties, and mutual acknowledgment of the importance of multidisciplinary management of POUD. The blurred line between poorly managed pain and POUD was also a subject of much discussion, reflecting the difficulties in defining and diagnosing this complex condition.

Objective: Although depression and chronic pain often coexist, few studies have examined antidepressant use among people with pain. This study examines the prevalence and characteristics associated with antidepressant use among people prescribed opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP)., Design: Baseline data from a prospective cohort study., Setting: Australian community., Subjects: A total of 1166 people prescribed opioids for CNCP., Methods: Baseline data collection consisted of a self-completed seven-day medication diary and telephone interview to collect information on sociodemographic characteristics and mental/physical health using validated questionnaires. Logistic regression was used to examine characteristics associated with antidepressant use, reporting adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: Of the 1166 participants, 668 (57.3%) were female, and the median (interquartile range) age was 59 (49-68) years. About half the cohort (N = 637, 54.6%) used antidepressants. Of these, 329 (51.7%) reported moderate to severe depression. Amitriptyline was the most commonly used antidepressant (17.3%). Factors independently associated with antidepressant use were being female (AOR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.13-1.92), more years lived in pain (AOR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.00-1.02), and use of nonopioid analgesics (AOR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.01-1.78), benzodiazepines and related drugs (AOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.36-2.49), antiepileptics (AOR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.38-2.51), and antipsychotics (AOR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.22-3.77)., Conclusions: Antidepressant use is common among people with CNCP prescribed opioids. Those using antidepressants were more likely to use other psychotropic medicines concurrently, highlighting that they are a high-risk population requiring comprehensive assessment to optimize outcomes and reduce potential harms from polypharmacy., (© 2019 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Point-of-collection testing (POCT) for Δ 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in oral fluid is increasingly used to detect driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC). However, previous studies have questioned the reliability and accuracy of two commonly used POCT devices, the Securetec DrugWipe ® 5 s (DW5s) and Dräger DrugTest ® 5000 (DT5000). In the current placebo controlled, double-blind, crossover study we used liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to accurately quantify cannabinoid concentrations in the oral fluid of 14 participants at various timepoints (10, 60, 120, and 180 minutes) following vaporization of 125 mg of THC-dominant (11% THC; <1% CBD), THC/CBD equivalent (11% THC; 11% CBD) and placebo (<1% THC; <1% CBD) cannabis. At each timepoint, oral fluid was also screened using the DW5s (10 ng/mL THC cut-off) and DT5000 (10 ng/mL THC cut-off). LC-MS/MS analysis showed peak oral fluid THC concentrations at the 10 minute timepoint with a rapid decline thereafter. This trajectory did not differ with THC dominant and THC/CBD equivalent cannabis. With a 10 ng/mL confirmatory cut-off, 5% of DW5s test results were false positives and 16% false negatives. For the DT5000, 10% of test results were false positives and 9% false negatives. Neither the DW5s nor the DT5000 demonstrated the recommended >80% sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Accuracy was lowest at 60 minutes, when THC concentrations were often close to the screening cut-off (10 ng/mL). POCT devices can be useful tools in detecting recent cannabis use; however, limitations should be noted, and confirmatory LC-MS/MS quantification of results is strongly advisable., (© 2019 The Authors. Drug Testing and Analysis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The main psychoactive component of cannabis, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), can impair driving performance. Cannabidiol (CBD), a non-intoxicating cannabis component, is thought to mitigate certain adverse effects of THC. It is possible then that cannabis containing equivalent CBD and THC will differentially affect driving and cognition relative to THC-dominant cannabis., Aims: The present study investigated and compared the effects of THC-dominant and THC/CBD equivalent cannabis on simulated driving and cognitive performance., Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, within-subjects crossover design, healthy volunteers (n = 14) with a history of light cannabis use attended three outpatient experimental test sessions in which simulated driving and cognitive performance were assessed at two timepoints (20-60 min and 200-240 min) following vaporization of 125 mg THC-dominant (11% THC; < 1% CBD), THC/CBD equivalent (11% THC, 11% CBD), or placebo (< 1% THC/CBD) cannabis., Results/outcomes: Both active cannabis types increased lane weaving during a car-following task but had little effect on other driving performance measures. Active cannabis types impaired performance on the Digit Symbol Substitution Task (DSST), Divided Attention Task (DAT) and Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT) with impairment on the latter two tasks worse with THC/CBD equivalent cannabis. Subjective drug effects (e.g., "stoned") and confidence in driving ability did not vary with CBD content. Peak plasma THC concentrations were higher following THC/CBD equivalent cannabis relative to THC-dominant cannabis, suggesting a possible pharmacokinetic interaction., Conclusions/interpretation: Cannabis containing equivalent concentrations of CBD and THC appears no less impairing than THC-dominant cannabis, and in some circumstances, CBD may actually exacerbate THC-induced impairment.

