Substance use, socio-demographic characteristics, and self-rated health of people seeking alcohol and other drug treatment in New South Wales: baseline findings from a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the demographic characteristics, substance use, and self-rated health of people entering treatment in New South Wales public health services for alcohol, amphetamine-type stimulants, cannabis, cocaine, or opioids use, by principal drug of concern. DESIGN: Baseline findings of a cohort study; analysis of data in patient electronic medical records and NSW minimum data set for drug and alcohol treatment services. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: People completing initial Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) assessments on entry to publicly funded alcohol and other drug treatment services in six NSW local health districts/networks, 1 July 2016 - 30 June 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Socio-demographic characteristics, and substance use and self-rated health (psychological, physical, quality of life) during preceding 28 days, by principal drug of concern. RESULTS: Of 14 087 people included in our analysis, the principal drug of concern was alcohol for 6051 people (43%), opioids for 3158 (22%), amphetamine-type stimulants for 2534 (18%), cannabis for 2098 (15%), and cocaine for 246 (2%). Most people commencing treatment were male (9373, 66.5%), aged 20-39 years (7846, 50.4%), and were born in Australia (10 934, 86.7%). Polysubstance use was frequently reported, particularly by people for whom opioids or amphetamine-type stimulants were the principal drugs of concern. Large proportions used tobacco daily (53-82%, by principal drug of concern group) and reported poor psychological health (47-59%), poor physical health (32-44%), or poor quality of life (43-52%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of social disadvantage and poor health is high among people seeking assistance with alcohol, amphetamine-type stimulants, cannabis, cocaine, or opioids use problems. Given the differences in these characteristics by principal drug of concern, health services should collect comprehensive patient information during assessment to facilitate more holistic, tailored, and person-centred care.

"There's a big tag on my head": exploring barriers to treatment seeking with women who use methamphetamine in Sydney, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Australia has a high prevalence of regular use of methamphetamine. While half of people who use methamphetamine regularly are women, they make up only one third of people seeking treatment for methamphetamine use disorder. There is a lack of qualitative research into the facilitators and barriers to treatment for women who use methamphetamine regularly. The study seeks a better understanding of the experiences and treatment preferences of women who use methamphetamine, to inform person-centred changes in practice and policy that break down barriers to treatment. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 women who frequently use methamphetamine (at least once a week), and who are not engaged in treatment. Women were recruited from health services surrounding a stimulant treatment centre at an inner-city hospital. Participants were asked about their methapmhetamine use and health service needs and preferences. Thematic analysis was completed using Nvivo® software. RESULTS: Three themes were developed from participants' responses around experiences of regular methamphetamine use and treatment needs: 1. Resistance of stigmatised identity including dependence; 2. Interpersonal violence; 3. Institutionalised stigma. A fourth set of themes on service delivery preferences were also elicited, including continuity of care, integrated health care, and provision of non-judgmental services. CONCLUSION: Gender-inclusive health care services for people who use methamphetamine should actively work to address stigma, support a relational approach to assessment and treatment, and seek to provide structurally competent health care that is trauma and violence informed, and integrated with other services. Findings may also have application for substance use disorders other than methamphetamine.

Pharmacological Treatment of Methamphetamine/Amphetamine Dependence: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Stimulant drugs are second only to cannabis as the most widely used class of illicit drug globally, accounting for 68 million past-year consumers. Dependence on amphetamines (AMPH) or methamphetamine (MA) is a growing global concern. Yet, there is no established pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence. A comprehensive assessment of the research literature on pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence may inform treatment guidelines and future research directions. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature via the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS for randomised controlled trials reported in the English language examining a pharmacological treatment for AMPH/MA dependence or use disorder. We included all studies published to 19 June 2019. The selected studies were evaluated for design; methodology; inclusion and exclusion criteria; sample size; pharmacological and (if included) psychosocial interventions; length of follow-up and follow-up schedules; outcome variables and measures; results; overall conclusions and risk of bias. Outcome measures were any reported impact of treatment related to AMPH/MA use. RESULTS: Our search returned 43 studies that met our criteria, collectively enrolling 4065 participants and reporting on 23 individual pharmacotherapies, alone or in combination. Disparate outcomes and measures (n = 55 for the primary outcomes) across studies did not allow for meta-analyses. Some studies demonstrated mixed or weak positive signals (often in defined populations, e.g. men who have sex with men), with some variation in efficacy signals dependent on baseline frequency of AMPH/MA use. The most consistent positive findings have been demonstrated with stimulant agonist treatment (dexamphetamine and methylphenidate), naltrexone and topiramate. Less consistent benefits have been shown with the antidepressants bupropion and mirtazapine, the glutamatergic agent riluzole and the corticotropin releasing factor (CRF-1) antagonist pexacerfont; whilst in general, antidepressant medications (e.g. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]) have not been effective in reducing AMPH/MA use. CONCLUSIONS: No pharmacotherapy yielded convincing results for the treatment of AMPH/MA dependence; mostly studies were underpowered and had low treatment completion rates. However, there were positive signals from several agents that warrant further investigation in larger scale studies; agonist therapies show promise. Common outcome measures should include change in use days. Future research must address the heterogeneity of AMPH/MA dependence (e.g. coexisting conditions, severity of disorder, differences between MA and AMPH dependence) and the role of psychosocial intervention.

The development and evaluation of stimulant treatment programmes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the recent literature (1st January 2014-1st February 2015) on stimulant treatment programme evaluations, and highlight key areas for future programme development. RECENT FINDINGS: Advances have been made in addressing both sexual risks and stimulant use among gay and bisexual men in the United States, and in adapting evidence-based resource-intense interventions to real-world settings. Programme outcome measures increasingly include changes in substance use as well as health and wellbeing indicators and measures of risk. SUMMARY: Future programme directions include: expansion of the psychosocial repertoire to include narrative and mindfulness-based therapies; web-based programme delivery; sex-sensitive programming to attract and retain women; comprehensive programming to address coexisting mental and physical illness and polysubstance use (including tobacco smoking); and improving accessibility to promote early intervention. Comparability of evaluation data can be improved by developing standardized tools particularly for measuring change in sexual-risk behavior. The use of new statistical techniques can address the lack of comparison populations.