Buprenorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid dependence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Opioid dependence is associated with substantial health and social burdens, and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is highly effective in improving multiple outcomes for people who receive this treatment. Methadone and buprenorphine are common medications provided as OAT. We aimed to examine buprenorphine compared with methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence across a wide range of primary and secondary outcomes. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with GATHER and PRISMA guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO from database inception to Aug 1, 2022; clinical trial registries and previous relevant Cochrane reviews were also reviewed. We included all RCTs and observational studies of adults (aged ≥18 years) with opioid dependence comparing treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Primary outcomes were retention in treatment at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, treatment adherence (measured through doses taken as prescribed, dosing visits attended, and biological measures), or extra-medical opioid use (measured by urinalysis and self-report). Secondary outcomes were use of benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, and alcohol; withdrawal; craving; criminal activity and engagement with the criminal justice system; overdose; mental and physical health; sleep; pain; global functioning; suicidality and self-harm; and adverse events. Single-arm cohort studies and RCTs that collected data on buprenorphine retention alone were also reviewed. Data on study, participant, and treatment characteristics were extracted. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional data when required. Comparative estimates were pooled with use of random-effects meta-analyses. The proportion of individuals retained in treatment across multiple timepoints was pooled for each drug. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020205109). FINDINGS: We identified 32 eligible RCTs (N=5808 participants) and 69 observational studies (N=323 340) comparing buprenorphine and methadone, in addition to 51 RCTs (N=11 644) and 124 observational studies (N=700 035) that reported on treatment retention with buprenorphine. Overall, 61 studies were done in western Europe, 162 in North America, 14 in north Africa and the Middle East, 20 in Australasia, five in southeast Asia, seven in south Asia, two in eastern Europe, three in central Europe, one in east Asia, and one in central Asia. 1 040 827 participants were included in these primary studies; however, gender was only reported for 572 111 participants, of whom 377 991 (66·1%) were male and 194 120 (33·9%) were female. Mean age was 37·1 years (SD 6·0). At timepoints beyond 1 month, retention was better for methadone than for buprenorphine: for example, at 6 months, the pooled effect favoured methadone in RCTs (risk ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·67-0·85]; I·=74·2%; 16 studies, N=3151) and in observational studies (0·77 [0·68-0·86]; I·=98·5%; 21 studies, N=155 111). Retention was generally higher in RCTs than observational studies. There was no evidence suggesting that adherence to treatment differed with buprenorphine compared with methadone. There was some evidence that extra-medical opioid use was lower in those receiving buprenorphine in RCTs that measured this outcome by urinalysis and reported proportion of positive urine samples (over various time frames; standardised mean difference -0·20 [-0·29 to -0·11]; I·=0·0%; three studies, N=841), but no differences were found when using other measures. Some statistically significant differences were found between buprenorphine and methadone among secondary outcomes. There was evidence of reduced cocaine use, cravings, anxiety, and cardiac dysfunction, as well as increased treatment satisfaction among people receiving buprenorphine compared with methadone; and evidence of reduced hospitalisation and alcohol use in people receiving methadone. These differences in secondary outcomes were based on small numbers of studies (maximum five), and were often not consistent across study types or different measures of the same constructs (eg, cocaine use). INTERPRETATION: Evidence from trials and observational studies suggest that treatment retention is better for methadone than for sublingual buprenorphine. Comparative evidence on other outcomes examined showed few statistically significant differences and was generally based on small numbers of studies. These findings highlight the imperative for interventions to improve retention, consideration of client-centred factors (such as client preference) when selecting between methadone and buprenorphine, and harmonisation of data collection and reporting to strengthen future syntheses. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Leveraging genome-wide data to investigate differences between opioid use vs. opioid dependence in 41,176 individuals from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium.

