The impact of changes in opioid dependency treatment upon COVID-19 transmission in Sydney, Australia: a retrospective longitudinal observational study.

BACKGROUND: In April 2020, in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District (SESLHD) Drug and Alcohol services modified their delivery of opioid dependency treatment (ODT) to reduce spread of COVID-19 and maintain continuity of care by increasing use of takeaway doses (TADs), transferring clients to local community pharmacies for dosing and encouraging the use of long-acting depot buprenorphine (LADB) which enabled once a month dosing. METHODS: This study was a retrospective longitudinal case-control study conducted from August 1st, to November 30th, 2021. Eligible clients were those admitted for treatment with SESLHD ODT Services prior to August 1st,2021 and who remained in treatment beyond November 30th, 2021. COVID-19 diagnoses were determined by a COVID-19 PCR and extracted from the electronic Medical Records (eMR) Discern Reporting Portal. Demographic, clinical and dosing related data were collected from eMR and the Australian Immunisation Register (AIR). RESULTS: Clients attending SESLHD ODT services had significantly greater odds of acquiring COVID-19 than the NSW adult population at large (OR: 13.63, 95%CI: 9.64,18.88). Additionally, amongst SESLHD ODT clients, being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin was associated with greater odds of acquiring COVID-19 (OR = 2.18, CI: 1.05,4.53); whilst being employed (OR = 0.06, CI:0.01,0.46), receiving doses at pharmacy (OR = 0.43, CI: 0.21,0.89), and being vaccinated (OR = 0.12, CI: 0.06,0.26) were associated with lower odds. Every additional day of attendance required for dosing was associated with a 5% increase in odds of acquiring COVID-19 (OR = 1.05, CI: 1.02,1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Clients attending SESLHD ODT services are significantly more likely to acquire COVID-19 than the NSW population at large. Promoting vaccination uptake, transferring clients to pharmacy, and reducing the frequency of dosing (by use of takeaway doses or long-acting depot buprenorphine) are all potential methods to reduce this risk.

Medical cannabis use in Australia seven years after legalisation: findings from the online Cannabis as Medicine Survey 2022-2023 (CAMS-22).

BACKGROUND: Cannabis was legalised for medical purposes in 2016. Uptake was initially slow, but since 2019 there has been a large increase in the number of Australians who have been prescribed cannabis for medical reasons. Yet a significant number of consumers continue to treat their medical conditions via illicitly-sourced cannabis. Little is known about how these two groups of medical cannabis consumers differ. METHODS: The anonymous Cannabis-As-Medicine Survey 2022-2023 (CAMS-22) was available for completion online from December 2022 to April 2023 to adult Australians who had used cannabis to treat a medical condition in the previous year. Recruitment occurred through social media, consumer forums, and medical practices. Questions included demographic characteristics, patterns of cannabis use, conditions treated, and self-rated effectiveness. RESULTS: Of the 3323 respondents included in these analyses, 2352 (73%) mainly used prescribed medical cannabis, 871 (27%) mainly used illicit. Prescribed users were significantly more likely than illicit users to have had their health condition diagnosed (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.3, 2.2), to consume their cannabis via oral (OR = 1.9; CI 1.5, 2.4) or vaporised (OR = 5.2; CI 4.0, 6.8) routes, and to be sure of the composition of their medical cannabis (OR = 25.0; CI 16.7, 50.0). Prescribed users were significantly less likely to have used cannabis non-medically before medical use (OR = 0.6, CI 0.5, 0.7), consume cannabis via smoked routes (OR = 0.2, CI 0.1, 0.2), and to report any side effects (OR = 0.1; CI 0.1, 0.2). The most common conditions among both prescribed and illicit users were pain (37%), mental health (36%), and sleep (15%) conditions. Prescribed users were significantly more likely to use cannabis to mainly treat a pain (OR = 1.3; CI 1.1, 1.5) or sleep condition (OR = 1.4; CI 1.1, 1.7) and less likely to treat a mental health condition (OR = 0.8; CI 0.7, 0.9). There were no between-group differences in effectiveness with 97% saying medical cannabis had improved their symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: From a harm-reduction perspective there is much to recommend prescribed medical cannabis; it has fewer side-effects than illicit, is used more safely (oral or vaporised versus smoked routes), gives consumers greater certainty regarding the composition and quality of their medicine, and does not risk exposure to the criminal justice system. Of concern, however, is the apparent willingness of prescribers to prescribe for indications for which there is limited evidence of efficacy, such as mental health and sleep conditions.