Importance: There are no effective medications for treating dependence on cannabis., Objective: To examine the safety and efficacy of nabiximols in the treatment of patients with cannabis dependence., Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing nabiximols with placebo in a 12-week, multisite outpatient study recruited participants from February 3, 2016, to June 14, 2017, at 4 outpatient specialist alcohol and drug treatment services in New South Wales, Australia. Participants had cannabis dependence (as defined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision) and were seeking treatment, were nonresponsive to prior treatment attempts, were 18 to 64 years of age, had no other substance use disorder, had no severe medical or psychiatric conditions, were not pregnant, were not mandated by a court to undergo treatment, and provided informed consent. Results for primary efficacy measures and all secondary outcomes were obtained using a modified intention-to-treat data set., Interventions: Participants received 12-week treatment involving weekly clinical reviews, structured counseling, and flexible medication doses-up to 32 sprays daily (tetrahydrocannabinol, 86.4 mg, and cannabidiol, 80 mg), dispensed weekly., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was self-reported number of days using illicit cannabis during the 12-week period. Other outcomes included alternate cannabis use parameters (periods of abstinence, withdrawal, cravings, and problems), safety parameters (adverse events and aberrant medication use), health status, other substance use, and treatment retention., Results: A total of 128 participants (30 women and 98 men; mean [SD] age, 35.0 [10.9] years) were randomized and received at least 1 dose of study medication. Participants had used a mean (SD) of 2.3 (2.1) g of cannabis on a mean (SD) of 25.7 (4.5) days in the past 28 days. Treatment retention was comparable for the 2 groups (placebo, 30 of 67 participants [44.8%]; nabiximols, 30 of 61 participants [49.2%]), and both groups used similar mean (SD) doses (placebo, 18.5 [9.5] sprays daily; nabiximols, 17.6 [9.5] sprays daily, equivalent to a mean [SD] of 47.5 [25.7] mg of tetrahydrocannabinol and 44.0 [23.8] mg of cannabidiol). For the primary end point, the placebo group reported significantly more days using cannabis during the 12 weeks (mean [SD], 53.1 [33.0] days) than the nabiximols group (mean [SD], 35.0 [32.4] days; estimated difference, 18.6 days; 95% CI, 3.5-33.7 days; P = .02). Both groups showed comparable improvements in health status, with no substantial changes in other substance use. Medication was well tolerated with few adverse events., Conclusions and Relevance: This study demonstrates that cannabinoid agonist treatment, in this case using nabiximols, in combination with psychosocial interventions is a safe approach for reducing cannabis use among individuals with cannabis dependence who are seeking treatment., Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616000103460.

