Revision of the Australian guidelines to reduce health risks from drinking alcohol.

INTRODUCTION: The Australian guidelines to reduce health risks from drinking alcohol were released in 2020 by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Based on the latest evidence, the guidelines provide advice on how to keep the risk of harm from alcohol low. They refer to an Australian standard drink (10 g ethanol). RECOMMENDATIONS: •Guideline 1: To reduce the risk of harm from alcohol-related disease or injury, healthy men and women should drink no more than ten standard drinks a week and no more than four standard drinks on any one day. The less you drink, the lower your risk of harm from alcohol. •Guideline 2: To reduce the risk of injury and other harms to health, children and people under 18 years of age should not drink alcohol. •Guideline 3: To prevent harm from alcohol to their unborn child, women who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy should not drink alcohol. For women who are breastfeeding, not drinking alcohol is safest for their baby. CHANGES AS RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: The recommended limit for healthy adults changed from two standard drinks per day (effectively 14 per week) to ten per week. The new guideline states that the less you drink, the lower your risk of harm from alcohol. The recommended maximum on any one day remains four drinks (clarified from previously "per drinking occasion"). Guidance is clearer for pregnancy and breastfeeding, and for people aged less than 18 years, recommending not drinking.

Responding to global stimulant use: challenges and opportunities.

We did a global review to synthesise data on the prevalence, harms, and interventions for stimulant use, focusing specifically on the use of cocaine and amphetamines. Modelling estimated the effect of cocaine and amphetamine use on mortality, suicidality, and blood borne virus incidence. The estimated global prevalence of cocaine use was 0·4% and amphetamine use was 0·7%, with dependence affecting 16% of people who used cocaine and 11% of those who used amphetamine. Stimulant use was associated with elevated mortality, increased incidence of HIV and hepatitis C infection, poor mental health (suicidality, psychosis, depression, and violence), and increased risk of cardiovascular events. No effective pharmacotherapies are available that reduce stimulant use, and the available psychosocial interventions (except for contingency management) had a weak overall effect. Generic approaches can address mental health and blood borne virus infection risk if better tailored to mitigate the harms associated with stimulant use. Substantial and sustained investment is needed to develop more effective interventions to reduce stimulant use.

EGFR Mutation Testing: Changing Patterns of Molecular Testing in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: In Brazil, cancer is the second most common cause of death. Most patients in resource-limited countries are diagnosed in advanced stages. Current guidelines advocate for EGFR mutation testing in all patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors are recommended in patients with advanced or metastatic disease harboring sensitizing mutations. In Brazil, there are limited data regarding the frequency of EGFR testing and the changes in patterns of testing overtime. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective study. We obtained deidentified data from a commercial database, which included 11,684 patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated between 2011 and 2016 in both public and private settings. We analyzed the frequency of EGFR mutation testing over time. We also directly studied 3,664 tumor samples, which were analyzed between 2011 and 2013. These samples were tested for EGFR mutations through an access program to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in Brazil. RESULTS: Overall, 38% of patients were tested for EGFR mutations; 76% of them were seen in the private sector, and 24% were seen in the public center. The frequency of testing for EGFR mutations increased significantly over time: 13% (287/2,228 patients) in 2011, 34% (738/2,142) in 2012, 39% (822/2,092) in 2013, 44% (866/1,972) in 2014, 53% (1,165/2,184) in 2015, and 42% (1,359/3,226) in 2016. EGFR mutations were detected in 25.5% of analyzed samples (857/3,364). Deletions in Exon 19 were the most frequent mutations, detected in 54% of patients (463/857). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the frequency of EGFR mutation in this cohort was lower than that found in Asia but higher than in North American and Western European populations. The most commonly found mutations were in Exon 19 and Exon 21. Our study shows that fewer than half of patients are being tested and that the disparity is greater in the public sector. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These data not only indicate the shortage of testing but also show that the rates of positivity in those tested seem to be higher than in other cohorts for which data have been published. This study further supports the idea that awareness and access to testing should be improved in order to improve survival rates in lung cancer in Brazil.

A randomised controlled trial of a brief intervention for illicit drug use linked to ASSIST screening in a primary healthcare setting: results from the Australian component of the World Health Organization Phase III ASSIST studies.