To provide insights into the biology of opioid dependence (OD) and opioid use (i.e., exposure, OE), we completed a genome-wide analysis comparing 4503 OD cases, 4173 opioid-exposed controls, and 32,500 opioid-unexposed controls, including participants of European and African descent (EUR and AFR, respectively). Among the variants identified, rs9291211 was associated with OE (exposed vs. unexposed controls; EUR z = -5.39, p = 7.2 × 10-8). This variant regulates the transcriptomic profiles of SLC30A9 and BEND4 in multiple brain tissues and was previously associated with depression, alcohol consumption, and neuroticism. A phenome-wide scan of rs9291211 in the UK Biobank (N > 360,000) found association of this variant with propensity to use dietary supplements (p = 1.68 × 10-8). With respect to the same OE phenotype in the gene-based analysis, we identified SDCCAG8 (EUR + AFR z = 4.69, p = 10-6), which was previously associated with educational attainment, risk-taking behaviors, and schizophrenia. In addition, rs201123820 showed a genome-wide significant difference between OD cases and unexposed controls (AFR z = 5.55, p = 2.9 × 10-8) and a significant association with musculoskeletal disorders in the UK Biobank (p = 4.88 × 10-7). A polygenic risk score (PRS) based on a GWAS of risk-tolerance (n = 466,571) was positively associated with OD (OD vs. unexposed controls, p = 8.1 × 10-5; OD cases vs. exposed controls, p = 0.054) and OE (exposed vs. unexposed controls, p = 3.6 × 10-5). A PRS based on a GWAS of neuroticism (n = 390,278) was positively associated with OD (OD vs. unexposed controls, p = 3.2 × 10-5; OD vs. exposed controls, p = 0.002) but not with OE (p = 0.67). Our analyses highlight the difference between dependence and exposure and the importance of considering the definition of controls in studies of addiction.

Cannabinoids for the treatment of mental disorders and symptoms of mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medicinal cannabinoids, including medicinal cannabis and pharmaceutical cannabinoids and their synthetic derivatives, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), have been suggested to have a therapeutic role in certain mental disorders. We analysed the available evidence to ascertain the effectiveness and safety of all types of medicinal cannabinoids in treating symptoms of various mental disorders. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published between Jan 1, 1980, and April 30, 2018. We also searched for unpublished or ongoing studies on ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. We considered all studies examining any type and formulation of a medicinal cannabinoid in adults (≥18 years) for treating depression, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, or psychosis, either as the primary condition or secondary to other medical conditions. We placed no restrictions on language, publication status, or study type (ie, both experimental and observational study designs were included). Primary outcomes were remission from and changes in symptoms of these mental disorders. The safety of medicinal cannabinoids for these mental disorders was also examined. Evidence from randomised controlled trials was synthesised as odds ratios (ORs) for disorder remission, adverse events, and withdrawals and as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for change in symptoms, via random-effects meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017059372, CRD42017059373, CRD42017059376, CRD42017064996, and CRD42018102977). FINDINGS: 83 eligible studies (40 randomised controlled trials, n=3067) were included: 42 for depression (23 randomised controlled trials; n=2551), 31 for anxiety (17 randomised controlled trials; n=605), eight for Tourette syndrome (two randomised controlled trials; n=36), three for ADHD (one randomised controlled trial; n=30), 12 for post-traumatic stress disorder (one randomised controlled trial; n=10), and 11 for psychosis (six randomised controlled trials; n=281). Pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) improved anxiety symptoms among individuals with other medical conditions (primarily chronic non-cancer pain and multiple sclerosis; SMD -0·25 [95% CI -0·49 to -0·01]; seven studies; n=252), although the evidence GRADE was very low. Pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) worsened negative symptoms of psychosis in a single study (SMD 0·36 [95% CI 0·10 to 0·62]; n=24). Pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) did not significantly affect any other primary outcomes for the mental disorders examined but did increase the number of people who had adverse events (OR 1·99 [95% CI 1·20 to 3·29]; ten studies; n=1495) and withdrawals due to adverse events (2·78 [1·59 to 4·86]; 11 studies; n=1621) compared with placebo across all mental disorders examined. Few randomised controlled trials examined the role of pharmaceutical CBD or medicinal cannabis. INTERPRETATION: There is scarce evidence to suggest that cannabinoids improve depressive disorders and symptoms, anxiety disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, or psychosis. There is very low quality evidence that pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) leads to a small improvement in symptoms of anxiety among individuals with other medical conditions. There remains insufficient evidence to provide guidance on the use of cannabinoids for treating mental disorders within a regulatory framework. Further high-quality studies directly examining the effect of cannabinoids on treating mental disorders are needed. FUNDING: Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia; Commonwealth Department of Health, Australia; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; and US National Institutes of Health.

