Oral THC:CBD cannabis extract for refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase II crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: This multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase II/III trial aimed to evaluate an oral THC:CBD (tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol) cannabis extract for prevention of refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Here we report the phase II component results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients experienced CINV during moderate-to-high emetogenic intravenous chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis. Study treatment consisted of one cycle of 1-4 self-titrated capsules of oral THC 2.5 mg/CBD 2.5 mg (TN-TC11M) three times daily, from days -1 to 5, and 1 cycle of matching placebo in a crossover design, then blinded patient preference for a third cycle. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with complete response during 0-120 h from chemotherapy. A total of 80 participants provided 80% power to detect a 20% absolute improvement with a two-sided P value of 0.1. RESULTS: A total of 81 participants were randomised; 72 completing two cycles were included in the efficacy analyses and 78 not withdrawing consent were included in safety analyses. Median age was 55 years (range 29-80 years); 78% were female. Complete response was improved with THC:CBD from 14% to 25% (relative risk 1.77, 90% confidence interval 1.12-2.79, P = 0.041), with similar effects on absence of emesis, use of rescue medications, absence of significant nausea, and summary scores for the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Thirty-one percent experienced moderate or severe cannabinoid-related adverse events such as sedation, dizziness, or disorientation, but 83% of participants preferred cannabis to placebo. No serious adverse events were attributed to THC:CBD. CONCLUSION: The addition of oral THC:CBD to standard antiemetics was associated with less nausea and vomiting but additional side-effects. Most participants preferred THC:CBD to placebo. Based on these promising results, we plan to recruit an additional 170 participants to complete accrual for the definitive, phase III, parallel group analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001036404; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370473&isReview=true.

Cognitive, physical, and mental health outcomes between long-term cannabis and tobacco users.

INTRODUCTION: Cannabis intoxication adversely affects health, yet persistent effects following short-term abstinence in long-term cannabis users are unclear. This matched-subjects, cross-sectional study compared health outcomes of long-term cannabis and long-term tobacco-only users, relative to population norms. METHODS: Nineteen long-term (mean 32.3years of use, mean age 55.7years), abstinent (mean 15h) cannabis users and 16 long-term tobacco users (mean 37.1years of use, mean age 52.9years), matched for age, educational attainment, and lifetime tobacco consumption, were compared on measures of learning and memory, response inhibition, information-processing, sustained attention, executive control, and mental and physical health. RESULTS: Cannabis users exhibited poorer overall learning and delayed recall and greater interference and forgetting than tobacco users, and exhibited poorer recall than norms. Inhibition and executive control were similar between groups, but cannabis users had slower reaction times during information processing and sustained attention tasks. Cannabis users had superior health satisfaction and psychological, somatic, and general health than tobacco users and had similar mental and physical health to norms whilst tobacco users had greater stress, role limitations from emotional problems, and poorer health satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term cannabis users may exhibit deficits in some cognitive domains despite short-term abstinence and may therefore benefit from interventions to improve cognitive performance. Tobacco alone may contribute to adverse mental and physical health outcomes, which requires appropriate control in future studies.

Clinical trials of medicinal cannabis for appetite-related symptoms from advanced cancer: a survey of preferences, attitudes and beliefs among patients willing to consider participation.

BACKGROUND: Australian clinical trials are planned to evaluate medicinal cannabis in a range of clinical contexts. AIMS: To explore the preferences, attitudes and beliefs of patients eligible and willing to consider participation in a clinical trial of medicinal cannabis for poor appetite and appetite-related symptoms from advanced cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional anonymous survey was administered from July to December 2015 online and in eight adult outpatient palliative care and/or cancer services. Respondents were eligible if they were ≥18 years, had advanced cancer and poor appetite/taste problems/weight loss and might consider participating in a medicinal cannabis trial. Survey items focused on medicinal rather than recreational cannabis use and did not specify botanical or pharmaceutical products. Items asked about previous medicinal cannabis use and preferences for delivery route and invited comments and concerns. RESULTS: There were 204 survey respondents, of whom 26 (13%) reported prior medicinal cannabis use. Tablets/capsules were the preferred delivery mode (n = 144, 71%), followed by mouth spray (n = 84, 42%) and vaporiser (n = 83, 41%). Explanations for preferences (n = 134) most commonly cited convenience (n = 66; 49%). A total of 82% (n = 168) of respondents indicated that they had no trial-related concerns, but a small number volunteered concerns about adverse effects (n = 14) or wanted more information/advice (n = 8). Six respondents volunteered a belief that cannabis might cure cancer, while two wanted assurance of efficacy before participating in a trial. CONCLUSION: Justification of modes other than tablets/capsules and variable understanding about cannabis and trials will need addressing in trial-related information to optimise recruitment and ensure that consent is properly informed.