This report presents the findings from the Australian component of the Phase III World Health Organization (WHO) Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of a 5-10-min brief intervention (BI) for illicit drug use delivered in primary healthcare (PHC) settings. Participants (n=171) recruited from a South Australian PHC setting (sexual health clinic) who scored in the 'moderate risk' range on the ASSIST were randomly allocated to an intervention group or wait-list control group at baseline and were followed up 3 months later. The ASSIST was administered to both groups at baseline and follow up as a measure of relative risk. Those in the intervention group received a prescribed 10-step BI at baseline. The majority (n=63) of participants received the BI for amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) or cannabis (n=17). There was a significant reduction in total illicit substance (P<0.001) and ATS Involvement (P<0.01) for those receiving the ASSIST-linked BI, compared with control participants. There was no significant effect on cannabis involvement. The results of this study demonstrate that the ASSIST-linked BI may be a reasonably easy and effective way of reducing illicit substance use by Australian PHC clients.

Opioid antagonists with minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of long-term substitution treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of opioid antagonists plus minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal. Comparators were placebo as well as more established approaches to detoxification, such as tapered doses of methadone, adrenergic agonists, buprenorphine and symptomatic medications. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to December 2016: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials along with prospective controlled cohort studies comparing opioid antagonists plus minimal sedation versus other approaches or different opioid antagonist regimens for withdrawal in opioid-dependent participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (6 randomised controlled trials and 4 prospective cohort studies, involving 955 participants) met the inclusion criteria for the review. We considered 7 of the 10 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one of the domains we assessed.Nine studies compared an opioid antagonist-adrenergic agonist combination versus a treatment regimen based primarily on an alpha2-adrenergic agonist (clonidine or lofexidine). Other comparisons (placebo, tapered doses of methadone, buprenorphine) made by included studies were too diverse for any meaningful analysis. This review therefore focuses on the nine studies comparing an opioid antagonist (naltrexone or naloxone) plus clonidine or lofexidine versus treatment primarily based on clonidine or lofexidine.Five studies took place in an inpatient setting, two studies were in outpatients with day care, two used day care only for the first day of opioid antagonist administration, and one study described the setting as outpatient without indicating the level of care provided.The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of the type of opioid antagonist treatment regimen, the comparator, the outcome measures assessed, and the means of assessing outcomes. As a result, the validity of any estimates of overall effect is doubtful, therefore we did not calculate pooled results for any of the analyses.The quality of the evidence for treatment with an opioid antagonist-adrenergic agonist combination versus an alpha2-adrenergic agonist is very low. Two studies reported data on peak withdrawal severity, and four studies reported data on the average severity over the period of withdrawal. Peak withdrawal induced by opioid antagonists in combination with an adrenergic agonist appears to be more severe than withdrawal managed with clonidine or lofexidine alone, but the average severity over the withdrawal period is less. In some situations antagonist-induced withdrawal may be associated with significantly higher rates of treatment completion compared to withdrawal managed with adrenergic agonists. However, this result was not consistent across studies, and the extent of any benefit is highly uncertain.We could not extract any data on the occurrence of adverse events, but two studies reported delirium or confusion following the first dose of naltrexone. Delirium may be more likely with higher initial doses and with naltrexone rather than naloxone (which has a shorter half-life), but we could not confirm this from the available evidence.Insufficient data were available to make any conclusions on the best duration of treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using opioid antagonists plus alpha2-adrenergic agonists is a feasible approach for managing opioid withdrawal. However, it is unclear whether this approach reduces the duration of withdrawal or facilitates transfer to naltrexone treatment to a greater extent than withdrawal managed primarily with an adrenergic agonist.A high level of monitoring and support is desirable for several hours following administration of opioid antagonists because of the possibility of vomiting, diarrhoea and delirium.Using opioid antagonists to induce and accelerate opioid withdrawal is not currently an active area of research or clinical practice, and the research community should give greater priority to investigating approaches, such as those based on buprenorphine, that facilitate the transition to sustained-release preparations of naltrexone.

