Interconnections between unintended pregnancy, alcohol and other drug use, and pregnancy, birth, infant, childhood and socioeconomic outcomes: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Unintended pregnancy (UIP) and substance use disorder share underlying root causes with similar impacts for women and their offspring in pregnancy, birth and beyond. Furthermore, intoxication with alcohol and other drugs (AOD) increases the risk of UIP. OBJECTIVES: To assess the available evidence on associations between UIP and health, social and economic outcomes, in women who use AOD. SEARCH STRATEGY: The review utilised the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology for Scoping Reviews and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines. The search was conducted across multiple databases, including Scopus and Medline, and limited to studies published between January 2000 to June 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies reporting on interactions between AOD use and UIP, and pregnancy, birth, infant, childhood, social or economic outcomes. All patterns and types of AOD use, except isolated use of tobacco, were included. Studies were available in English and conducted in high-income countries. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Selected articles were reviewed, and data collected by two independent reviewers using a standardised data extraction sheet. Findings were summarised and reported descriptively. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 2536 titles and abstracts were screened, 97 full texts were reviewed, and three studies were selected for inclusion in the scoping review. There was heterogeneity in types and patterns of AOD use, differences in study design and tools to assess pregnancy intention, and each focused on disparate outcomes. No study assessed or reported on birth outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of data examining the intersection between AOD use and UIP and further research is needed.

Context matters: using an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework to develop and encourage uptake of opioid deprescribing guideline recommendations at the point-of-care.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and use of an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework when formulating recommendations for the Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for Deprescribing Opioid Analgesics. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Evidence was derived from an overview of systematic reviews and qualitative studies conducted with healthcare professionals and people who take opioids for pain. A multidisciplinary guideline development group conducted extensive EtD framework review and iterative refinement to ensure that guideline recommendations captured contextual factors relevant to the guideline target setting and audience. RESULTS: The guideline development group considered and accounted for the complexities of opioid deprescribing at the individual and health system level, shaping recommendations and practice points to facilitate point-of-care use. Stakeholders exhibited diverse preferences, beliefs, and values. This variability, low certainty of evidence, and system-level policies and funding models impacted the strength of the generated recommendations, resulting in the formulation of four 'conditional' recommendations. CONCLUSION: The context within which evidence-based recommendations are considered, as well as the political and health system environment, can contribute to the success of recommendation implementation. Use of an EtD framework allowed for the development of implementable recommendations relevant at the point-of-care through consideration of limitations of the evidence and relevant contextual factors.

Gabapentinoids: a therapeutic review.

The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration's approved indications for prescription of gabapentinoids are refractory focal epilepsy and neuropathic pain. Use of gabapentinoids outside of the approved indications is common, but evidence for this is limited, especially for chronic nonspecific back pain and nonradicular leg pain. Some effects of gabapentinoids encourage their nonmedical use (e.g. euphoria, sedation, disinhibition). Widespread nonmedical use has increased the incidence of accidental and deliberate poisonings. Dependence may develop with chronic use of gabapentinoids and abrupt cessation may induce withdrawal symptoms. If the indication for continued use is unclear, gradual dose tapering as a means of deprescribing is recommended. Clinicians should consider the indication, patient characteristics and harm-benefit profile when prescribing gabapentinoids. Some people, such as those with kidney disease, have an increased risk of harm when using these drugs.

Experiences of misuse and symptoms of dependence among people who use gabapentinoids: a qualitative systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Gabapentinoids are among the most widely prescribed pain medications. However, there is growing evidence to suggest that gabapentinoids may be associated with dependence and misuse. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the qualitative literature on gabapentinoid misuse and symptoms of dependence. The findings of this study will inform efforts to mitigate emerging harms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review of qualitative research will explore lived experiences of misuse and symptoms of dependence among people who use gabapentinoids. Six databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO) and grey literature sources will be searched from inception to May 2023. Qualitative studies that include people with lived experiences of gabapentinoid misuse and symptoms of gabapentinoid dependence will be included. Reference lists of included studies will also be screened for additional studies. The methodological quality of included studies will be appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist, and higher quality studies will be prioritised in the thematic synthesis. The GRADE-CERQual approach will be used to assess confidence in the overall findings of the review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. The findings of this review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at conferences and on social media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023401832.

