A phase III multisite randomised controlled trial to compare the efficacy of cannabidiol to placebo in the treatment of cannabis use disorder: the CBD-CUD study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is increasingly common and contributes to a range of health and social problems. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a non-intoxicating cannabinoid recognised for its anticonvulsant, anxiolytic and antipsychotic effects with no habit-forming qualities. Results from a Phase IIa randomised clinical trial suggest that treatment with CBD for four weeks reduced non-prescribed cannabis use in people with CUD. This study examines the efficacy, safety and quality of life of longer-term CBD treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe CUD. METHODS/DESIGN: A phase III multi-site, randomised, double-blinded, placebo controlled parallel design of a 12-week course of CBD to placebo, with follow-up at 24 weeks after enrolment. Two hundred and fifty adults with moderate-to-severe CUD (target 20% Aboriginal), with no significant medical, psychiatric or other substance use disorders from seven drug and alcohol clinics across NSW and VIC, Australia will be enrolled. Participants will be administered a daily dose of either 4 mL (100 mg/mL) of CBD or a placebo dispensed every 3-weeks. All participants will receive four-sessions of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) based counselling. Primary endpoints are self-reported cannabis use days and analysis of cannabis metabolites in urine. Secondary endpoints include severity of CUD, withdrawal severity, cravings, quantity of use, motivation to stop and abstinence, medication safety, quality of life, physical/mental health, cognitive functioning, and patient treatment satisfaction. Qualitative research interviews will be conducted with Aboriginal participants to explore their perspectives on treatment. DISCUSSION: Current psychosocial and behavioural treatments for CUD indicate that over 80% of patients relapse within 1-6 months of treatment. Pharmacological treatments are highly effective with other substance use disorders but there are no approved pharmacological treatments for CUD. CBD is a promising candidate for CUD treatment due to its potential efficacy for this indication and excellent safety profile. The anxiolytic, antipsychotic and neuroprotective effects of CBD may have added benefits by reducing many of the mental health and cognitive impairments reported in people with regular cannabis use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12623000526673 (Registered 19 May 2023).

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.

Correlates of treatment engagement and client outcomes: results of a randomised controlled trial of nabiximols for the treatment of cannabis use disorder.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: There is increasing interest and evidence for the use of cannabinoid medications in the treatment of cannabis use disorder, but little examination of the correlates of successful treatment. This paper is a secondary analysis of a randomised placebo-controlled trial of nabiximols for the treatment of cannabis use disorder (CUD), aiming to identify which client and treatment characteristics impact treatment engagement and outcomes. METHOD: Bayesian multiple regression models were used to examine the impact of age, gender, duration of regular cannabis use, daily quantity of cannabis, cannabis use problems, self-efficacy for quitting, sleep, mental health, pain measures, and treatment group upon treatment engagement (retention, medication dose, and counselling participation) and treatment outcomes (achieving end-of-study abstinence, and a 50% or greater reduction in cannabis use days) among the 128 clients participating in the 12-week trial. RESULTS: Among the treatment factors, greater counselling attendance was associated with greater odds of abstinence and ≥ 50% reduction in cannabis use; nabiximols with greater odds of ≥ 50% reduction and attending counselling, and reduced hazard of treatment dropout; and higher dose with lower odds of ≥ 50% reduction. Among the client factors, longer duration of regular use was associated with higher odds of abstinence and 50% reduction, and lower hazard of treatment dropout; greater quantity of cannabis use with reduced hazard of dropout, greater odds of attending counselling, and higher average dose; greater pain at baseline with greater odds of ≥ 50% reduction and higher average dose; and more severe sleep issues with lower odds of ≥ 50% reduction. Males had lower odds of attending counselling. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that counselling combined with agonist pharmacotherapy may provide the optimal treatment for cannabis use disorder. Younger clients, male clients, and clients with sleep issues could benefit from extra support from treatment services to improve engagement and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000103460) https://www.anzctr.org.au.

Opioid agonist treatment and patient outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in south east Sydney, Australia.