Buprenorphine for managing opioid withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of substitution treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of buprenorphine versus tapered doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine regimens for managing opioid withdrawal, in terms of the intensity of the withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration and completion of treatment, and adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 11, 2016), MEDLINE (1946 to December week 1, 2016), Embase (to 22 December 2016), PsycINFO (1806 to December week 3, 2016), and the Web of Science (to 22 December 2016) and handsearched the reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions using buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine or lofexidine), symptomatic medications or placebo, and different buprenorphine-based regimens. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies involving 3048 participants. The main comparators were clonidine or lofexidine (14 studies). Six studies compared buprenorphine versus methadone, and seven compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction. We assessed 12 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one of seven domains of methodological quality. Six of these studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine or lofexidine and two with methadone; the other four studies compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction.For the comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in tapered doses, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of intensity of withdrawal or adverse effects. However, information reported by the individual studies was suggestive of buprenorphine and methadone having similar capacity to ameliorate opioid withdrawal, without clinically significant adverse effects. The meta-analyses that were possible support a conclusion of no difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of average treatment duration (mean difference (MD) 1.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.11 to 10.72; N = 82; studies = 2; low quality) or treatment completion rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; N = 457; studies = 5; moderate quality).Relative to clonidine or lofexidine, buprenorphine was associated with a lower average withdrawal score (indicating less severe withdrawal) during the treatment episode, with an effect size that is considered to be small to moderate (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.28; N = 902; studies = 7; moderate quality). Patients receiving buprenorphine stayed in treatment for longer, with an effect size that is considered to be large (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; N = 558; studies = 5; moderate quality) and were more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.06; N = 1264; studies = 12; moderate quality). At the same time there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but dropout due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.15; N = 134; studies = 3; low quality). The difference in treatment completion rates translates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), indicating that for every four people treated with buprenorphine, we can expect that one additional person will complete treatment than with clonidine or lofexidine.For studies comparing different rates of reduction of the buprenorphine dose, meta-analysis was possible only for treatment completion, with separate analyses for inpatient and outpatient settings. The results were diverse, and we assessed the quality of evidence as being very low. It remains very uncertain what effect the rate of dose taper has on treatment outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine or lofexidine for managing opioid withdrawal in terms of severity of withdrawal, duration of withdrawal treatment, and the likelihood of treatment completion.Buprenorphine and methadone appear to be equally effective, but data are limited. It remains possible that the pattern of withdrawal experienced may differ and that withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine.It is not possible to draw any conclusions from the available evidence on the relative effectiveness of different rates of tapering the buprenorphine dose. The divergent findings of studies included in this review suggest that there may be multiple factors affecting the response to the rate of dose taper. One such factor could be whether or not the initial treatment plan includes a transition to subsequent relapse prevention treatment with naltrexone. Indeed, the use of buprenorphine to support transition to naltrexone treatment is an aspect worthy of further research.Most participants in the studies included in this review were male. None of the studies reported outcomes on the basis of sex, preventing any exploration of differences related to this variable. Consideration of sex as a factor influencing response to withdrawal treatment would be relevant research for selecting the most appropriate type of intervention for each individual.

Feasibility of Studying a Brief Intervention to Help Chinese Villagers with Problem Alcohol Use After an Earthquake.

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a study of structured brief intervention (BI) for reducing problem alcohol use among individuals who experienced earthquake. METHODS: Following the Wenchuan earthquake, 1336 clients from 18 local hospitals were invited to complete the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Of those, 239 individuals (AUDIT score of greater than or equal to 7) were included in the study. The participants from intervention village hospitals who were assigned to the BI group (n = 118) received a structured BI lasting 15-30 min plus general health education. The participants from the control village hospitals were assigned to the control group (n = 121) only received general health education. Baseline and post-intervention assessments at 12 weeks were conducted using the AUDIT, Substance Abuse Knowledge Scale (SAKS), Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS), Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and General Well-being Schedule. RESULTS: At 3 months follow-up, the BI group had reduced scores on AUDIT (F = 65.84; P < 0.001) and increased on SAKS (F = 44.45; P < 0.001), but the control group had increased scores on SAS (F = 10.76; P = 0.001) and SDS (F = 18.43; P < 0.001) compared with baseline. BI group showed more decreases for AUDIT scores (group × time effect, F = 34.8; P < 0.001), and had mores increases for SAKS scores (group × time effect, F = 15.7; P < 0.001) compared with control group. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated the feasibility of a study of BI in problem alcohol users who experienced traumatic events. Further research need to be done to test the effectiveness of BI over a longer period of time, and provide evidence in support of BI as an effective technique in China.

The political and scientific challenges in evaluating compulsory drug treatment centers in Southeast Asia.

