The use and effects of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists by New South Wales cannabis treatment clients.

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.

Insomnia and excessive daytime sleepiness in women and men receiving methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment.

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.

Same-day use of opioids and other central nervous system depressants amongst people who tamper with pharmaceutical opioids: A retrospective 7-day diary study.

OBJECTIVE: The aims were to determine: (i) quantity and frequency of same-day use of opioids with benzodiazepines and/or alcohol amongst people who regularly tamper with pharmaceutical opioids; and (ii) socio-demographic, mental health, harms and treatment profile associated with same-day use of high doses. METHOD: The cohort (n=437) completed a retrospective 7-day diary detailing opioid, benzodiazepine, and alcohol intake. Oral morphine equivalent (OME) units and diazepam equivalent units (DEU) were calculated, with >200mg OME, >40mg DEU and >4 standard alcoholic drinks (each 10g alcohol) considered a "high dose". RESULTS: One-half (47%) exclusively consumed opioids without benzodiazepines/alcohol; 26% had days of opioid use with and without benzodiazepines/alcohol; and 26% always used opioids and benzodiazepines/alcohol. Same-day use of opioids with benzodiazepines/alcohol typically occurred on 1-3days in the past week. Six in ten (61%) participants reported high dose opioid use on at least one day; one in five (20%) reported high dose opioid and high dose benzodiazepine/alcohol use on at least one day. The latter group were more likely to use prescribed opioid substitution therapy, often alongside diverted pharmaceutical opioids. Socio-demographic and clinical profiles did not vary according to high dose opioid, alcohol and benzodiazepine use, and there was no association with harms. CONCLUSIONS: Same-day use of opioids with benzodiazepines/alcohol, and high dose combinations, are common amongst people who tamper with pharmaceutical opioids. Assessment of concomitant benzodiazepine/alcohol use during opioid therapy, implementation of real-time prescription monitoring systems, and research to clarify upper safe limits for polydrug depressant use, are potential implications.

Heroin on trial: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of diamorphine-prescribing as treatment for refractory heroin addiction†.

BACKGROUND: Supervised injectable heroin (SIH) treatment has emerged over the past 15 years as an intensive treatment for entrenched heroin users who have not responded to standard treatments such as oral methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) or residential rehabilitation. AIMS: To synthesise published findings for treatment with SIH for refractory heroin-dependence through systematic review and meta-analysis, and to examine the political and scientific response to these findings. METHOD: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of SIH treatment were identified through database searching, and random effects pooled efficacy was estimated for SIH treatment. Methodological quality was assessed according to criteria set out by the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria for analysis. Across the trials, SIH treatment improved treatment outcome, i.e. greater reduction in the use of illicit 'street' heroin in patients receiving SIH treatment compared with control groups (most often receiving MMT). CONCLUSIONS: SIH is found to be an effective way of treating heroin dependence refractory to standard treatment. SIH may be less safe than MMT and therefore requires more clinical attention to manage greater safety issues. This intensive intervention is for a patient population previously considered unresponsive to treatment. Inclusion of this low-volume, high-intensity treatment can now improve the impact of comprehensive healthcare provision.

Jurisdictional differences in opioid use, other licit and illicit drug use, and harms associated with substance use among people who tamper with pharmaceutical opioids.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The harms associated with non-medical use of pharmaceutical opioid analgesics are well established; however, less is known about the characteristics and drug-use patterns of the growing and hidden populations of people using pharmaceutical opioids illicitly, including the frequency of pharmaceutical opioid injection. This paper aimed to undertake a detailed examination of jurisdictional differences in patterns of opioid use among a cohort of people who regularly tamper with pharmaceutical opioids in Australia. DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were drawn from the National Opioid Medications Abuse Deterrence study. The cohort was recruited from New South Wales (NSW; n = 303), South Australia (SA; n = 150) and Tasmania (TAS; n = 153) to participate in face-to-face structured interviews collecting data on use of pharmaceutical opioids, benzodiazepines, other sedative drugs and illicit substances, as well as the harms associated with substance use. RESULTS: TAS participants reported greater use and injection of certain pharmaceutical opioids (particularly morphine and methadone tablets), and limited heroin use, with lower rates of engagement in opioid substitution treatment, compared with NSW participants. NSW participants were more socially disadvantaged and more likely to report risky injecting behaviours and injecting-related injuries and diseases compared with SA and TAS participants. SA participants reported greater rates of pain conditions, greater use of pain-based services, as well as broader use of pharmaceutical opioids in regards to forms and route of administration, compared with NSW participants. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Distinct jurisdictional profiles were evident for people who tamper with pharmaceutical opioids, potentially reflecting jurisdictional differences in prescribing regulatory mechanisms and addiction treatment models.

