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.

A protocol for a discrete choice experiment: understanding patient medicine preferences for managing chronic non-cancer pain.

INTRODUCTION: High rates of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), concerns about adverse effects including dependence among those prescribed potent pain medicines, the recent evidence supporting active rather than passive management strategies and a lack of funding for holistic programme have resulted in challenges around decision making for treatment among clinicians and their patients. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are one way of assessing and valuing treatment preferences. Here, we outline a protocol for a study that assesses patient preferences for CNCP treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A final list of attributes (and their levels) for the DCE was generated using a detailed iterative process. This included a literature review, a focus group and individual interviews with those with CNCP and clinicians who treat people with CNCP. From this process a list of attributes was obtained. Following a review by study investigators including pain and addiction specialists, pharmacists and epidemiologists, the final list of attributes was selected (number of medications, risk of addiction, side effects, pain interference, activity goals, source of information on pain, provider of pain care and out-of-pocket costs). Specialised software was used to construct an experimental design for the survey. The survey will be administered to two groups of participants, those from a longitudinal cohort of patients receiving opioids for CNCP and a convenience sample of patients recruited through Australia's leading pain advocacy body (Painaustralia) and their social media and website. The data from the two participant groups will be initially analysed separately, as their demographic and clinical characteristics may differ substantially (in terms of age, duration of pain and current treatment modality). Mixed logit and latent class analysis will be used to explore heterogeneity of responses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the University of New South Wales Sydney Human Ethics committee HC16511 (for the focus group discussions, the one-on-one interviews and online survey) and HC16916 (for the cohort). A lay summary will be made available on the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre website and Painaustralia's website. Peer review papers will be submitted, and it is expected the results will be presented at relevant pain management conferences nationally and internationally. These results will also be used to improve understanding of treatment goals between clinicians and those with CNCP.

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.

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.

The political and scientific challenges in evaluating compulsory drug treatment centers in Southeast Asia.

BACKGROUND: In Vietnam, like many countries in Southeast Asia, the commonly used approach of center-based compulsory drug treatment (CCT) has been criticized on human rights ground. Meanwhile, community-based voluntary methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) has been implemented for nearly a decade with promising results. Reform-minded leaders have been seeking empirical evidence of the costs and effectiveness associated with these two main treatment modalities. Conducting evaluations of these treatments, especially where randomization is not ethical, presents challenges. The aim of this paper is to discuss political challenges and methodological issues when conducting cost-effectiveness studies within the context of a non-democratic Southeast Asian country. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the political and scientific challenges that were experienced in the study design, sample size determination, government approval and ethics approvals, participant recruitment, data collection, and determination of sources, and quantification of cost and effectiveness data was undertaken. As a consequence of the non-randomized design, analysis of patient characteristics for both treatment types was undertaken to identify the magnitude of baseline group differences. Concordance between self-reported heroin use and urine drug testing was undertaken to determine the reliability of self-report data in a politically challenging environment. RESULTS: We demonstrate that conducting research around compulsory treatment in a non-democratic society is feasible, yet it is politically challenging and requires navigation between science and politics. We also demonstrate that engagement with the government decision makers in the research conception, implementation, and dissemination of the results increases the likelihood of research evidence being considered for change in a contentious drug policy area. CONCLUSIONS: Local empirical evidence on the comparative cost-effectiveness of CCT and MMT in a Southeast Asian setting is critical to consideration of more holistic, humane, and effective drug-dependence treatment approaches, but the garnering of such evidence is very challenging.

Examining the pathways for young people with drug and alcohol dependence: a mixed-method design to examine the role of a treatment programme.

INTRODUCTION: Young people with drug and alcohol problems are likely to have poorer health and other psychosocial outcomes than other young people. Residential treatment programmes have been shown to lead to improved health and related outcomes for young people in the short term. There is very little robust research showing longer term outcomes or benefits of such programmes. This paper describes an innovative protocol to examine the longer term outcomes and experiences of young people referred to a residential life management and treatment programme in Australia designed to address alcohol and drug issues in a holistic manner. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods study that will retrospectively and prospectively examine young people's pathways into and out of a residential life management programme. The study involves 3 components: (1) retrospective data linkage of programme data to health and criminal justice administrative data sets, (2) prospective cohort (using existing programme baseline data and a follow-up survey) and (3) qualitative in-depth interviews with a subsample of the prospective cohort. The study will compare findings among young people who are referred and (a) stay 30 days or more in the programme (including those who go on to continuing care and those who do not); (b) start, but stay fewer than 30 days in the programme; (c) are assessed, but do not start the programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been sought from several ethics committees including a university ethics committee, state health departments and an Aboriginal-specific ethics committee. The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at research conferences, disseminated via a report for the general public and through Facebook communications. The study will inform the field more broadly about the value of different methods in evaluating programmes and examining the pathways and trajectories of vulnerable young people.

Patterns and costs of treatment for heroin dependence over 12 months: findings from the Australian Treatment Outcome Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patterns and costs of treatment for heroin dependence over a 12-month period among a cohort of heroin users seeking treatment. METHODS: The design was a longitudinal cohort study of heroin users seeking treatment who participated in the Australian Treatment Outcome Study (ATOS), which was conducted in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, Australia. Treatment for heroin dependence, for those who were followed up at 12 months, was recorded and costed. Unit costs, obtained from secondary sources, were used to estimate the cost of treatment. This study does not include wide societal costs and only includes personal costs as they pertain to treatment. RESULTS: A follow-up rate of 81% at 12 months was achieved, resulting in data for 596 participants. Participants spent an average of 188 days in treatment over 2.7 episodes. Sixty-nine per cent of the sample reported at least one episode of treatment following their index treatment. There was a noticeable trend for subjects who received maintenance or residential rehabilitation as their index treatment to return to the same form of treatment for subsequent episodes. In contrast, those who received detoxification as index treatment accessed a wider variety of treatment types over the follow-up period. The cost of treatment over the 12-month follow-up totalled dollar 3,901,416, with a mean of dollar 6,517 per person. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study demonstrates that individuals seeking treatment have multiple treatment episodes throughout a 12-month period, with a tendency to return to the same form of treatment. This study also demonstrates that it is feasible and affordable to provide ongoing treatment for a group of heroin users seeking treatment.