BACKGROUND: In Vietnam, like many countries in Southeast Asia, the commonly used approach of center-based compulsory drug treatment (CCT) has been criticized on human rights ground. Meanwhile, community-based voluntary methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) has been implemented for nearly a decade with promising results. Reform-minded leaders have been seeking empirical evidence of the costs and effectiveness associated with these two main treatment modalities. Conducting evaluations of these treatments, especially where randomization is not ethical, presents challenges. The aim of this paper is to discuss political challenges and methodological issues when conducting cost-effectiveness studies within the context of a non-democratic Southeast Asian country. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the political and scientific challenges that were experienced in the study design, sample size determination, government approval and ethics approvals, participant recruitment, data collection, and determination of sources, and quantification of cost and effectiveness data was undertaken. As a consequence of the non-randomized design, analysis of patient characteristics for both treatment types was undertaken to identify the magnitude of baseline group differences. Concordance between self-reported heroin use and urine drug testing was undertaken to determine the reliability of self-report data in a politically challenging environment. RESULTS: We demonstrate that conducting research around compulsory treatment in a non-democratic society is feasible, yet it is politically challenging and requires navigation between science and politics. We also demonstrate that engagement with the government decision makers in the research conception, implementation, and dissemination of the results increases the likelihood of research evidence being considered for change in a contentious drug policy area. CONCLUSIONS: Local empirical evidence on the comparative cost-effectiveness of CCT and MMT in a Southeast Asian setting is critical to consideration of more holistic, humane, and effective drug-dependence treatment approaches, but the garnering of such evidence is very challenging.

Malignant syphilis: ostraceous, ulceronecrotic lesions in a patient with human immunodeficiency virus.

We present a 36-year-old HIV-positive man with a sixweek history of spreading, ulcerative, and necroticcutaneous lesions. Laboratory and histopathologicexamination revealed syphilis. This case of malignantsyphilis, also known as lues maligna, is an uncommonvariant of this sexually transmitted infection. This casehighlights the importance of including malignantsyphilis in the differential diagnosis of patientspresenting with a disseminated ulcerative andnecrotic rash, especially in individuals with HIV.

Alpha2-adrenergic agonists for the management of opioid withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: Withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of long-term substitution treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with placebo, reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications, or an alpha2-adrenergic agonist regimen different to the experimental intervention, for the management of the acute phase of opioid withdrawal. Outcomes included the withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration of treatment, occurrence of adverse effects, and completion of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 2, 2015), EMBASE (January 1985 to November week 2, 2015), PsycINFO (1806 to November week 2, 2015), Web of Science, and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine, lofexidine, guanfacine, tizanidine) with reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications or placebo, or comparing different alpha2-adrenergic agonists to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were opioid dependent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 randomised controlled trials involving 1728 participants. Six studies compared an alpha2-adrenergic agonist with placebo, 12 with reducing doses of methadone, four with symptomatic medications, and five compared different alpha2-adrenergic agonists. We assessed 10 studies as having a high risk of bias in at least one of the methodological domains that were considered.We found moderate-quality evidence that alpha2-adrenergic agonists were more effective than placebo in ameliorating withdrawal in terms of the likelihood of severe withdrawal (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.57; 3 studies; 148 participants). We found moderate-quality evidence that completion of treatment was significantly more likely with alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.84; 3 studies; 148 participants).Peak withdrawal severity may be greater with alpha2-adrenergic agonists than with reducing doses of methadone, as measured by the likelihood of severe withdrawal (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.73; 5 studies; 340 participants; low quality), and peak withdrawal score (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.46; 2 studies; 263 participants; moderate quality), but these differences were not significant and there is no significant difference in severity when considered over the entire duration of the withdrawal episode (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.49; 3 studies; 119 participants; moderate quality). The signs and symptoms of withdrawal occurred and resolved earlier with alpha2-adrenergic agonists. The duration of treatment was significantly longer with reducing doses of methadone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.83; 3 studies; 310 participants; low quality). Hypotensive or other adverse effects were significantly more likely with alpha2-adrenergic agonists (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.10; 6 studies; 464 participants; low quality), but there was no significant difference in rates of completion of withdrawal treatment (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; 9 studies; 659 participants; low quality).There were insufficient data for quantitative comparison of different alpha2-adrenergic agonists. Available data suggest that lofexidine does not reduce blood pressure to the same extent as clonidine, but is otherwise similar to clonidine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Clonidine and lofexidine are more effective than placebo for the management of withdrawal from heroin or methadone. We detected no significant difference in efficacy between treatment regimens based on clonidine or lofexidine and those based on reducing doses of methadone over a period of around 10 days, but methadone was associated with fewer adverse effects than clonidine, and lofexidine has a better safety profile than clonidine.