Risks of harm with cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicine for pain management relevant to patients receiving pain treatment: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: With the increasing availability of cannabis and cannabinoids and their potential utility for pain treatment, there is a growing need to evaluate the risk-benefit considerations of cannabinoids for the management of pain. As part of the IASP Cannabis and Cannabinoids Task Force, this protocol describes a planned overview of systematic reviews summarizing the risks of harm with cannabinoids that are relevant to patients receiving pain treatment. METHODS: This overview will involve literature searches of several databases and a defined search strategy that will target systematic reviews or meta-analyses of cannabinoids where harms are the primary focus. Data extraction will include various features of the cannabinoid(s) and the harm(s) being studied as well as other methodological features of each included systematic review. Methodological quality of each included review will be assessed using AMSTAR-2 as well as compliance with the PRISMA harms checklist. Prospero registration pending. DISCUSSION: The broad overview of reviews defined by this protocol is expected to synthesize available good quality evidence of harms that will help inform risk-benefit considerations about the use of cannabinoids for pain management.

Effect of cannabis use in people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids: findings from a 4-year prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Interest in the use of cannabis and cannabinoids to treat chronic non-cancer pain is increasing, because of their potential to reduce opioid dose requirements. We aimed to investigate cannabis use in people living with chronic non-cancer pain who had been prescribed opioids, including their reasons for use and perceived effectiveness of cannabis; associations between amount of cannabis use and pain, mental health, and opioid use; the effect of cannabis use on pain severity and interference over time; and potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabis. METHODS: The Pain and Opioids IN Treatment study is a prospective, national, observational cohort of people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids. Participants were recruited through community pharmacies across Australia, completed baseline interviews, and were followed up with phone interviews or self-complete questionnaires yearly for 4 years. Recruitment took place from August 13, 2012, to April 8, 2014. Participants were asked about lifetime and past year chronic pain conditions, duration of chronic non-cancer pain, pain self-efficacy, whether pain was neuropathic, lifetime and past 12-month cannabis use, number of days cannabis was used in the past month, and current depression and generalised anxiety disorder. We also estimated daily oral morphine equivalent doses of opioids. We used logistic regression to investigate cross-sectional associations with frequency of cannabis use, and lagged mixed-effects models to examine temporal associations between cannabis use and outcomes. FINDINGS: 1514 participants completed the baseline interview and were included in the study from Aug 20, 2012, to April 14, 2014. Cannabis use was common, and by 4-year follow-up, 295 (24%) participants had used cannabis for pain. Interest in using cannabis for pain increased from 364 (33%) participants (at baseline) to 723 (60%) participants (at 4 years). At 4-year follow-up, compared with people with no cannabis use, we found that participants who used cannabis had a greater pain severity score (risk ratio 1·14, 95% CI 1·01-1·29, for less frequent cannabis use; and 1·17, 1·03-1·32, for daily or near-daily cannabis use), greater pain interference score (1·21, 1·09-1·35; and 1·14, 1·03-1·26), lower pain self-efficacy scores (0·97, 0·96-1·00; and 0·98, 0·96-1·00), and greater generalised anxiety disorder severity scores (1·07, 1·03-1·12; and 1·10, 1·06-1·15). We found no evidence of a temporal relationship between cannabis use and pain severity or pain interference, and no evidence that cannabis use reduced prescribed opioid use or increased rates of opioid discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Cannabis use was common in people with chronic non-cancer pain who had been prescribed opioids, but we found no evidence that cannabis use improved patient outcomes. People who used cannabis had greater pain and lower self-efficacy in managing pain, and there was no evidence that cannabis use reduced pain severity or interference or exerted an opioid-sparing effect. As cannabis use for medicinal purposes increases globally, it is important that large well designed clinical trials, which include people with complex comorbidities, are conducted to determine the efficacy of cannabis for chronic non-cancer pain. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Government.

Cannabis and cannabinoids for the treatment of people with chronic noncancer pain conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled and observational studies.