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

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

Methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) and methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) for the management of opioid-dependent individuals. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2005. Industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence were accessed. REVIEW METHODS: The assessment of clinical effectiveness was based on a review of existing reviews plus an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A decision tree with Monte Carlo simulation model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of BMT and MMT. Retention in treatment and opiate abuse parameters were sourced from the meta-analysis of RCTs directly comparing flexible MMT with flexible dose BMT. Utilities were derived from a panel representing a societal perspective. RESULTS: Most of the included systematic reviews and RCTs were of moderate to good quality, and focused on short-term (up to 1-year follow-up) outcomes of retention in treatment and the level of opiate use (self-report or urinalysis). Most studies employed a trial design that compared a fixed-dose strategy (i.e. all individuals received a standard dose) of MMT or BMT and were conducted in predominantly young men who fulfilled criteria as opiate-dependent or heroin-dependent users, without significant co-morbidities. RCT meta-analyses have shown that a fixed dose of MMT or BMT has superior levels of retention in treatment and opiate use than placebo or no treatment, with higher fixed doses being more effective than lower fixed doses. There was evidence, primarily from non-randomised observational studies, that fixed-dose MMT reduces mortality, HIV risk behaviour and levels of crime compared with no therapy and one small RCT has shown the level of mortality with fixed-dose BMT to be significantly less than with placebo. Flexible dosing (i.e. individualised doses) of MMT and BMT is more reflective of real-world practice. Retention in treatment was superior for flexible MMT than flexible BMT dosing but there was no significant difference in opiate use. Indirect comparison of data from population cross-sectional studies suggests that mortality with BMT may be lower than that with MMT. A pooled RCT analysis showed no significant difference in serious adverse events with MMT compared with BMT. Although treatment modifier evidence was limited, adjunct psychosocial and contingency interventions (e.g. financial incentives for opiate-free urine samples) appeared to enhance the effects of both MMT and BMT. Also, MMT and BMT appear to be similarly effective whether delivered in a primary care or outpatient clinic setting. Although most of the included economic evaluations were considered to be of high quality, none used all of the appropriate parameters, effectiveness data, perspective and comparators required to make their results generalisable to the NHS context. One company (Schering-Plough) submitted cost-effectiveness evidence based on an economic model that had a 1-year time horizon and sourced data from a single RCT of flexible-dose MMT compared with flexible-dose BMT and utility values obtained from the literature; the results showed that for MMT vs no drug therapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was pound 12,584/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), for BMT versus no drug therapy, the ICER was pound 30,048/QALY and in a direct comparison, MMT was found to be slightly more effective and less costly than BMT. The assessment group model found for MMT versus no drug therapy that the ICER was pound 13,697/QALY, for BMT versus no drug therapy that the ICER was pound 26,429/QALY and, as with the industry model, in direct comparison, MMT was slightly more effective and less costly than BMT. When considering social costs, both MMT and BMT gave more health gain and were less costly than no drug treatment. These findings were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Both flexible-dose MMT and BMT are more clinically effective and more cost-effective than no drug therapy in dependent opiate users. In direct comparison, a flexible dosing strategy with MMT was found be somewhat more effective in maintaining individuals in treatment than flexible-dose BMT and therefore associated with a slightly higher health gain and lower costs. However, this needs to be balanced by the more recent experience of clinicians in the use of buprenorphine, the possible risk of higher mortality of MMT and individual opiate-dependent users' preferences. Future research should be directed towards the safety and effectiveness of MMT and BMT; potential safety concerns regarding methadone and buprenorphine, specifically mortality and key drug interactions; efficacy of substitution medications (in particular patient subgroups, such as within the criminal justice system, or within young people); and uncertainties in cost-effectiveness identified by current economic models.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of heroin detoxification methods in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD).

This economic evaluation was part of the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD) project. Data from four trials of heroin detoxification methods, involving 365 participants, were pooled to enable a comprehensive comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five inpatient and outpatient detoxification methods. This study took the perspective of the treatment provider in assessing resource use and costs. Two short-term outcome measures were used-achievement of an initial 7-day period of abstinence, and entry into ongoing post-detoxification treatment. The mean costs of the various detoxification methods ranged widely, from AUD 491 dollars(buprenorphine-based outpatient); to AUD 605 dollars for conventional outpatient; AUD 1404 dollars for conventional inpatient; AUD 1990 dollars for rapid detoxification under sedation; and to AUD 2689 dollars for anaesthesia per episode. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using conventional outpatient detoxification as the base comparator. The buprenorphine-based outpatient detoxification method was found to be the most cost-effective method overall, and rapid opioid detoxification under sedation was the most cost-effective inpatient method.

Validation of techniques to detect illicit heroin use in patients prescribed pharmaceutical heroin for the management of opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: The clinical implementation and evaluation of heroin substitution programmes have been confounded by the lack of objective and validated biomarkers for illicit heroin use in patients prescribed pharmaceutical heroin. This study examined the capacity to detect illicit heroin use by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis of urine samples for the presence of opium impurities common to illicit, but not pharmaceutical heroin. AIMS: To characterize the diagnostic properties of the metabolites of noscapine and papaverine in comparison to morphine as a gold-standard marker of illicit heroin use; and to examine the relationships between the self-reported time since most recent heroin use and the detection of these opioids in urine. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of 52 opioid-dependent patients in treatment (not prescribed heroin), who self-reported illicit heroin use within the preceding 2 weeks. Self-report data regarding recent drug use and a urine sample were collected. GC-MS analyses of urines were conducted and reported by laboratory staff blinded to self-report data. FINDINGS: The metabolites of papaverine (hydroxypapaverine and dihydroxypapeverine) were found to have high sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive values as markers for illicit heroin use compared to the 'gold-standard' morphine. Other opioids, including 6-mono-acetylmorphine (6-MAM), codeine and noscapine metabolites (e.g. meconine) were less adequate in detecting heroin use. CONCLUSIONS: GC-MS detection of papaverine metabolites in urine appears to be suitable method of identifying illicit heroin use for clinical and research purposes.