A typology of people who tamper with pharmaceutical opioids: responses to introduction of a tamper-resistant formulation of controlled-release oxycodone.

PURPOSE: In April 2014, a tamper-resistant controlled-release oxycodone formulation was released in Australia. We aimed to determine whether there are latent classes of people who tamper with pharmaceutical opioids based on frequency of opioid and illicit drug use, the demographic and clinical profiles of these groups, and if there were changes in use and harms following the introduction. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 606 people who regularly tamper with pharmaceutical opioids was interviewed January to March 2014 (Wave 1) and May to August 2014 (Wave 2). Latent class analysis identified groups based on non-prescribed opioid, illicit drug and prescribed opioid substitution therapy (OST) use at Wave 1. Regression models examined whether group membership predicted use and harms at Wave 2. RESULTS: Four groups were identified: frequent OST group (39%), mixed OST/heroin group (7%), infrequent pharmaceutical opioid and heroin group (44%) and frequent oxycodone group (25%). Compared with the frequent OST group, the infrequent pharmaceutical opioid/heroin group was more likely to report non-everyday pain and risky alcohol use, and the frequent oxycodone group had higher odds of homelessness. At Wave 2, oxycodone use decreased across groups (odds ratios (OR) ≤ 0.18, p < 0.001, particularly for the frequent oxycodone group: OR ≤ 0.05, p < 0.001), with reductions in days of use (g ≥ 0.35, p < 0.050). Non-prescribed pharmaceutical opioid use, illicit drug use and harms remained stable or decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Despite heterogeneity among people who tamper with pharmaceutical opioids, the tamper-resistant formulation was followed by reductions in oxycodone tampering among high-frequency and low-frequency users. There was no evidence of increased use of other opioids or illicit drugs.

Facilitating a transition from compulsory detention of people who use drugs towards voluntary community-based drug dependence treatment and support services in Asia.

Evidence indicates that detention of people who use drugs in compulsory centers in the name of treatment is common in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. The expansion of such practices has been costly, has not generated positive health outcomes, and has not reduced supply or demand for illicit drugs. United Nations agencies have convened several consultations with government and civil society stakeholders in order to facilitate a transition to voluntary evidence- and community-based drug dependence treatment and support services. In an effort to support such efforts, an informal group of experts proposes a three-step process to initiate and accelerate national-level transitions. Specifically, the working group recommends the establishment of a national multisectoral decision-making committee to oversee the development of national transition plans, drug policy reform to eliminate barriers to community-based drug dependence treatment and support services, and the integration of community-based drug dependence treatment in existing national health and social service systems.In parallel, the working group recommends that national-level transitions should be guided by overarching principles, including ethics, human rights, meaningful involvement of affected communities, and client safety, as well as good governance, transparency, and accountability. The transition also represents an opportunity to review the roles and responsibilities of various agencies across the public health and public security sectors in order to balance the workload and ensure positive results. The need to accelerate national-level transitions to voluntary community-based drug dependence treatment and support services is compelling--on economic, medical, sustainable community development, and ethical grounds--as extensively documented in the literature. In this context, the expert working group fully endorses initiation of a transition towards voluntary evidence- and community-based drug dependence treatment and support services across the region, as well as the steady scale-down of compulsory centers for drug users.Components of voluntary community-based drug dependence treatment and support services are being implemented in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. However, significant technical and financial support will be required to be allocated from national budgets and by international development agencies in order to complete the transition and reduce the reliance on detention of people who use drugs in Asia.