This review examines evidence for the effectiveness of cannabinoids in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and addresses gaps in the literature by: considering differences in outcomes based on cannabinoid type and specific CNCP condition; including all study designs; and following IMMPACT guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in July 2017. Analyses were conducted using Revman 5.3 and Stata 15.0. A total of 91 publications containing 104 studies were eligible (n = 9958 participants), including 47 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 57 observational studies. Forty-eight studies examined neuropathic pain, 7 studies examined fibromyalgia, 1 rheumatoid arthritis, and 48 other CNCP (13 multiple sclerosis-related pain, 6 visceral pain, and 29 samples with mixed or undefined CNCP). Across RCTs, pooled event rates (PERs) for 30% reduction in pain were 29.0% (cannabinoids) vs 25.9% (placebo); significant effect for cannabinoids was found; number needed to treat to benefit was 24 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15-61); for 50% reduction in pain, PERs were 18.2% vs 14.4%; no significant difference was observed. Pooled change in pain intensity (standardised mean difference: -0.14, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.08) was equivalent to a 3 mm reduction on a 100 mm visual analogue scale greater than placebo groups. In RCTs, PERs for all-cause adverse events were 81.2% vs 66.2%; number needed to treat to harm: 6 (95% CI 5-8). There were no significant impacts on physical or emotional functioning, and low-quality evidence of improved sleep and patient global impression of change. Evidence for effectiveness of cannabinoids in CNCP is limited. Effects suggest that number needed to treat to benefit is high, and number needed to treat to harm is low, with limited impact on other domains. It seems unlikely that cannabinoids are highly effective medicines for CNCP.

Evidence for cannabis and cannabinoids for epilepsy: a systematic review of controlled and observational evidence.

Review evidence for cannabinoids as adjunctive treatments for treatment-resistant epilepsy. Systematic search of Medline, Embase and PsycINFO was conducted in October 2017. Outcomes were: 50%+ seizure reduction, complete seizure freedom; improved quality of life (QoL). Tolerability/safety were assessed by study withdrawals, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Analyses were conducted in Stata V.15.0. 36 studies were identified: 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 30 observational studies. Mean age of participants was 16.1 years (range 0.5-55 years). Cannabidiol (CBD) 20 mg/kg/day was more effective than placebo at reducing seizure frequency by 50%+(relative risk (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.43, 2 RCTs, 291 patients, low Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) rating). The number needed to treat for one person using CBD to experience 50%+ seizure reduction was 8 (95% CI 6 to 17). CBD was more effective than placebo at achieving complete seizure freedom (RR 6.17, 95% CI 1.50 to 25.32, 3 RCTs, 306 patients, low GRADE rating), and improving QoL (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.26), however increased risk of AEs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.36) and SAEs (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.38). Pooled across 17 observational studies, 48.5% (95% CI 39.0% to 58.1%) of patients reported 50%+ reductions in seizures; in 14 observational studies 8.5% (95% CI 3.8% to 14.5%) were seizure-free. Twelve observational studies reported improved QoL (55.8%, 95% CI 40.5 to 70.6); 50.6% (95% CI 31.7 to 69.4) AEs and 2.2% (95% CI 0 to 7.9) SAEs. Pharmaceutical-grade CBD as adjuvant treatment in paediatric-onset drug-resistant epilepsy may reduce seizure frequency. Existing RCT evidence is mostly in paediatric samples with rare and severe epilepsy syndromes; RCTs examining other syndromes and cannabinoids are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017055412.

The Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Treating Symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis: a Systematic Review of Reviews.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pharmaceutical cannabinoids such as nabiximols, nabilone and dronabinol, and plant-based cannabinoids have been investigated for their therapeutic potential in treating multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms. This review of reviews aimed to synthesise findings from high quality systematic reviews that examined the safety and effectiveness of cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis. We examined the outcomes of disability and disability progression, pain, spasticity, bladder function, tremor/ataxia, quality of life and adverse effects. RECENT FINDINGS: We identified 11 eligible systematic reviews providing data from 32 studies, including 10 moderate to high quality RCTs. Five reviews concluded that there was sufficient evidence that cannabinoids may be effective for symptoms of pain and/or spasticity in MS. Few reviews reported conclusions for other symptoms. Recent high quality reviews find cannabinoids may have modest effects in MS for pain or spasticity. Future research should include studies with non-cannabinoid comparators; this is an important gap in the evidence.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cannabinoids in palliative medicine.

