Effect of increasing the delivery of smoking cessation care in alcohol and other drug treatment centres: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

AIM: Aims were to test the effectiveness of an organizational change intervention integrating smoking cessation treatment into usual alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment, compared with usual care, on (1) 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at 8 weeks follow-up; (2) prolonged abstinence; (3) cigarettes smoked per day; (4) number of quit attempts; and (5) offer and use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). All outcomes were assessed at 8 weeks and 6.5 months follow-up. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial, with AOD service as unit of randomization, conducted January 2015-March 2016. SETTING: Thirty-two eligible services (provided face-to-face client sessions to ≥ 50 clients/year) in Australia were randomized to control (usual care; n = 15) or intervention (n = 17) groups by an independent blinded biostatistician. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants (≥ 16 years, current smoker) completed surveys at the service at baseline (n = 896) and telephone follow-up surveys (conducted by blinded assessors) at 8 weeks (n = 471; 53%) and 6.5 months (n = 427; 48%). INTERVENTION: Intervention services received an intervention to establish routine screening, assessment and delivery of smoking cessation care. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day PPA at 8-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included verified and self-reported prolonged abstinence, self-reported 7-day PPA, cigarettes/day, quit attempts and offer and use of NRT. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed, assuming missing participants were not abstinent. FINDINGS: At 8 weeks, the findings in verified 7-day PPA between groups [2.6 versus 1.8%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.5-5.7, P = 0.373] were inconclusive as to whether a difference was present. Significantly lower mean cigarettes/day were reported in the intervention group compared to the usual care group at 8 weeks [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.8-0.95, P = 0.001] but were similar at 6.5 months (IRR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.9-1.02, P = 0.240) follow-up. At both follow-ups the intervention group reported higher rates of NRT use. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating smoking cessation treatment into addiction services did not significantly improve short-term abstinence from smoking.

An overview of take-home naloxone programs in Australia.

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.

An organisational change intervention for increasing the delivery of smoking cessation support in addiction treatment centres: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The provision of smoking cessation support in Australian drug and alcohol treatment services is sub-optimal. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of an organisational change intervention to reduce smoking amongst clients attending drug and alcohol treatment services. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster-randomised controlled trial will be conducted with drug and alcohol treatment centres as the unit of randomisation. Biochemically verified (carbon monoxide by breath analysis) client 7-day-point prevalence of smoking cessation at 6 weeks will be the primary outcome measure. The study will be conducted in 33 drug and alcohol treatment services in four mainland states and territories of Australia: New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, and South Australia. Eligible services are those with ongoing client contact and that include pharmacotherapy services, withdrawal management services, residential rehabilitation, counselling services, and case management services. Eligible clients are those aged over 16 years who are attending their first of a number of expected visits, are self-reported current smokers, proficient in the English language, and do not have severe untreated mental illness as identified by the service staff. Control services will continue to provide usual care to the clients. Intervention group services will receive an organisational change intervention, including assistance in developing smoke-free policies, nomination of champions, staff training and educational client and service resources, and free nicotine replacement therapy in order to integrate smoking cessation support as part of usual client care. DISCUSSION: If effective, the organisational change intervention has clear potential for implementation as part of the standard care in drug and alcohol treatment centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615000204549 . Registered on 3 March 2015.

Working together: Expanding the availability of naloxone for peer administration to prevent opioid overdose deaths in the Australian Capital Territory and beyond.

ISSUE: Since the mid-1990s, there have been calls to make naloxone, a prescription-only medicine in many countries, available to heroin and other opioid users and their peers and family members to prevent overdose deaths. CONTEXT: In Australia there were calls for a trial of peer naloxone in 2000, yet at the end of that year, heroin availability and harm rapidly declined, and a trial did not proceed. In other countries, a number of peer naloxone programs have been successfully implemented. Although a controlled trial had not been conducted, evidence of program implementation demonstrated that trained injecting drug-using peers and others could successfully administer naloxone to reverse heroin overdose, with few, if any, adverse effects. APPROACH: In 2009 Australian drug researchers advocated the broader availability of naloxone for peer administration in cases of opioid overdose. Industrious local advocacy and program development work by a number of stakeholders, notably by the Canberra Alliance for Harm Minimisation and Advocacy, a drug user organisation, contributed to the rollout of Australia's first prescription naloxone program in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Over the subsequent 18 months, prescription naloxone programs were commenced in four other Australian states. IMPLICATIONS: The development of Australia's first take-home naloxone program in the ACT has been an 'ice-breaker' for development of other Australian programs. Issues to be addressed to facilitate future scale-up of naloxone programs concern scheduling and cost, legal protections for lay administration, prescribing as a barrier to scale-up; intranasal administration, administration by service providers and collaboration between stakeholders.