Pharmacotherapies for cannabis dependence.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is the most prevalent illicit drug in the world. Demand for treatment of cannabis use disorders is increasing. There are currently no pharmacotherapies approved for treatment of cannabis use disorders. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapies as compared with each other, placebo or supportive care for reducing symptoms of cannabis withdrawal and promoting cessation or reduction of cannabis use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (to 4 March 2014), MEDLINE (to week 3 February 2014), EMBASE (to 3 March 2014) and PsycINFO (to week 4 February 2014). We also searched reference lists of articles, electronic sources of ongoing trials and conference proceedings, and contacted selected researchers active in the area. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving the use of medications to reduce the symptoms and signs of cannabis withdrawal or to promote cessation or reduction of cannabis use, or both, in comparison with other medications, placebo or no medication (supportive care) in participants diagnosed as cannabis dependent or who were likely to be dependent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. All review authors confirmed the inclusion decisions and the overall process. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 randomised controlled trials involving 958 participants. For 10 studies the average age was 33 years; two studies targeted young people; and age data were not available for two studies. Approximately 80% of study participants were male. The studies were at low risk of selection, performance, detection and selective outcome reporting bias. Three studies were at risk of attrition bias.All studies involved comparison of active medication and placebo. The medications included preparations containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (two studies), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants (two studies), mixed action antidepressants (three studies), anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers (three studies), an atypical antidepressant (two studies), an anxiolytic (one study), a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (one study) and a glutamatergic modulator (one study). One study examined more than one medication. Diversity in the medications and the outcomes reported limited the extent that analysis was possible. Insufficient data were available to assess the utility of most of the medications to promote cannabis abstinence at the end of treatment.There was moderate quality evidence that completion of treatment was more likely with preparations containing THC compared to placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55; 2 studies, 207 participants, P = 0.006). There was some evidence that treatment with preparations containing THC was associated with reduced cannabis withdrawal symptoms and craving, but this latter outcome could not be quantified. For mixed action antidepressants compared with placebo (2 studies, 179 participants) there was very low quality evidence on the likelihood of abstinence from cannabis at the end of follow-up (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.41), and moderate quality evidence on the likelihood of treatment completion (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21). For this same outcome there was very low quality evidence for the effects of SSRI antidepressants (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.53; 2 studies, 122 participants), anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.46; 2 studies, 75 participants), and the atypical antidepressant, bupropion (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.67; 2 studies, 92 participants). Available evidence on gabapentin (anticonvulsant) and N-acetylcysteine (glutamatergic modulator) was insufficient for quantitative estimates of their effectiveness, but these medications may be worth further investigation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is incomplete evidence for all of the pharmacotherapies investigated, and for many of the outcomes the quality was downgraded due to small sample sizes, inconsistency and risk of attrition bias. The quantitative analyses that were possible, combined with general findings of the studies reviewed, indicate that SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, atypical antidepressants (bupropion), anxiolytics (buspirone) and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (atomoxetine) are probably of little value in the treatment of cannabis dependence. Preparations containing THC are of potential value but, given the limited evidence, this application of THC preparations should be considered still experimental. Further studies should compare different preparations of THC, dose and duration of treatment, adjunct medications and therapies. The evidence base for the anticonvulsant gabapentin and the glutamatergic modulator N-acetylcysteine is weak, but these medications are also worth further investigation.

Alpha2-adrenergic agonists for the management of opioid withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: Withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of long-term substitution treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with placebo, reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications or with comparison of different alpha2-adrenergic agonists, for the management of the acute phase of opioid withdrawal. Outcomes included the intensity of signs and symptoms and overall withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration of treatment, occurrence of adverse effects and completion of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 7, 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to July week 4, 2013), EMBASE (January 1985 to August week 1, 2013), PsycINFO (1806 to July week 5, 2013) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine, lofexidine, guanfacine, tizanidine) with reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications or placebo, or comparing different alpha2-adrenergic agonists to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were opioid dependent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author assessed studies for inclusion and undertook data extraction. All review authors decided on inclusion and confirmed the overall process. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 randomised controlled trials, involving 1668 participants. Five studies compared a treatment regimen based on an alpha2-adrenergic agonist with placebo, 12 with a regimen based on reducing doses of methadone, four with symptomatic medications and five compared different alpha2-adrenergic agonists.Alpha2-adrenergic agonists were more effective than placebo in ameliorating withdrawal in terms of the likelihood of severe withdrawal (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.57, 3 studies, 148 participants). Completion of treatment was significantly more likely with alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.84, 3 studies, 148 participants).Alpha2-adrenergic agonists were somewhat less effective than reducing doses of methadone in ameliorating withdrawal symptoms, as measured by the likelihood of severe withdrawal (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.73, 5 studies, 340 participants), peak withdrawal score (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.46, 2 studies, 263 participants) and overall withdrawal severity (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.49, 3 studies, 119 participants). These differences were not statistically significant. The signs and symptoms of withdrawal occurred and resolved earlier with alpha2-adrenergic agonists. The duration of treatment was significantly longer with reducing doses of methadone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.83, 3 studies, 310 participants). Hypotensive or other adverse effects were significantly more likely with alpha2-adrenergic agonists (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.10, 6 studies, 464 participants) but there was no significant difference in rates of completion of withdrawal treatment (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05, 9 studies, 659 participants).There were insufficient data for quantitative comparison of different alpha2-adrenergic agonists. Available data suggest that lofexidine does not reduce blood pressure to the same extent as clonidine, but is otherwise similar to clonidine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Clonidine and lofexidine are more effective than placebo for the management of withdrawal from heroin or methadone. No significant difference in efficacy was detected for treatment regimens based on clonidine or lofexidine, and those based on reducing doses of methadone over a period of around 10 days but methadone is associated with fewer adverse effects than clonidine, and lofexidine has a better safety profile than clonidine.