INTRODUCTION: In early 2020, many services modified their delivery of opioid treatment in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to limit viral spread and maintain treatment continuity. We describe the changes to treatment and preliminary analysis of the association with patients' substance use and well-being. METHODS: A pre-post comparison of treatment conditions and patient self-reported outcomes using data extracted from electronic medical records in the 5 months before (December 2019-April 2020) and after (May 2020-September 2020) changes were implemented in three public treatment services in South Eastern Sydney Local Health District. RESULTS: Data are available for 429/460 (93%) patients. Few (21, 5%) dropped out of treatment. In the 'post' period there was significantly more use of depot buprenorphine (12-24%), access to any take-away doses (TAD; 24-69%), access to ≥6 TAD per week (7-31%), pharmacy dosing (24-52%) and telehealth services. There were significant reductions in average opioid and benzodiazepine use, increases in cannabis use, with limited group changes in social conditions, or quality of life, psychological and physical health. At an individual level, 22% of patients reported increases in their use of either alcohol, opioids, benzodiazepines or stimulants of ≥4 days in the past 4 weeks. Regression analysis indicates increases in substance use were associated with higher levels of supervised dosing. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings suggest that the modified model of care continued to provide safe and effective treatment, during the pandemic. Notably, there was no association between more TAD and significant increases in substance use. Limitations are discussed and further evaluation is needed.

Assessing the concurrent validity, inter-rater reliability and test-re-test reliability of the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) in alcohol and opioid treatment populations.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) is a brief instrument measuring recent substance use, risk profile and general health and wellbeing among clients attending alcohol and other drug (AoD) treatment services. This study evaluates the ATOP for concurrent validity, inter-rater and test-re-test reliability among alcohol and opioid treatment groups. DESIGN: For concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability, participants completed an ATOP with a clinician and an ATOP plus standardized questionnaires (time-line follow-back, Opiate Treatment Index, Kessler-10, 12-item Short Form Survey, World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF, Personal Wellbeing Index) with a researcher within 3 days. For test-re-test reliability, participants completed two ATOPs with a researcher within a 3-day interval. SETTING: Outpatient AoD treatment centres in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: For testing concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability, 278 participants were recruited by advertisements in waiting-rooms or clinician invitation during 2016 to 2018. A further 94 participants were recruited to examine test-re-test reliability. MEASUREMENTS: Statistical tests used for concurrent validity and test-re-test reliability were Pearson's and Spearman's rank order correlations for continuous variables, and Cohen's κ for nominal variables. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Krippendorf's α. FINDINGS: Most Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile items returned excellent or moderate validity and reliability. For the main substances used-alcohol, cannabis and benzodiazepines-concurrent validity, inter-rater reliability and test-re-test reliability all reached excellent or good agreement (0.72-0.96). Psychological health, physical health and quality of life showed fair to strong agreement with their comparator scales (0.47-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile is a validated and reliable instrument for assessing recent substance use and clinical risk, health and welfare among alcohol and opioid clients in alcohol and other drug treatment settings. Its ability to reliably measure complex constructs, such as psychological and physical health, against longer scales makes it suitable for integration into routine clinical care, enabling regular monitoring of patient outcomes and safety parameters.

Cannabis use in patients 3 months after ceasing nabiximols for the treatment of cannabis dependence: Results from a placebo-controlled randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Previous studies suggest cannabinoid agonist treatment is effective in reducing cannabis use in dependent treatment seekers, however few studies have reported on post-treatment outcomes. We examine cannabis use outcomes 12 weeks after cessation of treatment from a randomised placebo-controlled trial of nabiximols for the treatment of cannabis dependence. METHOD: 128 participants received either nabiximols (n = 61) or placebo (n = 67) for 12 weeks, in combination with psychosocial interventions. Self-reported number of days of cannabis use in the previous 28 days was measured at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 weeks (end of treatment) and again at 24 weeks (3 months after treatment ceased). Urinalysis was used to confirm self-report data at Week 24 interview. RESULTS: A factorial mixed-effects model for repeated measures regression revealed that the nabiximols group used cannabis on 6.8 fewer days in the previous 28 days at week 12 (end of treatment) than the placebo group (p = 0.002, CI: 2.1,11.4), and 6.7 fewer days in the previous 28 days at the week-24 follow-up than the placebo group (p = 0.006, CI: 1.4,12.1). A significantly higher proportion of the nabiximols group (14/61; 23 %) than the placebo group (6/67; 9%) reported abstinence from cannabis in the previous 28 days at the week-24 research interview OR=3.0, CI: 1.1, 9.1; p=0.035, NNT=8, CI: 4, 71). DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of treatment incorporating nabiximols with psychosocial interventions in reducing cannabis use appears to persist for up to 3 months after the cessation of treatment. A stepped care model of treatment is proposed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000103460) https://www.anzctr.org.au.