We provide a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids in palliative medicine. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and http://clinicaltrials.gov, and a selection of cancer journals were searched up until 15th of March 2017. Of the 108 screened studies, nine studies with a total of 1561 participants were included. Overall, the nine studies were at moderate risk of bias. The quality of evidence comparing cannabinoids with placebo was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation as low or very low because of indirectness, imprecision, and potential reporting bias. In cancer patients, there were no significant differences between cannabinoids and placebo for improving caloric intake (standardized mean differences [SMD]: 0.2 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-0.66, 1.06] P = 0.65), appetite (SMD: 0.81 95% CI: [-1.14, 2.75]; P = 0.42), nausea/vomiting (SMD: 0.21 [-0.10, 0.52] P = 0.19), >30% decrease in pain (risk differences [RD]: 0.07 95% CI: [-0.01, 0.16]; P = 0.07), or sleep problems (SMD: -0.09 95% CI: [-0.62, 0.43] P = 0.72). In human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients, cannabinoids were superior to placebo for weight gain (SMD: 0.57 [0.22; 0.92]; P = 0.001) and appetite (SMD: 0.57 [0.11; 1.03]; P = 0.02) but not for nausea/vomiting (SMD: 0.20 [-0.15, 0.54]; P = 0.26). Regarding side effects in cancer patients, there were no differences between cannabinoids and placebo in symptoms of dizziness (RD: 0.03 [-0.02; 0.08]; P = 0.23) or poor mental health (RD: -0.01 [-0.04; 0.03]; P = 0.69), whereas in HIV patients, there was a significant increase in mental health symptoms (RD: 0.05 [0.00; 0.11]; P = 0.05). Tolerability (measured by the number of withdrawals because of adverse events) did not differ significantly in cancer (RD: 1.15 [0.80; 1.66]; P = 0.46) and HIV patients (RD: 1.87 [0.60; 5.84]; P = 0.28). Safety did not differ in cancer (RD: 1.12 [0.86; 1.46]; P = 0.39) or HIV patients (4.51 [0.54; 37.45]; P = 0.32) although there was large uncertainty about the latter reflected in the width of the CI. In one moderate quality study of 469 cancer patients with cancer-associated anorexia, megestrol was superior to cannabinoids in improving appetite, producing >10% weight gain and tolerability. In another study comparing megestrol to dronabinol in HIV patients, megestrol treatment led to higher weight gain without any differences in tolerability and safety. We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids are of value for anorexia or cachexia in cancer or HIV patients.

Knowledge of Opioid Overdose and Attitudes to Supply of Take-Home Naloxone Among People with Chronic Noncancer Pain Prescribed Opioids.

Objective: Take-home naloxone (THN) is recommended in response to pharmaceutical opioid-related mortality. Some health professionals are reluctant to discuss THN for fear of causing offense. The aims of this study were to assess knowledge of opioid overdose and attitudes toward THN for opioid overdose reversal in people with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Australia, September to October 2015. Subjects: A subset of participants (N = 208) from a cohort of people prescribed restricted opioids for CNCP. Methods: Questions added in the two-year telephone interviews examined knowledge of overdose symptoms and attitudes toward community supply of naloxone. Associations with overdose risk factors and naloxone supply eligibility criteria with attitudes toward naloxone were explored. Results: Fourteen percent reported ever experiencing opioid overdose symptoms. Participants correctly identified fewer than half of the overdose signs and symptoms. After receiving information on naloxone, most participants (60%), thought it was a "good" or "very good" idea. Few participants reported that they would be "a little" (N = 21, 10%) or "very" offended (N = 7, 3%) if their opioid prescriber offered them naloxone. Positive attitudes toward THN were associated with male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-3.50), past year cannabis use (OR = 2.52, 95% CI = 1.03-6.16), and past year nicotine use (OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.14-3.91). Conclusions: Most participants had positive attitudes toward THN but low knowledge about opioid overdose symptoms. Strategies for educating patients and their caregivers on opioid toxicity are needed. THN may be best targeted toward those with risk factors in terms of overdose prevention and acceptability.

Prevention, early intervention, harm reduction, and treatment of substance use in young people.