LAAM maintenance vs methadone maintenance for heroin dependence.

BACKGROUND: LAAM and methadone are both full mu opiate agonists and have been shown to reduce dependence on heroin when given continuously under supervised dosing conditions. LAAM has a long duration of action requiring dosing every two or three days compared to methadone which requires daily dosing. LAAM is not as widely available internationally as methadone, and may be withdrawn from the market following ten cases of life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias and an association with QT prolongation. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and acceptability of LAAM maintenance with methadone maintenance in the treatment of heroin dependence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2000), PsycINFO (1887 to August 2000), EMBASE (January 1985 to August 2000), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2 2000). In addition we hand searched NIDA monographs until August 2000 and searched reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and controlled prospective studies comparing LAAM and methadone maintenance for the treatment of heroin dependence and measuring outcomes of efficacy or acceptability were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on retention in treatment, heroin use, side-effects and mortality were collected by two reviewers independently. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen studies, (15 RCTs, 3 Controlled prospective studies) met the inclusion criteria for the review. Three were excluded from the meta-analysis due to lack of data on retention, heroin use or mortality. Cessation of allocated medication (11 studies, 1473 participants) was greater with LAAM than with methadone, (RR 1.36, 95%CI 1.07-1.73, p=0.001, NNT=7.7 (or 8)). Non-abstinence was less with LAAM (5 studies, 983 participants; RR 0.81, 95%CI 0.72-0.91, p=0.0003, NNT=9.1 (or 10)). In 10 studies (1441 participants) there were 6 deaths from a range of causes, 5 in participants assigned to LAAM (RR 2.28 (95%CI 0.59-8.9, p=0.2). other relevant outcomes, such as quality of life and criminal activity could not be analysed because of lack of information in the primary studies. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: LAAM appears more effective than methadone at reducing heroin use. More LAAM patients than methadone ceased their allocated medication during the studies, but many transferred to methadone and so the significance of this is unclear. There was no difference in safety observed, although there was not enough evidence to comment on uncommon adverse events.

Withdrawal from methadone maintenance treatment: prognosis and participant perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of clients engaged in methadone maintenance treatment who have favourable prognosis for withdrawal, and to examine client perceptions and expectations of withdrawal. METHODS: A broad cross-section of 856 methadone clients was sampled across Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Self-complete surveys were developed for the clients, their clinic staff or pharmacists, and methadone prescribers. The client survey examined aspects of the clients' perspectives of withdrawal, and the surveys for the service providers collected information about each client's current treatment episode. Informed consent was provided by clients to obtain information from their clinic staff member or pharmacist, and their methadone prescriber. RESULTS: Most clients (70%) were at least very interested in methadone withdrawal. Clients were also more optimistic about their own post-withdrawal outcomes (in terms of opioid use) than both their clinic staff and prescribing doctors. Clinical criteria indicated that 31% of clients had a reasonable prognosis for withdrawal. However, when considering all factors, 17% had good withdrawal prognosis, were interested in methadone withdrawal, and believed it was very likely they would remain opioid-free for three months post-withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the likely continued increase in client numbers in substitution maintenance treatment, the majority of methadone clients have a poor prognosis for withdrawal and should not be encouraged to cease treatment. IMPLICATIONS: Clients who do not meet key clinical criteria are likely to have poor clinical outcomes regardless of how withdrawal is attempted.

Methadone injecting in Australia: a tale of two cities.

AIMS: The injection of methadone syrup designed for oral consumption is potentially associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Previous reports from Sydney, Australia have suggested a high prevalence of methadone injecting by clients in methadone programmes and by heroin users not in methadone treatment. This study sought to estimate the prevalence of methadone injecting by clients in community based methadone programmes in Melbourne, Australia, which operate under different take away policies. DESIGN: The study used a cross-sectional survey of methadone clients using a self-complete questionnaire. Subjects were recruited from randomly selected methadone dispensing pharmacies across Melbourne. Participation was voluntary. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and sixty-eight methadone clients were recruited to the study. The mean age was 34.2 years; 59% were male. FINDINGS: Two of 168 methadone clients reported having injected methadone within the preceding 6-month period. CONCLUSIONS: The lower prevalence of methadone injecting in Melbourne (compared to Sydney) is thought to be due to the less liberal take-away policy, and the mandatory dilution of methadone take-aways to 200 ml of liquid. Implications for methadone take-away policies and procedures are discussed.