Medical cannabis use in the Australian community following introduction of legal access: the 2018-2019 Online Cross-Sectional Cannabis as Medicine Survey (CAMS-18).

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the Australian federal government passed legislation enabling a range of cannabis-based products to be prescribed to patients by registered healthcare professionals. An online survey conducted immediately prior to these legislative changes found that the vast majority of respondents at the time were illicitly sourcing cannabis plant matter, smoking was the preferred route of administration and mental health, chronic pain, and sleep conditions were the most frequently cited reasons for medical cannabis use. This manuscript reports the results of a follow-up survey conducted in 2018-2019, the Cannabis As Medicine Survey (CAMS-18). The goal of this second questionnaire was to examine patterns of use and consumer perspectives regarding medical cannabis use in Australia, 2 years after the introduction of legal access pathways. METHODS: Anonymous online cross-sectional survey with convenience sample, recruited mainly through online media between September 2018 and March 2019. Participants were adults (18 years or over) residing in Australia who reported using a cannabis product for self-identified therapeutic reasons during the preceding 12 months. The survey measured consumer characteristics, indications and patterns of medical cannabis use, routes and frequency of administration, perceived benefits and harms, experiences and preferred models of access to medical cannabis. RESULTS: Data were available for 1388 respondents. The main categories of condition being treated with medical cannabis were pain (36.4%), mental health (32.8%), sleep (9.2%), neurological (5.2%) and cancer (3.8%). Respondents reported using medical cannabis on 15.8 (11.2) days in the past 28, by inhaled (71.4%) or oral (26.5%) routes and spending AUD$82.27 ($101.27) per week. There were high levels of self-reported effectiveness, but also high rates of side effects. There was uncertainty regarding the composition of illicit cannabinoid products and concerns regarding their possible contamination. Few respondents (2.7%) had accessed legally prescribed medical cannabis, with the main perceived barriers being cost, disinterest from the medical profession and stigma regarding cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain, mental health and sleep remain the main clinical conditions for which consumers report using medical cannabis. Despite 2 years of legal availability, most consumers in Australia reported accessing illicit cannabis products, with uncertainty regarding the quality or composition of cannabis products.

Evaluation of an Assertive Management and Integrated Care Service for Frequent Emergency Department Attenders with Substance Use Disorders: The Impact Project: Evaluating an assertive management service for frequent ED attenders with substance use disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Frequent attenders to Emergency Departments (ED) often have contributing substance use disorders (SUD), but there are few evaluations of relevant interventions. We examine one such pilot assertive management service set in Sydney, Australia (IMPACT), aimed at reducing hospital presentations and costs, and improving client outcomes. METHODS: IMPACT eligibility criteria included moderate-to-severe SUD and ED attendance on ≥5 occasions in the previous year. A pre-post intervention design examined clients' presentations and outcomes 6 months before and after participation to a comparison group of eligible clients who did not engage. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2015, 34 clients engaged in IMPACT, with 12 in the comparison group. Clients demonstrated significant reductions in preventable (p < 0.05) and non-preventable (p < 0.01) ED presentations and costs, and in hospital admissions and costs (p < 0.01). IMPACT clients also reported a significant reduction in use days for primary substance (p < 0.01). The comparison group had a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in non-preventable visits only. CONCLUSIONS: Assertive management services can be effective in preventing hospital presentations and costs for frequent ED attenders with SUDs and improving client outcomes, representing an effective integrated health approach. The IMPACT service has since been refined and integrated into routine care across a number of hospitals in Sydney, Australia.

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.