We did a systematic review of reviews with evidence on the effectiveness of prevention, early intervention, harm reduction, and treatment of problem use in young people for tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs (eg, cannabis, opioids, amphetamines, or cocaine). Taxation, public consumption bans, advertising restrictions, and minimum legal age are effective measures to reduce alcohol and tobacco use, but are not available to target illicit drugs. Interpretation of the available evidence for school-based prevention is affected by methodological issues; interventions that incorporate skills training are more likely to be effective than information provision-which is ineffective. Social norms and brief interventions to reduce substance use in young people do not have strong evidence of effectiveness. Roadside drug testing and interventions to reduce injection-related harms have a moderate-to-large effect, but additional research with young people is needed. Scarce availability of research on interventions for problematic substance use in young people indicates the need to test interventions that are effective with adults in young people. Existing evidence is from high-income countries, with uncertain applicability in other countries and cultures and in subpopulations differing in sex, age, and risk status. Concerted efforts are needed to increase the evidence base on interventions that aim to reduce the high burden of substance use in young people.

Health service utilisation by people living with chronic non-cancer pain: findings from the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) study.

Objective The aims of the present study were to describe the use, and barriers to the use, of non-medication pain therapies and to identify the demographic and clinical correlates of different non-opioid pain treatments. Methods The study was performed on a cohort (n=1514) of people prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Participants reported lifetime and past month use of healthcare services, mental and physical health, pain characteristics, current oral morphine equivalent daily doses and financial and access barriers to healthcare services. Results Participants reported the use of non-opioid pain treatments, both before and after commencing opioid therapy. Services accessed most in the past month were complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs; 41%), physiotherapy (16%) and medical and/or pain specialists (15%). Higher opioid dose was associated with increased financial and access barriers to non-opioid treatment. Multivariate analyses indicated being younger, female and having private health insurance were the factors most commonly associated with accessing non-opioid treatments. Conclusions Patients on long-term opioid therapy report using multiple types of pain treatments. High rates of CAM use are concerning given limited evidence of efficacy for some therapies and the low-income status of most people with CNCP. Financial and insurance barriers highlight the importance of considering how different types of treatments are paid for and subsidised. What is known about the topic? Given concerns regarding long-term efficacy, adverse side-effects and risk of misuse and dependence, prescribing guidelines recommend caution in prescribing pharmaceutical opioids in cases of CNCP, typically advising a multidisciplinary approach to treatment. There is a range of evidence supporting different (non-drug) treatment approaches for CNCP to reduce pain severity and increase functioning. However, little is known about the non-opioid treatments used among those with CNCP and the demographic and clinical characteristics that may be associated with the use of different types of treatments. Understanding the use of non-drug therapy among people with CNCP is crucial given the potential to improve pain control for these patients. What does this paper add? The present study found that a wide range of non-opioid treatments was accessed by the study sample, both before and after commencing opioids, indicating that in this sample opioids were not the sole strategy used for pain management. The most common treatment (other than opioids) was CAM, reported by two-fifths of the sample. Having private health insurance was associated with increased use of non-opioid treatments for pain, highlighting the importance of considering how treatments are paid for and potential financial barriers to effective treatments. What are the implications for practitioners? Patients' beliefs and financial barriers may affect the uptake of different treatments. Many patients may be using complementary and alternative approaches with limited evidence to support their use, highlighting the need for clinicians to discuss with patients the range of prescribed and non-prescribed treatments they are accessing and to help them understand the benefits and risks of treatments that have not been tested sufficiently, or have inconsistent evidence, as to their efficacy in improving pain outcomes.

Experience of adjunctive cannabis use for chronic non-cancer pain: findings from the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing debate about cannabis use for medical purposes, including for symptomatic treatment of chronic pain. We investigated patterns and correlates of cannabis use in a large community sample of people who had been prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: The POINT study included 1514 people in Australia who had been prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Data on cannabis use, ICD-10 cannabis use disorder and cannabis use for pain were collected. We explored associations between demographic, pain and other patient characteristics and cannabis use for pain. RESULTS: One in six (16%) had used cannabis for pain relief, 6% in the previous month. A quarter reported that they would use it for pain relief if they had access. Those using cannabis for pain on average were younger, reported greater pain severity, greater interference from and poorer coping with pain, and more days out of role in the past year. They had been prescribed opioids for longer, were on higher opioid doses, and were more likely to be non-adherent with their opioid use. Those using cannabis for pain had higher pain interference after controlling for reported pain severity. Almost half (43%) of the sample had ever used cannabis for recreational purposes, and 12% of the entire cohort met criteria for an ICD-10 cannabis use disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis use for pain relief purposes appears common among people living with chronic non-cancer pain, and users report greater pain relief in combination with opioids than when opioids are used alone.