Individual versus team-based case-management for clients of opioid treatment services: an initial evaluation of what clients prefer.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Case-management is a client-centred intervention to improve the coordination and continuity of delivery of services for people with complex needs. This service has been incorporated into opioid treatment programs in various ways. This study was undertaken to compare two case-management models, termed individual case-management (ICM) and team-based case-management (TBCM). This study aims to describe the new TBCM and client attitudes to, and acceptance of, this model compared with ICM. DESIGN AND METHODS: Clients from two opioid treatment programs, one implementing ICM and one implementing the TBCM, were recruited to undertake a self-complete survey examining satisfaction with case-management during dosing hours over 7 months. Surveys took approximately 10 min to complete. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three clients were surveyed (62 ICM, 101 TBCM). Clients were demographically similar, but differed in terms of treatment and drug use characteristics. Significantly higher ratings of case-management were reported from TBCM compared with ICM clients for help with opiate use (P < 0.001), other drug use (P < 0.001), mental health (P < 0.001), accommodation (P = 0.023), relationships/parenting (P = 0.003) and physical health (P = 0.002) and clinic services in terms of fairness and consistency, safety, respect, staff quality and confidentiality (P < 0.001). Compared with ICM clients, TBCM clients were more likely to report ease of access to case-management (P < 0.001), wait significantly less time to see a case-manager (38% vs. 7% seen same day) and 93% and 47% of clients, respectively, reported satisfaction with treatment (P < 0.001). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: These initial data indicate client acceptance and satisfaction with the TBCM model. Further evaluation of the model, including cost-effectiveness, is warranted.

Definitions related to the use of pharmaceutical opioids: extramedical use, diversion, non-adherence and aberrant medication-related behaviours.

AIMS: This paper (i) reviews the language used to describe and manage those patient practices that fall outside standard medical models of opioid treatment (for pain and opioid dependence), and (ii) proposes a consistent terminology that can be applied across multiple healthcare settings. METHOD: Peer-reviewed and grey literature documenting empirical studies of (non-)adherence with opioid treatment, proposed definitions or other potentially important aspects of terminology were included in this review. RESULTS: There are international inconsistencies in the terminology used to describe the unintended consequences of opioid treatment, and the terms used often lack specificity. The terms 'hazardous use', 'extramedical use', 'opioid dependence', 'diversion', 'non-adherence' and 'aberrant behaviours' are defined. We advocate for consistent application of these terms in the context of opioid treatment, and propose that care is taken to describe individual practices and intentions. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing global attention on the use and diversion of pharmaceutical opioids warrants a discussion of current terms and definitions. Exaggerated concerns regarding 'addiction potential' may result in restrictions in the supply of opioids and the under-treatment of legitimate medical conditions. Researchers, clinicians, policy-makers and patients need to ensure greater care is given to terminology, including detailed descriptions of patient practices, the context in which they occur and severity of associated harm.

Post-marketing surveillance of buprenorphine-naloxone in Australia: diversion, injection and adherence with supervised dosing.

BACKGROUND: These studies compared the diversion and injection of buprenorphine-naloxone (BNX), buprenorphine (BPN) and methadone (MET) in Australia. METHODS: Surveys were conducted with regular injecting drug users (IDUs) (2004-2009, N=881-943), opioid substitution treatment (OST) clients (2008, N=440) and authorised OST prescribers (2007, N=291). Key outcome measures include the unsanctioned removal of supervised doses, diversion, injection, motivations, drug liking and street price. Levels of injection among IDUs were adjusted for background availability of medications. Doses not taken as directed by OST clients were adjusted by total number of daily doses dispensed. RESULTS: Among regular IDUs, levels of injection were lower for BNX relative to BPN, but comparable to those for MET, adjusting for background availability. Among OST clients, fewer BNX clients (13%) reported recently injecting their medication, than BPN (28%) and MET clients (23%). Fewer MET clients (10%) reported removal of supervised doses, than BPN (35%) and BNX clients (22%). There were no differences in prevalence of recent diversion (28% of all OST clients). Adjusting for the total doses dispensed, more BPN was injected (10%), removed (12%) and diverted (5%), than MET (5%, <1% and 2% respectively) and BNX (5%, 9% and <1% respectively). In 2009, the median street price of BNX was equivalent to that for BPN. CONCLUSIONS: BNX was less commonly and less frequently injected than BPN, but both sublingual medications were diverted more than liquid MET.