'It's a fragile open door'-enhancing COVID-19 vaccination rates in people receiving treatment for substance use disorder.

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorder are at high risk of harms from COVID-19 infection. Vaccine hesitancy is common in this population and compounds pre-existing barriers to accessing health care. A drug and alcohol service in Sydney, Australia introduced strategies to enhance COVID-19 vaccination in people receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT). We report vaccination outcomes and staff experiences of this. METHODS: This mixed methods study (i) retrospectively evaluated vaccine uptake in people accessing OAT and (ii) explored perceptions of staff who delivered vaccination interventions through surveys and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Of the 984 patients receiving OAT on 9 December 2021, 90.9% had received the first COVID-19 vaccination and 86.7% the second. Australia wide vaccination rates on that date were 93.1% and 88.7% for first and second doses, respectively. Staff commented that having a deep knowledge, understanding and connection with the patient group drove implementation and success of vaccination interventions. This was further supported by staff engagement with the vaccination interventions, and communication and sharing information, both between staff and with patients. CONCLUSION: High rates of COVID-19 vaccination can be achieved in a vulnerable population. Engaged staff providing information and facilitating access to healthcare underpin this success.

Evaluation of the Prescribing Skills Assessment implementation, performance and medical student experience in Australia and New Zealand.

AIMS: The UK Prescribing Safety Assessment was modified for use in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) as the Prescribing Skills Assessment (PSA). We investigated the implementation, student performance and acceptability of the ANZ PSA for final-year medical students. METHODS: This study used a mixed-method approach involving student data (n = 6440) for 2017-2019 (PSA overall score and 8 domain subscores). Data were also aggregated by medical school and included student evaluation survey results. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and multivariate analyses. The pass rate was established by a modified Angoff method. Thematic analyses of open-ended survey comments were conducted. RESULTS: The average pass rate was slightly higher in 2017 (89%) which used a different examination to 2018 (85%) and 2019 (86%). Little difference was identified between schools for the PSA overall performance or domain subscores. There was low intercorrelation between subscores. Most students provided positive feedback about the PSA regarding the interface and clarity of questions, but an average of 35% reported insufficient time for completion. Further, 70% on average felt unprepared by their school curricula for the PSA, which is in part explained by the low prescribing experience; 69% reported completing ≤10 prescriptions during training. CONCLUSION: The ANZ PSA was associated with high pass rates and acceptability, although student preparedness was highlighted as a concern for further investigation. We demonstrate how a collaboration of medical schools can adapt a medical education assessment resource (UK PSA) as a means for fulfilling an unmet need.

Clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics: summary of recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Long term opioids are commonly prescribed to manage pain. Dose reduction or discontinuation (deprescribing) can be challenging, even when the potential harms of continuation outweigh the perceived benefits. The Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics was developed using robust guideline development processes and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and contains deprescribing recommendations for adults prescribed opioids for pain. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Eleven recommendations provide advice about when, how and for whom opioid deprescribing should be considered, while noting the need to consider each person's goals, values and preferences. The recommendations aim to achieve: implementation of a deprescribing plan at the point of opioid initiation; initiation of opioid deprescribing for persons with chronic non-cancer or chronic cancer-survivor pain if there is a lack of overall and clinically meaningful improvement in function, quality of life or pain, a lack of progress towards meeting agreed therapeutic goals, or the person is experiencing serious or intolerable opioid-related adverse effects; gradual and individualised deprescribing, with regular monitoring and review; consideration of opioid deprescribing for individuals at high risk of opioid-related harms; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons nearing the end of life unless clinically indicated; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons with a severe opioid use disorder, with the initiation of evidence-based care, such as medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder; and use of evidence-based co-interventions to facilitate deprescribing, including interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or multimodal care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THESE GUIDELINES: To our knowledge, these are the first evidence-based guidelines for opioid deprescribing. The recommendations intend to facilitate safe and effective deprescribing to improve the quality of care for persons taking opioids for pain.

