Direct induction onto high-dose long-acting injectable buprenorphine: A case series.

INTRODUCTION: This case series reports on five patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) who were commenced directly onto high-dose long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB). METHOD: A retrospective audit and manual review of the electronic medical record at cohealth Innerspace was conducted for patients who had been directly inducted onto high-dose LAIB. RESULTS: Five cases were identified on retrospective manual file review. All patients identified were males aged between 33 and 60 years old and were treated with either high-dose Buvidal Weekly and Monthly preparations. No immediate significant adverse effects were noticed and 4 out of 5 remain engaged with treatment. CONCLUSION: This case series shows it is possible to directly induct patients with OUD onto high-dose LAIB preparations without significant side effects or harm to the patient and could be considered a viable option in the treatment of patients with OUD.

Buprenorphine microdosing regimen using transdermal buprenorphine patches to transition from methadone to buprenorphine.

INTRODUCTION: This case series records a cohort of patients treated with transdermal buprenorphine patches as part of a buprenorphine microdose induction protocol to transition from methadone to buprenorphine in a community setting. This has historically been a difficult process to manage in community settings and this case series explored a method to gradually manage this in an outpatient setting. METHOD: A retrospective file audit was conducted of the electronic medical records of cohealth Innerspace patients who had undergone buprenorphine microdose induction using transdermal patches. A total of 32 patients were identified. RESULTS: In this case series 23 of the 32 patients successfully transitioned from methadone to sublingual or long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine preparations utilising the transdermal buprenorphine microdosing technique. All patients in this case series regardless of the success of the transition were retained in treatment. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A fixed-dose transdermal buprenorphine patch regimen enabled 23 of 32 patients in this case series transition from methadone to buprenorphine in an outpatient setting. Given the small sample size further research is required to demonstrate the effectiveness of this technique.

Time for Australia to increase take away doses in opioid agonist treatment.

Opioid Agonist Treatment is the cornerstone of minimising harms related to opioid use, however its uptake is limited by a tightly regulated and stigmatising treatment environment. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated relaxation of some treatment restrictions, with global evidence pointing to more patient-centred care in this time. In light of local evidence to support the safety of increased access to takeaway doses and a precedent set by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, we recommend adoption of the Australian Interim Medication Assisted Treatment of Opioid Dependence guidance in Australia.

The reflections of health service providers on implementing contingency management for methamphetamine use disorder in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Contingency management (CM) is the most effective treatment for reducing methamphetamine use. We sought to understand why CM has not been taken up to manage methamphetamine use disorder in Australia. METHODS: Six focus groups (4-8 participants per group) were conducted with health workers from agencies in Australia that provided drug-related health care to people who use methamphetamine. These agencies had no previous experience delivering CM for substance use. The potential acceptability and feasibility of implementing CM in their services were discussed. RESULTS: Participants felt that it would be beneficial to have an evidence-based treatment for methamphetamine use disorder. This sentiment was offset by concerns that CM conflicted with a client-centred harm-reduction approach and that it dictated the goal of treatment as abstinence. It was also perceived as potentially coercive and seen to reify the power imbalance in the therapeutic relationship and therefore potentially reinforce stigma. There was also concern about the public's perception and the political acceptability of CM, who would fund CM, and the inequity of providing incentives only to clients with a methamphetamine use disorder. Some concerns could be ameliorated if the goals and structure of CM could be tailored to a client's needs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Many healthcare workers were keen to offer CM as an effective treatment option for people with methamphetamine use disorder, but CM would need to be sufficiently flexible to allow it to be tailored to client needs and implemented in a way that did not adversely impact the therapeutic relationship.

People who use drugs in hospital settings: 'Moving towards a person-centred harm reduction model'.

People who use drugs often continue to use drugs while in hospital. However, health-care systems often expect abstinence from drugs as a condition of engagement in various services. This commentary piece proposes that this approach is inconsistent with the principles of person-centred care. A harm reduction-based approach in conjunction with collaboration of people who use drugs is proposed as a model for providing person-centred care to people who use drugs during hospital-based treatment.

Perspectives and sentiments on contingency management from people who use methamphetamine.

INTRODUCTION: Contingency management (CM) is currently the most efficacious treatment for methamphetamine use, yet it is rarely available in routine care. We examined the viewpoints of people who use methamphetamine on CM as a potential treatment for methamphetamine use disorder. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 30 Australians aged 18 years or older who had used methamphetamine at least weekly in the past 6 months. RESULTS: Participants reported overall positive attitudes towards CM as a potential treatment option for methamphetamine use disorder. However, there was need for greater flexibility in meeting participant treatment goals (e.g., reduced use or complete abstinence), with particular concern about the viability of initiating abstinence, both in terms of the sufficiency of the initial financial incentive and managing withdrawal symptoms. There was strong interest in the use of digital technologies to provide remote CM, particularly around the convenience and flexibility this offered. Despite this, participants remained keen to access adjunctive treatment and support services but stressed that engagement with these additional services should not be mandatory. Marketing of CM will need to address preconceptions about drug-testing used in abstinence-based CM being punitive (especially urine testing) and its connotations with criminal justice interventions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Positive attitudes towards CM bode well for potential uptake should CM be made available in routine clinical practice. However, there is a need to adapt CM to ensure it is feasible and attractive to people who are seeking treatment for methamphetamine use disorder.