Prescribers' perceptions of the diversion and injection of medication by opioid substitution treatment patients.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: To examine Australian opioid substitution treatment (OST) prescribers' perceptions of (i) diversion and/or injection of methadone, buprenorphine, buprenorphine-naloxone by patients; and (ii) effectiveness of current treatment policies in minimising the associated risks. DESIGN AND METHODS: 1278 authorised OST prescribers, identified by each jurisdiction's health department records, were sent a postal survey in 2007. Reminder letters and additional copies of the survey were sent to non-responders at weeks four and eight following the initial mail-out. Respondents went into a draw to win one of ten $100 book vouchers. RESULTS: Although the response rate was 26% (N = 291), participating prescribers served half (49%) of all OST patients in Australia. Prescribers perceived more buprenorphine patients removed supervised doses (7%) and diverted unsupervised doses (20%), compared with methadone patients (1% and 4% respectively) and buprenorphine-naloxone patients (3% and 2% respectively). Prescribers reported significantly more buprenorphine and buprenorphine-naloxone patients injected doses (5% respectively), compared with methadone patients (2%). Non-adherence was identified through patient self-report (51%), and the reports of pharmacists (49%) and other staff (34%). More prescribers were confident in assessing the risk of injection (54%) than diversion (37%). Many prescribers responded 'don't know' to quantitative survey items. Qualitative responses highlighted uncertainties in assessing diversion/injection and whether current responses constituted 'best practice'. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Australian prescribers perceive most patients adhere with OST, although they may underestimate the levels of diversion. Prescribers' beliefs about patients' behaviours are important and influence decisions to prescribe, medication choice and suitability for unsupervised dosing. The uncertainties in assessing and responding to diversion/injection may be a factor deterring prescribers' participation in OST.

The fine line between harm reduction and harm production--development of a clinical policy on femoral (groin) injecting.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The femoral region ('groin') appears to be increasingly commonly used by injecting drug users in the UK. With the advent of Britain's first supervised prescribed injectable opioid treatment clinic, unprecedented decisions and judgements were required about the safe supervision of this practice, or whether to permit this behaviour on site at all. This paper reports the reasons for, and outcome of, development of a clinical policy on injecting into the deep femoral vein (groin injecting). METHOD: A small in-depth audit of the complications of femoral injecting was undertaken in a supervised injecting clinic. RESULTS: All femoral injectors had had either local site-related medical complications or other health problems which could potentially be worsened by ongoing injection. This finding along with the personal and professional issues raised by staff for supervision of femoral injecting led to a revised policy focussing on achieving a shift towards lower-risk peripheral venous and intramuscular sites. CONCLUSION: While the clinic staff's training may be more compatible with professional duties of care by encouraging cessation of femoral injecting, this does not tell us what advice harm reduction workers in the field should offer groin injectors. More research is needed into this high-risk, controversial injecting practice.

The acceptability and feasibility of peer worker support role in community based HCV treatment for injecting drug users.

Hepatitis C is the most common blood borne virus in Australia affecting over 200 000 people. Effective treatment for hepatitis C has only become accessible in Australia since the late 1990's, although active injecting drug use (IDU) remained an exclusion criteria for government-funded treatment until 2001. Treatment uptake has been slow, particularly among injecting drug users, the largest affected group. We developed a peer-based integrated model of hepatitis C care at a community drug and alcohol clinic. Clients interested and eligible for hepatitis C treatment had their substance use, mental health and other psychosocial comorbidities co-managed onsite at the clinic prior to and during treatment. In a qualitative preliminary evaluation of the project, nine current patients of the clinic were interviewed, as was the clinic peer worker. A high level of patient acceptability of the peer-based model and an endorsement the integrated model of care was found. This paper describes the acceptability of a peer-based integrated model of hepatitis C care by the clients using the service.

Is groin injecting an ethical boundary for harm reduction?