Validation of the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile for use in clients with cannabis dependence.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) was developed as a clinical tool for monitoring the substance use, health and wellbeing of clients in alcohol and other drug treatment. This is the first psychometric validation of the ATOP in a cannabis-dependent treatment population. DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 128 individuals with cannabis dependence enrolled in an outpatient randomised controlled trial were administered the ATOP and gold-standard health and wellbeing questionnaires once by clinicians and once by researchers at baseline. Concurrent validity was assessed by testing ATOP Psychological Health, Physical Health and Quality of Life questions against concurrently administered gold-standard questionnaires: the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), the 21-item Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Interrater reliability was tested by comparing clinician-administered ATOP items at the medical screening interview to the same ATOP items administered by researchers at baseline. RESULTS: ATOP Psychological Health showed moderate to strong correlations with SF-36 Mental Components, SF-36 Mental Health and DASS-21 scores (r = 0.40-0.52) and ATOP Physical Health with SF-36 Physical Components and SF-36 General Health scores (r = 0.36-0.67). The ATOP Quality of Life scale showed moderate agreement with the SDS and six-dimensional health state short form scales (r = 0.38-0.40). ATOP substance use, employment, education and child care items showed good to excellent interrater reliability (Krippendorff's α = 0.62-0.81), and tobacco use, Psychological Health, Physical Health and Quality of Life showed fair to moderate interrater reliability (Krippendorff's α = 0.42-0.53). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The ATOP appears to be valid and reliable when tested in a population with cannabis-dependence, justifying its widespread use in clinical settings.

Nabiximols for the Treatment of Cannabis Dependence: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: There are no effective medications for treating dependence on cannabis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and efficacy of nabiximols in the treatment of patients with cannabis dependence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This parallel double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing nabiximols with placebo in a 12-week, multisite outpatient study recruited participants from February 3, 2016, to June 14, 2017, at 4 outpatient specialist alcohol and drug treatment services in New South Wales, Australia. Participants had cannabis dependence (as defined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision) and were seeking treatment, were nonresponsive to prior treatment attempts, were 18 to 64 years of age, had no other substance use disorder, had no severe medical or psychiatric conditions, were not pregnant, were not mandated by a court to undergo treatment, and provided informed consent. Results for primary efficacy measures and all secondary outcomes were obtained using a modified intention-to-treat data set. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received 12-week treatment involving weekly clinical reviews, structured counseling, and flexible medication doses-up to 32 sprays daily (tetrahydrocannabinol, 86.4 mg, and cannabidiol, 80 mg), dispensed weekly. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was self-reported number of days using illicit cannabis during the 12-week period. Other outcomes included alternate cannabis use parameters (periods of abstinence, withdrawal, cravings, and problems), safety parameters (adverse events and aberrant medication use), health status, other substance use, and treatment retention. RESULTS: A total of 128 participants (30 women and 98 men; mean [SD] age, 35.0 [10.9] years) were randomized and received at least 1 dose of study medication. Participants had used a mean (SD) of 2.3 (2.1) g of cannabis on a mean (SD) of 25.7 (4.5) days in the past 28 days. Treatment retention was comparable for the 2 groups (placebo, 30 of 67 participants [44.8%]; nabiximols, 30 of 61 participants [49.2%]), and both groups used similar mean (SD) doses (placebo, 18.5 [9.5] sprays daily; nabiximols, 17.6 [9.5] sprays daily, equivalent to a mean [SD] of 47.5 [25.7] mg of tetrahydrocannabinol and 44.0 [23.8] mg of cannabidiol). For the primary end point, the placebo group reported significantly more days using cannabis during the 12 weeks (mean [SD], 53.1 [33.0] days) than the nabiximols group (mean [SD], 35.0 [32.4] days; estimated difference, 18.6 days; 95% CI, 3.5-33.7 days; P = .02). Both groups showed comparable improvements in health status, with no substantial changes in other substance use. Medication was well tolerated with few adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates that cannabinoid agonist treatment, in this case using nabiximols, in combination with psychosocial interventions is a safe approach for reducing cannabis use among individuals with cannabis dependence who are seeking treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616000103460.

Survey of Australian psychiatrists' and psychiatry trainees' knowledge about and attitudes towards medicinal cannabinoids.

OBJECTIVE:: To assess Australian psychiatrists' and psychiatry trainees' knowledge about and attitudes towards medicinal cannabinoids, given the recent relaxation of cannabinoid-prescribing laws in Australia. METHOD:: All Australian members of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists were invited to participate in an anonymous, 64-item online questionnaire, through Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists' newsletters. The questionnaire ran for a 10-week period from March to May 2017. Participants were asked about their knowledge of the evidence for and against prescribing pharmaceutical-grade cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol, and their concerns about prescribing medicinal cannabinoids. RESULTS:: In total, 88 doctors responded to the survey, with 55 completing all items (23 psychiatrists, 32 trainees). Overall, 54% of respondents would prescribe medicinal cannabinoids if it was legal to do so. Participants believed there was evidence for the use of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol in treating childhood epilepsy, chronic pain, and nausea and vomiting. They were most concerned about medicinal cannabinoids leading to psychotic symptoms, addiction and dependence, apathy and recreational use. CONCLUSIONS:: Our sample of Australian psychiatrists and trainees were aware of the main clinical indications for medicinal cannabinoids, but were poor at differentiating between the indications for cannabidiol versus tetrahydrocannabinol. Further education about medicinal cannabinoids appears necessary.