How do patients and staff in an opioid agonist treatment service view smoking cessation medications and e-cigarettes?

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco use and related mortality is common in people receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT). Smoking cessation medications are available and e-cigarettes are increasingly recommended for high risk populations. This study explores experience, knowledge and attitudes around smoking cessation medications (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], bupropion and varenicline) and e-cigarettes in patients and clinicians in two public Australian OAT clinics. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys of patients and clinicians and a randomly sampled retrospective medical record review. Patients were recruited through an advertisement in the clinic, and clinicians through advertisement at an educational session. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients and 10 clinicians completed the surveys. Most patients had at least one quit attempt and 43% were currently trying to quit. There were high levels of exposure to NRT, lower levels with varenicline and very limited exposure to bupropion. Patients considered e-cigarettes most helpful, but were more likely to consider using NRT. Few patients reported smoking cessation interventions from their clinicians. Most clinicians identified high tobacco use prevalence, considered this problematic, but reported low rates of smoking cessation intervention. NRT was the preferred medication. E-cigarettes were not considered helpful. Sixty-six percent of the 140 records reviewed documented patients as smokers. Tobacco cessation medication was rarely discussed or provided. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Patients report high rates of tobacco cessation planning, but low rates of intervention. Experience of varenicline and bupropion is limited. E-cigarettes were preferred over varenicline and bupropion. Improving patient's and clinician's knowledge of tobacco cessation medications could improve smoking cessation interventions and uptake of approved medications.

Evaluation of adherence monitoring in buprenorphine treatment: A pilot study using timed drug assays to determine accuracy of testing.

AIMS: Buprenorphine is effective at reducing relapse to opioid misuse, morbidity and mortality in opioid-dependent patients. Urine drug screening (UDS) to assess adherence is used routinely in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). The primary aim of this study was to determine factors which may be associated with a negative qualitative urine drug screen for buprenorphine in OAT patients. METHODS: This prospective pilot study was conducted at a tertiary addiction medicine centre. Twenty participants on stable treatment underwent supervised administration of sublingual buprenorphine. Matched urine and blood samples were collected prior to and 2, 4 and 6 hours after buprenorphine administration. Qualitative urine drug screen results were obtained using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), while quantitative blood and urine results were obtained using ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS). RESULTS: Qualitative urine assay yielded a negative result for buprenorphine in 57% of tested samples. The median concentration of urinary buprenorphine was 167 mcg/L (range: 2-1730 mcg/L). Thirty percent of all blood samples did not detect buprenorphine (range 0-18 mcg/L). Positive qualitative urine drug screen results were associated with higher urine (343 mcg/L compared with 75 mcg/L; P < .05) and blood (4 mcg/L compared with 2 mcg/L; P < .05) buprenorphine concentrations. Median urine concentrations of buprenorphine were highest at 2 hours and were higher in participants receiving CYP3A4 inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of qualitative urine drug screens to assess adherence in OAT is complex. Poor adherence with treatment cannot be assumed in patients returning a negative qualitative GC-MS urine drug screen.