BACKGROUND: Femoral vein (or groin) injecting by street drug users is an emerging public health issue in the UK. It has been proposed that groin injecting is becoming normalised among UK injecting drug users (IDUs), yet harm reduction strategies are currently piecemeal and some may be crossing the boundary of responsible provision of information. This paper discusses the interventions available to service providers dealing with groin injecting and explores the utility of ethical frameworks for informing service provider decisions. METHODS: Methods analysis of possible service provider responses using White and Popovits' ethical decision-making framework. RESULTS: The use of ethical frameworks suggest that different types of groin injectors should receive different interventions. Injectors for whom the groin is a site of 'last resort' should be given information about how to inject there less dangerously, whereas 'convenience' groin injectors should be actively encouraged to inject elsewhere. CONCLUSION: Groin injecting is a behaviour which represents a boundary for some harm reduction practices (such as providing 'how to' booklets to all injectors) as well as being an argument for more complex and environmentally appropriate harm reduction responses such as drug consumption rooms and training IDUs to maintain healthier injecting sites.

Randomized controlled trial of a brief behavioural intervention for reducing hepatitis C virus risk practices among injecting drug users.

AIM: To develop and evaluate a brief intervention for reducing risk behaviours associated with HCV transmission in injecting drug users (IDU). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial of an individually tailored brief behavioural intervention (BBI) (experimental) versus a standardized educational intervention (control). SETTING: Specialist drug treatment facility in Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and forty-five IDU (aged 18 or over, injecting at least weekly in the preceding 6 months) recruited and randomized to the experimental condition (n = 73) or the control condition (n = 72). INTERVENTIONS: The BBI was based on the Blood-Borne Virus Transmission Risk Assessment Questionnaire (BBV-TRAQ)-a standardized blood-borne virus risk assessment instrument comprising injecting risk, sexual risk and other skin penetration risk subscales. The BBV-TRAQ was used to identify individual HCV risk practices and to tailor the 30-minute experimental BBI. Control participants received a standardized HCV educational session, using current educational materials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: BBV-TRAQ subscale and total scores and measures of participant satisfaction. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four participants (86%) were followed-up at 4 weeks (+/-7 days). Analyses revealed a significant reduction in HCV risk behaviours for both groups at 1-month follow-up, with participants in the experimental BBI condition reporting higher overall satisfaction with the intervention compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Both groups reported significant reductions in risk behaviour, indicating that while BBI methods hold promise for HCV education and prevention, they were not demonstrated to be more effective than the provision of standard educational materials. Future research could evaluate the efficacy of the BBV-TRAQ as a risk behaviour intervention and counselling tool in clinical, NSP and peer education settings.

Psychometric properties of the Blood-borne Virus Transmission Risk Assessment Questionnaire (BBV-TRAQ).

AIMS: To develop a standard measure of blood-borne virus transmission risk behaviour, and examine the underlying psychometric properties. DESIGN: The Blood-borne Virus Transmission Risk Assessment Questionnaire (BBV-TRAQ) was developed over three consecutive phases of the original BBV-TRAQ study in adherence to classical scale development procedures, culminating in the recruitment of a development sample of current injecting drug users via convenience and snowball sampling. SETTING: Needle and syringe programmes (NSPs), medical clinics, alcohol/drug agencies, peer-based and outreach organizations across inner and outer metropolitan Melbourne. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and nine current injecting drug users. The mean age was 27 years, 68% were male, 65% unemployed, 36% with prison history and 25% in methadone maintenance. MEASUREMENTS: BBV-TRAQ items cover specific injecting, sexual and skin penetration risk practices. BBV-TRAQ characteristics were assessed via measures of internal and test-retest reliability; collateral validation; and principal components analyses. FINDINGS: The BBV-TRAQ has satisfactory psychometric properties. Internal (a=0.87), test-retest (r=0.84) and inter-observer reliability results were high, suggesting that the instrument provides a reliable measure of BBV risk behaviour and is reliable over time and across interviewers. A principal components analysis with varimax rotation produced a parsimonious factor solution despite modest communality, and indicated that three factors (injecting, sex and skin penetration/hygiene risks) are required to describe BBV risk behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The BBV-TRAQ is reliable and represents the first risk assessment tool to incorporate sufficient coverage of injecting, sex and other skin penetration risk practices to be considered truly content valid. The questionnaire is indicated for use in addictions research, clinical, peer education and BBV risk behaviour surveillance settings.