Trends in use of medicines for opioid agonist treatment in Australia, 2013-2022.

BACKGROUND: There are limited longitudinal data on national patterns of opioid agonist treatment (OAT). This study describes 10-year trends in the sales of OAT medicines in Australia. METHODS: A descriptive and time-series analysis of methadone, sublingual (SL) buprenorphine (+/-naloxone), and long-acting injectable (LAI) buprenorphine sold in Australia between 2013 and 2022 was performed. Total units sold were converted into an estimate of the number of clients that could be treated over a 28-day period with that amount of medicine ('client-months'). RESULTS: Between January 2013 and December 2022, the estimated number of client-months on: any OAT increased by 50 % to 53,501, methadone decreased (-8.5%), SL buprenorphine increased (+78%), and LAI buprenorphine increased substantially after September 2019. In January 2013, 78 % of OAT client-months received methadone. By December 2022, 48 % received methadone, 26 % SL buprenorphine, and 26 % LAI buprenorphine. Between 2013 to 2022, OAT client-months per capita were highest in the state of New South Wales. Over the study period, greater increases in OAT were observed in very remote areas (88%) compared to major cities (53%). The number of client-months in non-community pharmacy settings remained stable from 2013 to 2019/20, before increasing markedly. The introduction of LAI buprenorphine was associated with an immediate, sustained increase of 1,636 OAT client-months, and further increases of 190 OAT client-months each month. CONCLUSION: Patterns of OAT have shifted over the last 10-years with buprenorphine (SL/LAI) now the most common OAT used in Australia. The introduction of LAI buprenorphine has expanded OAT access, particularly in non-community pharmacy settings, and in remote areas.

Building workforce capacity to address substance use in primary health care: preliminary results from a mixed-methods pilot program.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care is critical to the prevention of alcohol, tobacco and other drug-related harms. Scaling-up screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) within primary health care can reduce the burden of substance-related diseases, and improve downstream healthcare services. Building knowledge, skills and confidence among general practitioners (GPs), particularly in rural, regional and remote areas, to deliver SBIRT is an essential step. Therefore, this study aimed to pilot test a skills-based training program for GPs designed to build capacity for SBIRT delivery. METHODS: This pilot study investigated the acceptability of a structured, educational skills-based training program among GPs, as well as its preliminary effectiveness in inducing changes in confidence to deliver SBIRT, and in increasing knowledge about low-risk alcohol guidance. The training package was designed by experts in addiction medicine and public health, and involved a series of online webinars and in-person workshops at four locations across the South Eastern NSW Primary Healthcare Network catchment. RESULTS: A total of 18 GPs registered for the training, with six completing the final webinar. The GPs who completed all sessions demonstrated increases in confidence to deliver SBIRT and alcohol guidance knowledge from baseline. Qualitative feedback found the program acceptable, and GPs were able to successfully implement learnings into practice, and promote to colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated the potential of this program at a national level, but highlighted the need for a range of additional incentives to encourage uptake and ongoing implementation.