Transferring patients from high-dose methadone to buprenorphine: A retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVE: Transferring from methadone to buprenorphine can be difficult, -particularly at higher methadone doses. Precipitated withdrawal (PW) and severe opioid withdrawal can compromise transfers and limited data guide high-dose transfers. This study describes processes and outcomes of transfers to buprenorphine from methadone. DESIGN: A retrospective case series of transfers from methadone to buprenorphine. SETTING: Two elective, voluntary, specialized in-patient drug and alcohol facilities in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: All admissions between July 1, 2015 and April 30, 2019 were screened using routinely collected coding data. The medical record was reviewed to identify subjects meeting the inclusion criteria of daily methadone use for at least 1 month, age > 18, and a treatment plan that included transfer from methadone to buprenorphine. Data were extracted on methadone dose, transfer medications, time to buprenorphine initiation, and transfer outcome. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were transferred via two methods: morphine bridged and nonbridged. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was successful transition to buprenorphine. RESULTS: Seventy-one subjects met inclusion criteria, of whom 62 initiated buprenorphine and 53 discharged on buprenorphine. Longer delay to buprenorphine initiation was seen with higher methadone doses. The highest daily methadone dose in subjects completing transfer was 180 mg. Outcomes with morphine bridging, using a steady state methadone: morphine ratio of 1:4, were similar to direct transfer. Only one subject discontinued buprenorphine because of PW. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer from high doses of methadone to buprenorphine can be achieved with high success rates in the in-patient setting.

Therapeutic drug monitoring in oncology - What's out there: A bibliometric evaluation on the topic.

Pharmacological therapy is the mainstay of treatment for cancer patients. Despite wide interpatient variability in systemic drug concentrations for numerous antineoplastics, dosing based on body size remains the predominant approach. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is used for few antineoplastics in specific scenarios. We conducted a rapid bibliometric evaluation of TDM in oncology to capture a snapshot of research in this area over time and explore topics that reflect development in the field. Reports with the composite, indexed term 'therapeutic drug monitoring' in the title and abstract were extracted from MEDLINE (inception to August 2021). Reports related to applications in cancer were selected for inclusion and were tagged by study design, antineoplastic drugs and concepts related to TDM. We present a timeline from 1980 to the present indicating the year of first report of antineoplastic agents and key terms. The reports in our sample primarily reflected development and validation of analytical methods with few relating to clinical outcomes to support implementation. Our work emphasises evidence gaps that may contribute to poor uptake of TDM in oncology.

Cannabidiol drug interaction considerations for prescribers and pharmacists.

INTRODUCTION: In light of the widespread use of non-prescribed and prescribed cannabidiol, the use of cannabidiol with other medications is likely, and this may result in drug interactions. AREAS COVERED: We aimed to ascertain if clinical guidance could be provided on the dose range at which cannabidiol drug interactions are likely to occur with concurrently prescribed medicines. Literature searches were conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed from database inception to January 2022 using Emtree and MeSH terms. Reference list screening yielded further studies. Using currently available data, likely drug interactions of which prescribers of cannabidiol need to be aware, at the doses likely to cause clinically significant interactions, and drug dosing changes that may be needed are highlighted. EXPERT OPINION: We have provided an overview of evidence-based pharmacokinetic predictions and general guidance about the dose range at which clinically relevant cannabidiol drug interactions are likely. For an individual patient, there are inherent limitations in providing clinical guidance due to gaps in specific drug dose-response data and knowledge of individual pharmacokinetic profiles, including different co-morbidities, and concurrent medicines. Clinician awareness of cannabinoid pharmacology, along with clinical and therapeutic drug monitoring, are current best practice approaches to manage cannabinoid drug interactions.

Opioid-sparing effect of cannabinoids for analgesia: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies.