Aims: To assess the long-term safety of subcutaneous buprenorphine (CAM2038) weekly and monthly depots., Design: Phase 3, open-label, observational, multi-centre 48-week trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02672111)., Setting: Twenty-six out-patient sites (United States, United Kingdom, Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Australia) between 14 December 2015 and 12 April 2017., Participants: Two hundred and twenty-eight adults with opioid use disorder; 227 received CAM2038 (37 initiated onto CAM2038 and 190 converted from sublingual buprenorphine)., Interventions: CAM2038 weekly (8, 16, 24 or 32 mg) or monthly (64, 96, 128 or 160 mg) with flexible dosing and individualized titration utilizing multiple CAM2038 weekly and monthly doses., Measurements: Safety variables, urine toxicology samples and self-reported illicit opioid use were collected at each visit. Participants were administered a patient satisfaction survey at months 6 and 12, completed by 162 of 227 (71.4%) participants., Findings: The study treatment period was completed by 167 of 227 (73.6%) participants. At least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was reported by 143 of 227 (63.0%) participants, of whom 60 of 227 (26.4%) reported as being drug-related. Most of the TEAEs, reported by 128 of 227 (56.4%) of participants, were mild or moderate in intensity. Injection-site reactions were reported by 46 of 227 (20.3%) participants, with most [45 of 46 (97.8%)] reported as mild to moderate. Five participants (2.2%) discontinued the study drug due to a TEAE, two cases (0.9%) of which were injection-site-related. No serious adverse events were attributed to the study drug. Among those remaining in the study, the percentage of opioid-negative urine tests combined with self-reports was 63.0% (17 of 27) in new-to-treatment participants and 82.8% (111 of 134) for those converted from sublingual buprenorphine. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with CAM2038., Conclusions: Subcutaneous buprenorphine delivered weekly or monthly (CAM2038) was well tolerated, with a systemic safety profile consistent with the known profile of sublingual buprenorphine. CAM2038 weekly and monthly was associated with high retention rates and low levels of illicit opioid use throughout this study., (© 2019 Braeburn Inc. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background: The safety and efficacy of long-term opioid treatment for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) remains controversial. This study examined whether patients who report problematic opioid use sought help and/or perceived barriers to help-seeking., Methods: Data were collected from 1,086 people prescribed opioids for CNCP via a large prospective cohort called the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) study. Patients' characteristics and help-seeking were examined according to scores on the Prescribed Opioids Difficulties Scale (PODS)., Results: Participants scoring "intermediate" (17%) or "high" (30%) on the PODS were younger and reported more complex pain presentations, higher opioid doses, poorer physical health, moderate to severe anxiety and depression, aberrant behavior, past month opioid use disorder and help-seeking (compared with the "low" PODS group, 53%). One-quarter (26%) had sought help, most commonly from a primary care physician, specialist pain clinic, family member/partner, counselor/psychologist, and the Internet. Participants in the "high" PODS group were more likely to have sought help from an alcohol or other drug service, addiction specialist, or drug information helpline. Common barriers to help-seeking were desire for self-management and concern that their opioid treatment may be discontinued. Although 35% met criteria for likely opioid use disorder, only 4.8% reported lifetime treatment with methadone or buprenorphine; participants' ratings indicated significant perceived stigma associated with these medications., Conclusions: The PODS is effective in identifying patients who are concerned about their opioid use. Strategies to address stigma related to drug treatment, including better integration of primary health, specialist pain, and addiction services, are important in reducing opioid-related harm., (© 2018 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective:: To assess Australian psychiatrists' and psychiatry trainees' knowledge about and attitudes towards medicinal cannabinoids, given the recent relaxation of cannabinoid-prescribing laws in Australia., Method:: All Australian members of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists were invited to participate in an anonymous, 64-item online questionnaire, through Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists' newsletters. The questionnaire ran for a 10-week period from March to May 2017. Participants were asked about their knowledge of the evidence for and against prescribing pharmaceutical-grade cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol, and their concerns about prescribing medicinal cannabinoids., Results:: In total, 88 doctors responded to the survey, with 55 completing all items (23 psychiatrists, 32 trainees). Overall, 54% of respondents would prescribe medicinal cannabinoids if it was legal to do so. Participants believed there was evidence for the use of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol in treating childhood epilepsy, chronic pain, and nausea and vomiting. They were most concerned about medicinal cannabinoids leading to psychotic symptoms, addiction and dependence, apathy and recreational use., Conclusions:: Our sample of Australian psychiatrists and trainees were aware of the main clinical indications for medicinal cannabinoids, but were poor at differentiating between the indications for cannabidiol versus tetrahydrocannabinol. Further education about medicinal cannabinoids appears necessary.