Offending, custody and opioid substitution therapy treatment utilisation among opioid-dependent people in contact with the criminal justice system: comparison of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

BACKGROUND: Although Indigenous Australians are over-represented among heroin users, there has been no study examining offending, time in custody, and opioid substitution therapy (OST) treatment utilisation among Indigenous opioid-dependent (including heroin) people at the population level, nor comparing these to non-Indigenous opioid-dependent people. The aims of this study were to compare the nature and types of charges, time in custody and OST treatment utilisation between opioid-dependent Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in contact with the criminal justice system. METHODS: This was a population-based, retrospective data linkage study using records of OST entrants in New South Wales, Australia (1985-2010), court appearances (1993-2011) and custody episodes (2000-2012). Charge rates per 100 person-years were compared between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by sex, age and calendar year. Statistical comparisons were made for variables describing the cumulative time and percentage of follow-up time spent in custody, as well as characteristics of OST initiation and overall OST treatment utilisation. RESULTS: Of the 34,962 people in the cohort, 6,830 (19.5%) were Indigenous and 28,132 (80.5%) non-Indigenous. Among the 6,830 Indigenous people, 4,615 (67.6%) were male and 2,215 (32.4%) female. The median number of charges per person against Indigenous people (25, IQR 31) was significantly greater than non-Indigenous people (9, IQR 16) (p < 0.001). Overall, Indigenous people were charged with 33.2% of the total number of charges against the cohort and 44.0% of all violent offences. The median percentage of follow-up time that Indigenous males and females spent in custody was twice that of non-Indigenous males (21.7% vs. 10.1%, p < 0.001) and females (6.0% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001). The percentage of Indigenous people who first commenced OST in prison (30.2%) was three times that of non-Indigenous people (11.2%) (p < 0.001). Indigenous males spent less time in OST compared to non-Indigenous males (median percentage of follow-up time in treatment: 40.5% vs. 43.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to non-Indigenous opioid-dependent people, Indigenous opioid-dependent people in contact with the criminal justice system are charged with a greater number of offences, spend longer in custody and commonly initiate OST in prison. Hence, contact with the criminal justice system provides an important opportunity to engage Indigenous people in OST.

Medical marijuana initiatives : are they justified? How successful are they likely to be?

The principal constituent of cannabis, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is moderately effective in treating nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and acute and chronic pain. Oral THC (dronabinol) and the synthetic cannabinoid, nabilone, have been registered for medical use in the US and UK, but they have not been widely used because patients find it difficult to titrate doses of these drugs. Advocates for the medical use of cannabis argue that patients should be allowed to smoke cannabis to relieve these above-mentioned symptoms. Some US state governments have legislated to allow the medical prescription of cannabis, but the US federal government has tried to prevent patients from obtaining cannabis and threatened physicians who prescribe it with criminal prosecution or loss of their licence to practise. In the UK and Australia, committees of inquiry have recommended medical prescription (UK) and exemption from criminal prosecution (New South Wales, Australia), but governments have not accepted these recommendations. The Canadian government allows an exemption from criminal prosecution to patients with specified medical conditions. It has recently legislated to provide cannabis on medical prescription to registered patients, but this scheme so far has not been implemented. Some advocates argue that legalising cannabis is the only way to ensure that patients can use it for medical purposes. However, this would be contrary to international drug control treaties and is electorally unpopular. The best prospects for the medical use of cannabinoids lie in finding ways to deliver THC that do not involve smoking and in developing synthetic cannabinoids that produce therapeutic effects with a minimum of psychoactive effects. While awaiting these developments, patients with specified medical conditions could be given exemptions from criminal prosecution to grow cannabis for their own use, at their own risk.