The New Zealand drug harms ranking study: A multi-criteria decision analysis.

AIMS: The harms arising from psychoactive drug use are complex, and harm reduction strategies should be informed by a detailed understanding of the extent and nature of that harm. Drug harm is also context specific, and so any comprehensive assessment of drug harm should be relevant to the characteristics of the population in question. This study aimed to evaluate and rank drug harms within Aotearoa New Zealand using a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework, and to separately consider harm within the total population, and among youth. METHODS: Two facilitated workshops involved the separate ranking of harm for the total population, and then for youth aged 12-17, by two expert panels. In the total population workshop, 23 drugs were scored against 17 harm criteria, and those criteria were then evaluated using a swing weighting process. Scoring and weighting were subsequently updated during the youth-specific workshop. All results were recorded and analysed using specialised MCDA software. RESULTS: When considering overall harm, the MCDA modelling results indicated that alcohol, methamphetamine and synthetic cannabinoids were the most harmful to both the overall population and the youth, followed by tobacco in the total population. Alcohol remained the most harmful drug for the total population when separately considering harm to those who use it, and harm to others. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide detailed and context-specific insight into the harm associated with psychoactive drugs use within Aotearoa New Zealand. The findings also demonstrate the value of separately considering harm for different countries, and for different population subgroups.

Effect of perindopril or leucine on physical performance in older people with sarcopenia: the LACE randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This trial aimed to determine the efficacy of leucine and/or perindopril in improving physical function in older people with sarcopenia. METHODS: Placebo-controlled, parallel group, double-blind, randomized two-by-two factorial trial. We recruited adults aged ≥ 70 years with sarcopenia, defined as low gait speed (<0.8 m/s on 4 m walk) and/or low handgrip strength (women < 20 kg, men < 30 kg) plus low muscle mass (using sex and body mass index category-specific thresholds derived from normative UK BioBank data) from 14 UK centres. Eligible participants were randomized to perindopril 4 mg or placebo, and to oral leucine powder 2.5 g or placebo thrice daily. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the short physical performance battery (SPPB) score over 12-month follow-up by repeated-measures mixed models. Results were combined with existing systematic reviews using random-effects meta-analysis to derive summary estimates of treatment efficacy. RESULTS: We screened 320 people and randomized 145 participants compared with an original target of 440 participants. For perindopril [n = 73, mean age 79 (SD 6), female sex 39 (53%), mean SPPB 7.1 (SD 2.3)] versus no perindopril [n = 72, mean age 79 (SD 6), female sex 39 (54%), mean SPPB 6.9 (SD 2.4)], median adherence to perindopril was lower (76% vs. 96%; P < 0.001). Perindopril did not improve the primary outcome [adjusted treatment effect -0.1 points (95%CI -1.2 to 1.0), P = 0.89]. No significant treatment benefit was seen for any secondary outcome including muscle mass [adjusted treatment effect -0.4 kg (95%CI -1.1 to 0.3), P = 0.27]. More adverse events occurred in the perindopril group (218 vs. 165), but falls rates were similar. For leucine [n = 72, mean age 78 (SD 6), female sex 38 (53%), mean SPPB 7.0 (SD 2.1)] versus no leucine [n = 72, mean age 79 (SD 6), female sex 40 (55%), mean SPPB 7.0 (SD 2.5)], median adherence was the same in both groups (76% vs. 76%; P = 0.99). Leucine did not improve the primary outcome [adjusted treatment effect 0.1 point (95%CI -1.0 to 1.1), P = 0.90]. No significant treatment benefit was seen for any secondary outcome including muscle mass [adjusted treatment effect -0.3 kg (95%CI -1.0 to 0.4), P = 0.47]. Meta-analysis of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker trials showed no clinically important treatment effect for the SPPB [between-group difference -0.1 points (95%CI -0.4 to 0.2)]. CONCLUSIONS: Neither perindopril nor leucine improved physical performance or muscle mass in this trial; meta-analysis did not find evidence of efficacy of either ACE inhibitors or leucine as treatments to improve physical performance.

Validation of the French version of the Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test-Revised and comparison with the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test for screening cannabis use disorder in a psychiatric sample.

INTRODUCTION: Several questionnaires have been developed for screening cannabis use disorder in clinical populations, but very few studies have compared the screening abilities of the different instruments. Here, we aimed to confirm the psychometric properties of a French version of the Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test-Revised (CUDIT-R), and to compare its screening abilities with those of the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (CAST), in subjects consulting in mental health settings. METHODS: Two hundred and thirteen cannabis smokers who sought treatment for any type of mental disorder, recruited in four French centres, completed the French CUDIT-R (CUDIT-R-Fr) and the full version of the CAST, and were assessed for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria of cannabis use disorder by an addiction specialist. They were retested with the CUDIT-R-Fr after approximately a week. The factorial construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the CUDIT-R-Fr were assessed. The compared sensitivity and specificity of the CAST and CUDIT-R-Fr were explored, using the clinician assessment as the reference. RESULTS: The French CUDIT-R showed a good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.89) and an excellent test-retest reliability (ρ = 0.97). The sensitivity and specificity for screening cannabis use disorder were 0.81 and 0.77 for the CUDIT-R, and 0.92 and 0.63 for the CAST, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the recommended cut-offs, the CAST appeared more sensitive, while the CUDIT-R was more specific, for screening cannabis use disorder in a population of cannabis users with heterogeneous types of mental health disorders.