Background: Insomnia and excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) are reported to be common in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) but much less is known about these symptoms in buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) and in women compared with men. Methods: Cross sectional study of recipients of BMT ( n  = 113, 47 women), MMT ( n  = 184, 94 women), people using opioids nonmedically (nonopioid agonist treatment, non-OAT: n  = 87, 31 women) and a reference group with no opioid use (RG; n  = 105, 53 women) in Australia. Measures included Athens Insomnia Scale, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and other substance use. Results: Insomnia (Athens Insomnia Scale, total ≥10) was highly prevalent among all people who use opioids (BMT 46.0-68.1%; MMT 55.4-69.6%; non-OAT 58.6-80.5%), did not differ significantly among these groups, and was significantly associated with anxiety and depression. EDS (Epworth score >10) was found in 14.2% of BMT, 22.8% of MMT, 35.6% of non-OAT groups, and 11.4% of the RG, and was significantly associated with depression overall. Fewer people had Epworth score >15 indicating more severe EDS (BMT 4.4%, MMT 6.0%; non-OAT 13.8%; RG 1.9%). Insomnia and EDS did not differ by sex or by opioid dose, nor were they significantly associated with other drug use, housing stress or social security status. Conclusions: Insomnia was common in people receiving OAT and using opioids non-medically, and associated with anxiety and depression. Clinicians should consider the possibility of daytime sleepiness in people receiving BMT and MMT, and in people using opioids nonmedically.

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., (© 2018 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important issue for patients receiving chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy. Trials using delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-rich (THC) products demonstrate limited antiemetic effect, significant adverse events and flawed study design. Trials using cannabidiol-rich (CBD) products demonstrate improved efficacy and psychological adverse event profile. No definitive trials have been conducted to support the use of cannabinoids for this indication, nor has the potential economic impact of incorporating such regimens into the Australian healthcare system been established. CannabisCINV aims to assess the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of adding TN-TC11M, an oral THC/CBD extract to guideline-consistent antiemetics in the secondary prevention of CINV., Methods and Analysis: The current multicentre, 1:1 randomised cross-over, placebo-controlled pilot study will recruit 80 adult patients with any malignancy, experiencing CINV during moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetics. Patients receive oral TN-TC11M (THC 2.5mg/CBD 2.5 mg) capsules or placebo capsules three times a day on day -1 to day 5 of cycle A of chemotherapy, followed by the alternative drug regimen during cycle B of chemotherapy and the preferred drug regimen during cycle C. The primary endpoint is the proportion of subjects attaining a complete response to CINV. Secondary and tertiary endpoints include regimen tolerability, impact on quality of life and health system resource use. The primary assessment tool is patient diaries, which are filled from day -1 to day 5. A subsequent randomised placebo-controlled parallel phase III trial will recruit a further 250 patients., Ethics and Dissemination: The protocol was approved by ethics review committees for all participating sites. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences., Drug Supply: Tilray., Protocol Version: 2.0, 9 June 2017., Trial Registration Number: ANZCTR12616001036404; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 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.)

Since the 1990s, there have been seven clinical trials, and considerable clinical experience, in supervised injectable opioid treatment (SIOT) for individuals who, despite previous treatments, continue to inject illicit heroin and experience harmful health and social consequences. Most studies prescribed pharmaceutical heroin (diacetyl morphine, or DAM). This paper critically reviews randomised trials, long-term follow-up studies and qualitative reports of SIOT, and briefly reviews evidence regarding other medications used in injectable treatment as an alternative to DAM. It seeks to identify critical, unresolved issues regarding this treatment. Randomised trials comparing DAM with oral methadone (OM) report that while in treatment, participants randomised to DAM used less street heroin; reported spending less money on drugs, committed fewer crimes, and experienced improved health. Similar findings pertain to SIOT with hydromorphone. Because of the risks of overdose, diversion, and misuse, all recent trials of injected DAM involved supervised administration. This contributes to treatment being expensive to deliver. There is conflicting evidence regarding societal cost effectiveness, with some studies estimating that the reduction in crime more than compensates for the expense of the treatment. The critical, unresolved issues concerning this modality of treatment relate to the way in which it is approached-either as a medium-term, intensive intervention where other treatment has failed, designed to bring people into conventional opioid agonist treatment (OAT); or an indefinite support aimed at reducing social and personal harm. The former seems in line with the available findings on long-term effectiveness of SIOT and might be more acceptable given its rather moderate cost.