Screening and early intervention for substance use during pregnancy: A retrospective case note review of antenatal care records.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for substance use during pregnancy is critical for enhancing maternal health and perinatal outcomes. However, disparities persist in screening and intervention rates within maternity services. This retrospective case note review explored contemporaneous practices around screening and interventions for substance use among pregnant women during routine antenatal care. METHODS: A random sample of 100 sets of maternity records were reviewed. Eligible cases included any woman attending initial pregnancy assessments at one of two South Australian metropolitan Hospital-based antenatal clinics, from July 2019-September 2020. Screening rates for past and current alcohol, tobacco and other substance use were identified and compared with data from a subset of a nationally representative survey. Intervention details and referral pathways were also assessed. RESULTS: The final sample of eligible cases (n = 93) demonstrated prioritisation of screening for current use, over past use, across all substances (p < 0.001). Screening was most likely for tobacco and least likely for e-cigarettes (p < 0.001). Significant underreporting of past use compared with the benchmark was identified for all substances (except tobacco, p = 0.224). Interventions typically involved written resources, which were usually declined by clients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Despite longstanding recommendations, screening and intervention practices for substance use appear inconsistent. With the recent emergence of vaping, no evidence of updated approaches to identifying e-cigarette consumption in pregnant women was found. Several opportunities for enhancing routine screening and intervention practices within antenatal clinics were identified, and will inform the development of policy directives, targeted training modules, and other resources for health professionals working in these services.

Improving the quality of antenatal screening and early intervention for alcohol and other drug use: protocol for a multi-stage approach to systems reform.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use during pregnancy can cause significant harm to women and their developing fetuses. Despite recommendations for abstinence during pregnancy, some women continue to use, making screening for substance use during antenatal clinic attendances an important strategy for reducing risk. This study aims to improve the rates of screening and intervention for substance use among pregnant women, including appropriate referral for those who may be substance-dependent. The protocol outlined here focuses on a multi-stage implementation study. METHODS: This study will occur in four phases. Phase 1 will identify a baseline rate of screening and subsequent care at the antenatal clinics of two, South Australian hospital-based maternity services, through a retrospective case note audit. Rates of self-reported substance use identified in the case notes will also be compared against representative data from Adelaide Primary Health Network to establish rates of over or underreporting. Phase 2 will involve an online Training Needs Analysis of midwifery staff working at those services, to assess their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and commitment to the care of women who use substances during pregnancy. Phase 3 will involve a training package for all midwifery staff at those services, focused on routine screening for substance use, and how to provide appropriate care. Outcome measures from phase 2 will be reassessed during phase 3 and any changes since training will be evaluated. Phase 4 will then repeat phase 1 to compare the changes in rates of both screening and any associated intervention before and after training. DISCUSSION: From a public health perspective, this project has the potential to make a significant impact on reducing risk of harm from substance use disorders among pregnant women, and contribute to better health outcomes for their children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been pre-registered under the Open Science Framework. REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/73FDZ .

96-week retention in treatment with extended-release subcutaneous buprenorphine depot injections among people with opioid dependence: Extended follow-up after a single-arm trial.

BACKGROUND: The most recent formulation of buprenorphine treatment is extended-release depot injections (BUP-XR) that are administered subcutaneously by health care professionals. This study aimed to observe treatment outcomes of BUP-XR delivered in standard practice during a 96-week follow-up period in a community setting. METHODS: This study is an extension of the CoLAB study, a prospective single-arm, multicentre, open label trial (N=100, 7 sites in Australia) among people with opioid dependence who received monthly injections of BUP-XR to evaluate the retention in treatment. Participants were followed for 96 weeks, comprising 48 weeks of the CoLAB study followed by a 48-week extension. RESULTS: Of 100 participants at baseline, 47 were retained on BUP-XR at 96 weeks. The median time retained on monthly depot was 90 weeks. Heroin use (adjusted OR=0.19, P=0.012) in the month prior to baseline was associated with lower odds of retention on BUP-XR. Older age at first opioid use (adjusted OR= 1.08, P=0.009) and longer duration in OAT at baseline (adjusted OR= 1.12, P=0.001) were associated with increased retention. Prevalence of past four-weeks opioid use was estimated at 4% at 96 weeks of treatment (prevalence 0.04, 95%CI: 0.00-0.11) compared to 15% at baseline. Quality of life and medication treatment satisfaction improved over time for those retained in treatment. CONCLUSION: This is one of the few studies to describe long term (96 week) retention in treatment with BUP-XR in a community setting. It displayed retention rates with 47% of participants completing 96 weeks of treatment with BUP-XR. Patient reported outcomes suggest improvements in client wellbeing. FUNDING: Indivior.