Differences in prescribed medicinal cannabis use by cannabinoid product composition: Findings from the cannabis as medicine survey 2020 (CAMS-20) Australia-wide study.

INTRODUCTION: Prescribed medicinal cannabis (MC) is an increasingly common prescription in Australia for treating pain, anxiety, and sleep disorders. Prescribed MC products generally contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD) in a variety of dose levels and forms. It is unclear whether THC and CBD products are used by patients with different characteristics and for different conditions. OBJECTIVES: To examine consumer experiences of using THC- and CBD-containing prescribed MC products to better understand how they are being used within the Australian context. METHODS: We utilised data collected from an online anonymous cross-sectional survey of individuals (CAMS-20 survey), consisting of Australian residents using cannabis for therapeutic reasons. We focused on a subgroup of participants (N = 546) receiving prescribed MC products. We utilised linear, logistic, and multinomial regression modelling to analyse responses to survey questions based on the cannabinoid profile of the prescribed product. RESULTS: Participants prescribed THC-dominant MC products were statistically more likely to be younger, male, and to prefer inhaled routes of administration than participants using CBD-dominant products who were older, female, and preferred oral routes of administration. Pain and mental health were the most common reasons for all types of prescribed MC, but were more likely to be treated with THC than CBD despite the significantly higher risk of mild to severe drowsiness, dry mouth and eye irritation. Consumer reported effectiveness of prescribed MC was very positive, particularly for THC-containing products. Consumers on opioids and antipsychotics were statistically more likely to be prescribed THC-containing products than products containing CBD only, despite the greater risk of impairment. CONCLUSIONS: This Australia-wide study found clear differences in consumer-reported experiences of prescribed THC- and CBD-containing products. Current prescriptions of these products do not always align with relevant clinical guidance. Educating prescribers around cannabinoid products is essential to ensure optimal prescribing practices and to prevent avoidable drug side effects and interactions.

Sociodemographic and Health Factors of the Alcohol Treatment-seeking Population in New South Wales, Australia.

OBJECTIVES: Although factors associated with alcohol use have been researched at a population level, descriptions of the alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment-seeking population in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, are limited. This study addresses this gap by analyzing sociodemographic and health characteristics in the NSW AOD treatment-seeking population. METHODS: Self-reported Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile data on substance use, health ratings, and sociodemographic factors were acquired from public AOD services (offering services from counseling to ambulatory/inpatient withdrawal management) in 6 administrative health districts from 2016 to 2019 (n = 14,287). Gaussian and multiple logistic regressions were conducted to examine associations between these factors and alcohol consumption quantity. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for patients seeking treatment for alcohol consumption specifically (n = 5929; median age, 44 years; 65% male). Valid alcohol consumption data were available for 5460 patients, among whom the mean volume of alcohol consumed was 311 standard drinks (3110 grams of ethanol) over the past 28 days and 15 standard drinks (150 grams of ethanol) per occasion. Higher volumes were consumed by males and those with recent experiences of violence and/or injecting drug use. Caring for children younger than 5 years and having above-median health ratings were associated with lower alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to the characterization of the NSW public AOD treatment population and identifies associations between alcohol consumption, sociodemographic factors, and health ratings among people seeking treatment for alcohol consumption. Findings point towards multilevel assessment and comprehensive interventions for people engaging in treatment for alcohol use. Future research should address barriers to treatment.