Objective: To explore patterns of cannabis use for medical purposes in Australia immediately prior to the 2016 legislation for frameworks for medical cannabis use. Design, setting: Anonymous online survey with convenience sample, April-October 2016. Participants were recruited through online media and at professional and consumer forums., Participants: Adults (at least 18 years of age) who reported using a cannabis product for self-identified medical or therapeutic reasons during the preceding 12 months., Main Outcome Measures: Consumer characteristics; indications and patterns of medical cannabis use; perceived benefits and harms; views on appropriate availability of medical cannabis., Results: Most of the 1748 participants were men (68.1%) and employed (56.6%), with a mean age of 37.9 years (SD, 13.4 years) and mean reported period of medical cannabis use of 9.8 years (SD, 12.5 years). The most frequent reasons for medical cannabis use were anxiety (50.7%), back pain (50.0%), depression (49.3%), and sleep problems (43.5%). Respondents had used medical cannabis on a mean of 19.9 of the previous 28 days (SD, 10.0 days), spending a mean $68.60 (SD, $85.00) per week, and 83.4% had inhaled the substance. Participants reported high levels of clinical effectiveness and frequent side effects, including drowsiness, ocular irritation, lethargy and memory impairment; 17% met DSM-5 criteria for moderate or severe cannabis use disorder. Many reported harms or concerns related to the illicit status of cannabis. Participants believed that medical cannabis should be integrated into mainstream health care, and that products should be required to meet consistency and safety standards., Conclusion: Illicitly sourced cannabis is used to treat a broad range of medical conditions in Australia. Future models of prescribed medical cannabis take consumer patterns of use and demand into consideration.

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, cognitive performance, psychosocial functioning, treatment retention and satisfaction. Additionally, the study will assess the cost-effectiveness of LDX relative to the placebo control., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia (HREC/16/SVH/222). Contact the corresponding author for the full trial protocol., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12617000657325; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AC reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from ViiV Healthcare, grants and personal fees from MSD and personal fees from Mayne Healthcare, outside the submitted work. RB has received investigator-initiated untied educational grants from Reckitt Benckiser/Indivior for the development of an opioid-related behaviour scale and a study of opioid substitution therapy uptake among chronic non-cancer pain patients and has received an untied educational grant from Mundipharma for a postmarket study of oxycodone. NL reports personal fees from Indivior, personal fees from Mundipharma, grants from Braeburn Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. AD reports grants from Braeburn Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study., (© 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.)

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 found that participants who used cannabis had a greater pain severity score (risk ratio 1·14, 95% CI 1·01-1·29, for less frequent cannabis use; and 1·17, 1·03-1·32, for daily or near-daily cannabis use), greater pain interference score (1·21, 1·09-1·35; and 1·14, 1·03-1·26), lower pain self-efficacy scores (0·97, 0·96-1·00; and 0·98, 0·96-1·00), and greater generalised anxiety disorder severity scores (1·07, 1·03-1·12; and 1·10, 1·06-1·15). We found no evidence of a temporal relationship between cannabis use and pain severity or pain interference, and no evidence that cannabis use reduced prescribed opioid use or increased rates of opioid discontinuation., Interpretation: Cannabis use was common in people with chronic non-cancer pain who had been prescribed opioids, but we found no evidence that cannabis use improved patient outcomes. People who used cannabis had greater pain and lower self-efficacy in managing pain, and there was no evidence that cannabis use reduced pain severity or interference or exerted an opioid-sparing effect. As cannabis use for medicinal purposes increases globally, it is important that large well designed clinical trials, which include people with complex comorbidities, are conducted to determine the efficacy of cannabis for chronic non-cancer pain., Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Government., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The cannabis extract nabiximols (Sativex®) effectively supresses withdrawal symptoms and cravings in treatment resistant cannabis dependent individuals, who have high relapse rates following conventional withdrawal treatments. This study examines the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of longer-term nabiximols treatment for outpatient cannabis dependent patients who have not responded to previous conventional treatment approaches., Methods/design: A phase III multi-site outpatient, randomised, double-blinded, placebo controlled parallel design, comparing a 12-week course of nabiximols to placebo, with follow up at 24 weeks after enrolment. Four specialist drug and alcohol outpatient clinics in New South Wales, Australia. One hundred forty-two treatment seeking cannabis dependent adults, with no significant medical, psychiatric or other substance use disorders. Nabiximols is an oromucosal spray prescribed on a flexible dose regimen to a maximum daily dose of 32 sprays; 8 sprays (total 21.6 mg tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and 20 mg cannabidiol (CBD)) four times a day, or matching placebo, dispensed weekly. All participants will receive six-sessions of individual cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and weekly clinical reviews. Primary endpoints are use of non-prescribed cannabis (self-reported cannabis use days, urine toxicology), safety measures (adverse events and abuse liability), and cost effectiveness (incremental cost effectiveness in achieving additional Quality Adjusted Life Years). Secondary outcomes include, improvement in physical and mental health parameters, substance use other than cannabis, cognitive functioning and patient satisfaction measures., Discussion: This is the first outpatient community-based randomised controlled study of nabiximols as an agonist replacement medication for treating cannabis dependence, targeting individuals who have not previously responded to conventional treatment approaches. The study and treatment design is modelled upon an earlier study with this population and more generally on other agonist replacement treatments (e.g. nicotine, opioids)., Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616000103460 (Registered 1st February 2016).

