Health care engagement behaviors of men who use performance- and image-enhancing drugs in Australia.

Background: Although people who inject performance- and image-enhancing drugs (PIEDs) report fewer unsafe injecting practices, stigma and discrimination may negatively impact their access to help and information. Engagement with health care services, compared with social networks (friends, relatives, and gym associates) and the Internet and media (steroid user forums, information sites, and magazines), may be important for harm minimization. Methods: A cross-sectional Internet or in-person survey of men who use PIEDs in Australia in 2014-2015 examined differences in sources for PIEDs, injecting equipment, and anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) information and factors associated with having periodical medical checks related to PIEDs issues using multivariate logistic regression. Results: In total, 267 men (mean age: 25 years, SD: 8.7 years; 246 of 267 [92%] reported recent AAS injection) were recruited. Most participants sourced injecting equipment from health professionals, PIEDs from their social networks, and AAS information from the Internet and media. Self-reported AAS knowledge was high and frequent. Higher income (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03, 4.00), ≥2 different PIEDs used in addition to AAS (AOR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.08, 3.49), and sourcing AAS information from health care professionals (AOR: 3.14, 95% CI: 1.81, 5.46) were independently associated with periodical medical checks. Participants nominated preference for improved health services through needle-syringe programs, primary care services, and peer educator support groups. Conclusion: Men who use PIEDs in Australia consider themselves well informed but tend to use Internet and media sources, providing potentially misleading or inaccurate information. Increasing trust between men who use PIEDs and health care providers may enable delivery of PIEDs-specific information to those at greatest need.

The use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) among a community sample of people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids.

BACKGROUND: The regular use of simple analgesics in addition to opioids such as paracetamol (or acetaminophen) is recommended for persistent pain to enhance analgesia. Few studies have examined the frequency and doses of paracetamol among people with chronic non-cancer pain including use above the recommended maximum daily dose. AIMS: To assess (i) the prevalence of paracetamol use among people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids, (ii) assess the prevalence of paracetamol use above the recommended maximum daily dose and (iii) assess correlates of people who used paracetamol above the recommended maximum daily dose including: age, gender, income, education, pain severity and interference, use of paracetamol/opioid combination analgesics, total opioid dose, depression, anxiety, pain self-efficacy or comorbid substance use, among people prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: This study draws on baseline data collected for the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) study and utilises data from 962 interviews and medication diaries. The POINT study is national prospective cohort of people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids. Participants were recruited from randomly selected pharmacies across Australia. RESULTS: Sixty-three per cent of the participants had used paracetamol in the past week (95% CI = 59.7-65.8). Among the paracetamol users 22% (95% CI = 19.3-24.6) had used paracetamol/opioid combination analgesics and 4.8% (95% CI = 3.6-6.3) had used paracetamol above the recommended maximum daily dose (i.e. > 4000 mg/day). Following binomial logistic regression (χ(2) = 25.98, df = 10, p = 0.004), people who had taken above the recommended maximum daily dose were less likely to have low income (AOR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.27-0.99), more likely to use paracetamol/opioid combination analgesics (AOR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.02-3.98) and more likely to take a higher opioid dose (AOR = 1.00, 95% CI = 1.00-1.01). CONCLUSION: The majority of people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids report using paracetamol appropriately. High income, use of paracetamol/opioid combination analgesics and higher opioid dose were independently associated with paracetamol use above the recommended maximum daily dose.

A randomised controlled trial of sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone film versus tablets in the management of opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual film was introduced in 2011 in Australia as an alternative to tablets. This study compared the two formulations on subjective dose effects and equivalence, trough plasma levels, adverse events, patient satisfaction, supervised dosing time, and impact upon treatment outcomes (substance use, psychosocial function). METHODS: 92 buprenorphine-naloxone tablet patients were recruited to this outpatient multi-site double-blind double-dummy parallel group trial. Patients were randomised to either tablets or film, without dose changes, over a 31 day period. RESULTS: No significant group differences were observed for subjective dose effects, trough plasma buprenorphine or norbuprenorphine levels, adverse events and treatment outcomes. Buprenorphine-naloxone film took significantly less time to dissolve than tablets (173±71 versus 242±141s, p=0.007, F=7.67). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated dose equivalence and comparable clinical outcomes between the buprenorphine-naloxone film and tablet preparations, whilst showing improved dispensing times and patient ratings of satisfaction with the film.