Cannabinoid co-administration may enable reduced opioid doses for analgesia. This updated systematic review on the opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids considered preclinical and clinical studies where the outcome was analgesia or opioid dose requirements. We searched Scopus, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Medline, and Embase (2016 onwards). Ninety-two studies met the search criteria including 15 ongoing trials. Meta-analysis of seven preclinical studies found the median effective dose (ED50) of morphine administered with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol was 3.5 times lower (95% CI 2.04, 6.03) than the ED50 of morphine alone. Six preclinical studies found no evidence of increased opioid abuse liability with cannabinoid administration. Of five healthy-volunteer experimental pain studies, two found increased pain, two found decreased pain and one found reduced pain bothersomeness with cannabinoid administration; three demonstrated that cannabinoid co-administration may increase opioid abuse liability. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found no evidence of opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids in acute pain. Meta-analysis of four RCTs in patients with cancer pain found no effect of cannabinoid administration on opioid dose (mean difference -3.8 mg, 95% CI -10.97, 3.37) or percentage change in pain scores (mean difference 1.84, 95% CI -2.05, 5.72); five studies found more adverse events with cannabinoids compared with placebo (risk ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.03, 1.24). Of five controlled chronic non-cancer pain trials; one low-quality study with no control arm, and one single-dose study reported reduced pain scores with cannabinoids. Three RCTs found no treatment effect of dronabinol. Meta-analyses of observational studies found 39% reported opioid cessation (95% CI 0.15, 0.64, I2 95.5%, eight studies), and 85% reported reduction (95% CI 0.64, 0.99, I2 92.8%, seven studies). In summary, preclinical and observational studies demonstrate the potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids in the context of analgesia, in contrast to higher-quality RCTs that did not provide evidence of opioid-sparing effects.

The Effectiveness of Exercise as an Adjunct Intervention to Improve Quality of Life and Mood in Substance Use Disorder: A Systematic Review.

Introduction: Quality of life and affective outcomes offer a perspective of the burden of disease experienced by people with substance use disorder. This can be considered an alternative measure of substance use disorder severity. This review aims to evaluate the impact of exercise as a novel intervention on quality of life and affect in substance use disorder. Method: Medline, CINAHL, Amed, Web of Science core collections, Embase, PsychINFO and SportDISCUS databases were searched from inception to August 2021 for studies that assessed the impact of exercise on mood, depression, anxiety and quality of life outcomes in substance use disorder. Exercise interventions of any duration were included. Results: Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality of life scores improved with larger effects seen in studies with two or more sessions per week. Depression and anxiety scores decreased, with 19 of the 25 data sets reporting a reduction in depression (effect size 0.2-1.86) and 13 of the 17 data sets reporting a reduction in anxiety (effect sizes 0.2-1.42). Mood improved in six of the seven data sets reviewed with effect sizes ranging from 0.34 to 1.13. Discussion: Included studies had numerous methodological flaws therefore results need to be interpreted with caution. Further research needs to be completed with more rigorous methodologies to support these results. Conclusions: Results indicate promising responses to exercise as a novel intervention for quality of life and mood in substance use disorder, however further research of high methodological quality is needed to confirm.

Current Insights on the Impact of Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate (GHB) Abuse.

Recreational gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) use, although less common than other substance use, is increasingly recognised and is over-represented in emergency toxicology presentations. This narrative review summarizes GHB pharmacology, current patterns of use, potential harms and management of GHB toxicity and withdrawal. There is a complex interplay between GHB and GABA as GHB is both a prodrug and metabolite of GABA and GHB activates both GHB and GABA receptors. GHB is rapidly absorbed, with effects seen within minutes of ingestion. Metabolism is non-linear at higher doses. While GHB is listed as a controlled substance, its precursor's gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) and 1,4-butanediol (1,4-BD) are easily available as both have industrial applications. National surveys indicate low rates of GHB use, with identification of high-risk populations in men who have sex with men and polysubstance users. GHB is one of the three drugs most commonly used in chemsex. GHB is often co-ingested with other interacting psychoactive substances. Acute toxicity is dose-dependent, and management is supportive care. Withdrawal management is generally with benzodiazepines with addition of baclofen for more severe withdrawal. Barbiturates may have a role. Titration and tapering of pharmaceutical GHB is commonly used in the Netherlands. Complicated withdrawal with delirium may require intensive care and treatment with intravenous sedation. There are high rates of relapse after withdrawal and medications for longer-term management are currently being investigated. Chronic use is associated with poorer mental, physical and sexual health, social dysfunction and poor work performance. Laboratory detection is complicated as GHB is an endogenous substance with a short half-life, and therefore not often routinely assayed in the clinical setting. Future research should focus on improving GHB detection and management of GHB withdrawal and dependence. Interventions specific for high-risk groups should be developed and assessed.