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., (© 2016 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

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., (© 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., (© 2018 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Introduction and Aims: Transfer from methadone to buprenorphine is problematic for many opioid-dependent patients, with limited documented evidence or practical clinical guidance, particularly for the range of methadone doses routinely prescribed for most patients (>50 mg). This study aimed to implement and evaluate recent national Australian guidelines for transferring patients from methadone to buprenorphine., Design and Methods: A multisite prospective cohort study. Participants were patients who transferred from methadone to buprenorphine-naloxone at 1 of 4 specialist addiction centers in Australia and New Zealand. Clinicians were trained in the guidelines, and medical records were reviewed to examine process (eg, transfer setting, doses, and guideline adherence) and safety (precipitated withdrawal) measures. Participants completed research interviews before and after transfer-assessing changes in substance use, health outcomes, and side effects., Results: In all, 33 participants underwent transfer, 9 from low methadone doses (<30 mg), 9 from medium doses (30-50 mg), and 15 from high doses (>50 mg). The majority of high-dose transfers occurred in inpatient settings. There was reasonable guideline adherence, and no complications identified in the low and medium-dose transfers. Three high-dose transfers (20%) experienced precipitated withdrawal, and 7/33 participants (21%) returned to methadone within 1 week of attempted transfer., Discussions and Conclusions: Transfer is feasible in outpatient settings for those transferring from methadone doses below 50 mg; however, inpatient settings and specialist supervision is recommended for higher-dose transfers. The Australian clinical guidelines appear safe and feasible, although further research is required to optimize high-dose transfer procedures.

Objective: Take-home naloxone (THN) is recommended in response to pharmaceutical opioid-related mortality. Some health professionals are reluctant to discuss THN for fear of causing offense. The aims of this study were to assess knowledge of opioid overdose and attitudes toward THN for opioid overdose reversal in people with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP)., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Australia, September to October 2015., Subjects: A subset of participants (N = 208) from a cohort of people prescribed restricted opioids for CNCP., Methods: Questions added in the two-year telephone interviews examined knowledge of overdose symptoms and attitudes toward community supply of naloxone. Associations with overdose risk factors and naloxone supply eligibility criteria with attitudes toward naloxone were explored., Results: Fourteen percent reported ever experiencing opioid overdose symptoms. Participants correctly identified fewer than half of the overdose signs and symptoms. After receiving information on naloxone, most participants (60%), thought it was a "good" or "very good" idea. Few participants reported that they would be "a little" (N = 21, 10%) or "very" offended (N = 7, 3%) if their opioid prescriber offered them naloxone. Positive attitudes toward THN were associated with male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-3.50), past year cannabis use (OR = 2.52, 95% CI = 1.03-6.16), and past year nicotine use (OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.14-3.91)., Conclusions: Most participants had positive attitudes toward THN but low knowledge about opioid overdose symptoms. Strategies for educating patients and their caregivers on opioid toxicity are needed. THN may be best targeted toward those with risk factors in terms of overdose prevention and acceptability.