Combination rapid-acting nicotine mouth spray and nicotine patch therapy in smoking cessation.

INTRODUCTION: Improved smoking cessation rates are urgently required if New Zealand is to reach its target of a smokefree nation by 2025, during which some 600,000 smokers will need to quit. Nicotine replacement therapy remains a core part of the pharmacological approach to smoking cessation. Oral nicotine solutions with rapid onset have recently become available. We have examined the effect of a nicotine spray and a nicotine patch on smoking cessation for 12 months. METHODS: We enrolled potential participants-smokers wanting to quit aged 18-70 years, who smoked ≥9 cigarettes per day-with Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence score ≥3 in a double-blind trial in 3 trial sites. Smokers were randomized to a nicotine or placebo spray for 6 months, and all received nicotine patches daily for 5 months. They were followed at regular intervals for 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 1,423 subjects were randomized to nicotine oral spray (1mg of nicotine free base per spray) plus nicotine patch or a placebo spray and nicotine patch. The nicotine mouth spray plus nicotine patch showed significant improvements in prolonged abstinence for all measures to 6 months (7 consecutive days at each visit for 6 months: 15.5% vs. 10.6%; p = .006) for the combination versus placebo and nicotine patch. Thereafter, the differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a nicotine mouth spray to a nicotine replacement patch in a population of smokers receiving a low level of behavioral support improved early quitting, but the effects were not sustained.

Initial preference for drinking goal in the treatment of alcohol problems: I. Baseline differences between abstinence and non-abstinence groups.

AIMS: To compare baseline characteristics of clients initially preferring abstinence with those preferring non-abstinence at the screening stage of a randomized controlled trial of treatment for alcohol problems (UKATT) and to identify predictors of goal preference from client characteristics present before the preference was stated. METHODS: From discussions with clients entering the trial (N = 742), screeners noted whether clients were aiming for abstinence 'probably yes' or 'probably no'. Differences between the two groups thus formed were explored by univariate comparisons among client characteristics recorded at baseline assessment and by logistic regression analysis with pre-existing characteristics as independent variables. RESULTS: Across all UKATT sites, 54.3% of clients expressed a preference for abstinence and 45.7% for non-abstinence. In univariate comparisons, clients preferring abstinence were significantly (P < 0.01) more likely to: (i) be female, (ii) be unemployed, (iii) report drinking more heavily but less frequently, (iv) have been detoxified in the 2 weeks prior to assessment, (v) report more alcohol problems, (vi) be in the action stage of change, (vii) report greater negative expectancies of drinking, (viii) report greater mental and physical ill-health, (ix) report less social support for drinking and (x) be more confident of their ability to resist heavy drinking in tempting situations. In the logistic regression model, the strongest predictors of goal preference were gender, drinking pattern, recent detoxification and social support for drinking. CONCLUSION: The implications of these findings for service delivery are best considered in conjunction with findings from a companion paper reporting treatment outcomes associated with each goal preference.

Initial preference for drinking goal in the treatment of alcohol problems: II. Treatment outcomes.

AIMS: To compare treatment outcomes between clients preferring abstinence and those preferring non-abstinence at the screening stage of a randomized controlled trial of treatment for alcohol problems (the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial) and to interpret any differential outcome in light of baseline differences between goal preference groups outlined in an accompanying paper. METHODS: Outcomes at 3 and 12 months' follow-up were recorded both in categorical terms (abstinence/non-problem drinking/much improved/somewhat improved/same/worse) and on continuous measures (percent days abstinent, drinks per drinking day/dependence score). RESULTS: Clients initially stating a preference for abstinence showed a better outcome than those stating a preference for non-abstinence. This superior outcome was clearer at 3 months' follow-up but still evident at 12 months' follow-up. The better outcome consisted almost entirely in a greater frequency of abstinent days, with only a modest benefit in drinking intensity for goal abstainers that disappeared when baseline covariates of goal preference were controlled for. Type of successful outcome (abstinence/non-problem drinking) was related to initial goal preference, with clients preferring abstinence more likely to obtain an abstinent outcome and those preferring non-abstinence a non-problem drinking outcome. CONCLUSION: The client's personal drinking goals should be discussed in assessment at treatment entry and as a basis for negotiation. Clinicians should be prepared to identify and support goal change as an unexceptional part of the treatment process that need not jeopardize good outcome.

A prototype screening instrument for cannabis use disorder: the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test (CUDIT) in an alcohol-dependent clinical sample.

The Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test (CUDIT) was used for the first time as part of a randomized controlled trial for brief interventions in mild to moderate alcohol-dependent out-patients. This sample may be seen as a population at increased risk of cannabis use disorder. The CUDIT was developed by modifying the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). The ability of the CUDIT to accurately screen for cannabis abuse or dependence was examined in the portion of the sample who reported some cannabis use over the preceding 6 months (n=53), as was self-reported frequency of cannabis use in the preceding 6 months. The CUDIT was superior to the frequency measure, achieving positive predictive power of 84.6% and sensitivity of 73.3% at a cut-off of 8, compared to positive predictive power of 81.8% and sensitivity of 60.0% for 80 or more cannabis use-days. These results indicate the viability of a screening measure for identifying cannabis use disorder in at risk populations.