Opioid use disorder in anaesthesia and intensive care: Prevention, diagnosis and management.

Opioid misuse is common, as is opioid agonist treatment of opioid dependence. Almost 3% of Australians and over 3.5% of those living in New Zealand report misuse of analgesics. Over 50,000 Australians receive opioid agonist treatment with methadone or buprenorphine for management of severe opioid use disorder.The perioperative period is an opportunity to identify pre-existing opioid misuse, and to introduce interventions to reduce the risk of development of opioid use disorder. Challenges of acute perioperative pain management or intensive care management of patients receiving opioid agonist treatment include opioid tolerance and ongoing prescribing of methadone or buprenorphine. There has been some ambiguity about the optimal perioperative management of buprenorphine, a partial agonist at the mu receptor.In this article, a framework to identify emerging opioid misuse problems, identify risk of overdose and to manage the opioid-dependent patient on opioid agonist treatment perioperatively or in the intensive care unit is provided. Diagnostic criteria and risk stratification criteria are presented. Management strategies include trauma-informed care, care planning and care coordination with community practitioners and opioid agonist treatment providers. Continuing methadone or buprenorphine perioperatively with additional opioid and non-opioid analgesia is generally recommended. Increased opioid agonist treatment doses may be required on discharge. An algorithm for decisions about opioid agonist treatment management in the intensive care unit based on the risks of opioid withdrawal and toxicity is considered. Strategies for managing the opioid-dependent patient who is not in treatment are also discussed.

Buprenorphine not detected on urine drug screening in supervised treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Urine drug screens (UDS) assist in clinical planning and assessment of adherence in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). Urine drug screens may also be used in criminal justice and child protection settings. Buprenorphine (BPN) UDS testing is complex. Immunoassay often does not detect BPN and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) is needed. A limited understanding of testing can negatively influence UDS interpretation and clinical decision making. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to determine detection rates of BPN in UDS in participants on BPN or buprenorphine/naloxone (BNX) treatment. The secondary aim was to identify if comorbidities, sex, co-prescribed medications, or dosing site and observation were associated with BPN detection. SETTING: Public outpatient clinic in a specialist addiction treatment service. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: In this retrospective observational study, records of clients on supervised BPN/BNX treatment between September 2017 and 2018 were reviewed. MEASURES: Data extracted included UDS results, age, sex, indication for BPN, frequency of observed doses, dose of BPN, dosing site, comorbid medical conditions, and medications. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-one medical records were reviewed. Ninety-seven (60 percent) underwent screening urine immunoassay. Of these 97, 51 (53 percent) had further GC-MS testing for BPN of which 22 (43 percent) did not detect BPN despite directly observed OAT. Co-prescription of medications known to interact with cytochrome P450 3A4 was associated with nondetection of BPN (p < 0.05). No significant association between median dose, dosing site, and observed dosing and BPN detection was identified. CONCLUSION: Urine drug testing for BPN is complex. Failure to detect BPN does not betoken nonadherence to treatment and is associated with co-prescription of drugs interacting with cytochrome P450 3A4.

Patient characteristics predicting attendance for elective in-patient treatment of substance use disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Consumption of alcohol and other drugs constitutes a significant health burden. Treatment access is poor, and a number of barriers are recognised. The objective of this retrospective cohort study is to examine patient characteristics of those attending/not attending for elective in-patient withdrawal management (IWM). METHODS: Records of all elective admissions for IWM between 1 March and 30 June 2019 were reviewed. Data were extracted on attendance, age, substance(s) used, pre-arranged rehabilitation admissions following discharge, wait time, legal issues and child welfare agency involvement. RESULTS: Of 274 planned admissions, 193 (70%) attended. Attendance was predicted by residential treatment planned after withdrawal management and older age. People using amphetamines were less likely to attend. CONCLUSION: There are low attendance rates for elective IWM. Patient characteristics predicting lower attendance include younger age, amphetamine use and not planning rehabilitation. Further research is required to improve attendance.