Oral cannabinoid-rich THC/CBD cannabis extract for secondary prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a study protocol for a pilot and definitive randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial (CannabisCINV).

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important issue for patients receiving chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy. Trials using delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-rich (THC) products demonstrate limited antiemetic effect, significant adverse events and flawed study design. Trials using cannabidiol-rich (CBD) products demonstrate improved efficacy and psychological adverse event profile. No definitive trials have been conducted to support the use of cannabinoids for this indication, nor has the potential economic impact of incorporating such regimens into the Australian healthcare system been established. CannabisCINV aims to assess the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of adding TN-TC11M, an oral THC/CBD extract to guideline-consistent antiemetics in the secondary prevention of CINV. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The current multicentre, 1:1 randomised cross-over, placebo-controlled pilot study will recruit 80 adult patients with any malignancy, experiencing CINV during moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetics. Patients receive oral TN-TC11M (THC 2.5mg/CBD 2.5 mg) capsules or placebo capsules three times a day on day -1 to day 5 of cycle A of chemotherapy, followed by the alternative drug regimen during cycle B of chemotherapy and the preferred drug regimen during cycle C. The primary endpoint is the proportion of subjects attaining a complete response to CINV. Secondary and tertiary endpoints include regimen tolerability, impact on quality of life and health system resource use. The primary assessment tool is patient diaries, which are filled from day -1 to day 5. A subsequent randomised placebo-controlled parallel phase III trial will recruit a further 250 patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by ethics review committees for all participating sites. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. DRUG SUPPLY: Tilray. PROTOCOL VERSION: 2.0, 9 June 2017. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR12616001036404; Pre-results.

Medicinal cannabis in Australia, 2016: the Cannabis as Medicine Survey (CAMS-16).

OBJECTIVE: To explore patterns of cannabis use for medical purposes in Australia immediately prior to the 2016 legislation for frameworks for medical cannabis use. Design, setting: Anonymous online survey with convenience sample, April-October 2016. Participants were recruited through online media and at professional and consumer forums. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (at least 18 years of age) who reported using a cannabis product for self-identified medical or therapeutic reasons during the preceding 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consumer characteristics; indications and patterns of medical cannabis use; perceived benefits and harms; views on appropriate availability of medical cannabis. RESULTS: Most of the 1748 participants were men (68.1%) and employed (56.6%), with a mean age of 37.9 years (SD, 13.4 years) and mean reported period of medical cannabis use of 9.8 years (SD, 12.5 years). The most frequent reasons for medical cannabis use were anxiety (50.7%), back pain (50.0%), depression (49.3%), and sleep problems (43.5%). Respondents had used medical cannabis on a mean of 19.9 of the previous 28 days (SD, 10.0 days), spending a mean $68.60 (SD, $85.00) per week, and 83.4% had inhaled the substance. Participants reported high levels of clinical effectiveness and frequent side effects, including drowsiness, ocular irritation, lethargy and memory impairment; 17% met DSM-5 criteria for moderate or severe cannabis use disorder. Many reported harms or concerns related to the illicit status of cannabis. Participants believed that medical cannabis should be integrated into mainstream health care, and that products should be required to meet consistency and safety standards. CONCLUSION: Illicitly sourced cannabis is used to treat a broad range of medical conditions in Australia. Future models of prescribed medical cannabis take consumer patterns of use and demand into consideration.

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.

Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of cannabinoid replacement therapy (Nabiximols) for the management of treatment-resistant cannabis dependent patients: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The cannabis extract nabiximols (Sativex®) effectively supresses withdrawal symptoms and cravings in treatment resistant cannabis dependent individuals, who have high relapse rates following conventional withdrawal treatments. This study examines the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of longer-term nabiximols treatment for outpatient cannabis dependent patients who have not responded to previous conventional treatment approaches. METHODS/DESIGN: A phase III multi-site outpatient, randomised, double-blinded, placebo controlled parallel design, comparing a 12-week course of nabiximols to placebo, with follow up at 24 weeks after enrolment. Four specialist drug and alcohol outpatient clinics in New South Wales, Australia. One hundred forty-two treatment seeking cannabis dependent adults, with no significant medical, psychiatric or other substance use disorders. Nabiximols is an oromucosal spray prescribed on a flexible dose regimen to a maximum daily dose of 32 sprays; 8 sprays (total 21.6 mg tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and 20 mg cannabidiol (CBD)) four times a day, or matching placebo, dispensed weekly. All participants will receive six-sessions of individual cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and weekly clinical reviews. Primary endpoints are use of non-prescribed cannabis (self-reported cannabis use days, urine toxicology), safety measures (adverse events and abuse liability), and cost effectiveness (incremental cost effectiveness in achieving additional Quality Adjusted Life Years). Secondary outcomes include, improvement in physical and mental health parameters, substance use other than cannabis, cognitive functioning and patient satisfaction measures. DISCUSSION: This is the first outpatient community-based randomised controlled study of nabiximols as an agonist replacement medication for treating cannabis dependence, targeting individuals who have not previously responded to conventional treatment approaches. The study and treatment design is modelled upon an earlier study with this population and more generally on other agonist replacement treatments (e.g. nicotine, opioids). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616000103460 (Registered 1st February 2016).

Systematic Review of the Costs and Benefits of Prescribed Cannabis-Based Medicines for the Management of Chronic Illness: Lessons from Multiple Sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) may offer relief from symptoms of disease; however, their additional cost needs to be considered alongside their effectiveness. We sought to review the economic costs and benefits of prescribed CBMs in any chronic illness, and the frameworks used for their economic evaluation. METHODS: A systematic review of eight medical and economic databases, from inception to mid-December 2016, was undertaken. MeSH headings and text words relating to economic costs and benefits, and CBMs were combined. Study quality was assessed using relevant checklists and results were synthesised in narrative form. RESULTS: Of 2514 identified records, ten studies met the eligibility criteria, all for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS). Six contained economic evaluations, four studies reported utility-based quality of life, and one was a willingness-to-pay study. Four of five industry-sponsored cost-utility analyses for MS spasticity reported nabiximols as being cost-effective from a European health system perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for these five studies were £49,257 (UK); £10,891 (Wales); €11,214 (Germany); €4968 (Italy); and dominant (Spain). Nabiximols for the management of MS spasticity was not associated with statistically significant improvements in EQ-5D scores compared with standard care. Study quality was moderate overall, with limited inclusion of both relevant societal costs and discussions of potential bias. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribed CBMs are a potentially cost-effective add-on treatment for MS spasticity; however, this evidence is uncertain. Further investment in randomised trials with in-built economic evaluations is warranted for a wider range of clinical indications. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42014006370.

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.

Constipation and other common symptoms reported by women and men in methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment.

BACKGROUND: Opioid substitution treatment (OST) is often continued long-term and, therefore, opioid-associated symptoms are of interest. Symptoms associated with methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) in men are well described, but there are fewer reports concerning symptoms associated with buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) and very few reports among women. METHOD: Recipients of BMT (n=113) and MMT (n=184), non-opioid users (n=105) and opioid users not receiving OST (n=87) completed the Patient Assessment of Constipation (PAC-SYM) and a general symptom checklist. Multivariate analysis included other potential moderators of opioid-associated symptoms. FINDINGS: Opioid users reported a higher frequency and severity of symptoms than non-opioid users. Constipation, dry mouth, decreased appetite, sweating and fatigue were highly prevalent in the previous 30days (51-80%). Nausea, itchy skin, trouble urinating, menstrual problems, lightheadedness, blurred vision, heart racing were also common (30-50%). Non-OST opioid users had significantly higher frequency and severity than OST recipients of nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, sweating and itchy skin. Sweating was significantly more common in MMT than BMT. Constipation scores were higher in women, otherwise most sex differences were small. Higher PAC-SYM scores were associated with vomiting (OR=1.04) and sweating (OR=1.06). Cannabis use was associated with vomiting (OR=2.19). Constipation (OR=1.07), insomnia (OR=2.5) and depression (OR=2.82) were associated with fatigue. CONCLUSION: Men and women receiving OST report similarly high rates of somatic symptoms, though less than opioid users not receiving OST. There were few differences between BMT and MMT. Buprenorphine might be preferred where sweating is problematic. Several modifiable factors were identified.