96-week retention in treatment with extended-release subcutaneous buprenorphine depot injections among people with opioid dependence: Extended follow-up after a single-arm trial.

BACKGROUND: The most recent formulation of buprenorphine treatment is extended-release depot injections (BUP-XR) that are administered subcutaneously by health care professionals. This study aimed to observe treatment outcomes of BUP-XR delivered in standard practice during a 96-week follow-up period in a community setting. METHODS: This study is an extension of the CoLAB study, a prospective single-arm, multicentre, open label trial (N=100, 7 sites in Australia) among people with opioid dependence who received monthly injections of BUP-XR to evaluate the retention in treatment. Participants were followed for 96 weeks, comprising 48 weeks of the CoLAB study followed by a 48-week extension. RESULTS: Of 100 participants at baseline, 47 were retained on BUP-XR at 96 weeks. The median time retained on monthly depot was 90 weeks. Heroin use (adjusted OR=0.19, P=0.012) in the month prior to baseline was associated with lower odds of retention on BUP-XR. Older age at first opioid use (adjusted OR= 1.08, P=0.009) and longer duration in OAT at baseline (adjusted OR= 1.12, P=0.001) were associated with increased retention. Prevalence of past four-weeks opioid use was estimated at 4% at 96 weeks of treatment (prevalence 0.04, 95%CI: 0.00-0.11) compared to 15% at baseline. Quality of life and medication treatment satisfaction improved over time for those retained in treatment. CONCLUSION: This is one of the few studies to describe long term (96 week) retention in treatment with BUP-XR in a community setting. It displayed retention rates with 47% of participants completing 96 weeks of treatment with BUP-XR. Patient reported outcomes suggest improvements in client wellbeing. FUNDING: Indivior.

SMART Family and Friends: Feasibility and outcomes of a video-conference delivered intervention for families impacted by another's methamphetamine use.

INTRODUCTION: Families affected by another's substance use, including methamphetamine, experience harms to their mental and physical health. Yet, research has paid little attention to support and service needs of this population. This pilot study examines the feasibility and outcomes of SMART Family and Friends, a video-conference-delivered mutual-support group targeting families affected by another's methamphetamine use. METHODS: Recruitment for this study occurred between March-October 2021 via the SMART Recovery Australia website. Participants were English-speaking Australian residents, ≥18 years, affected by another's methamphetamine use, interested in participating in a manualised eight-module group delivered via video-conferencing. Feasibility was evaluated by attendance rates, participant satisfaction, fidelity ratings, and semi-structured interviews. Measures of distress, quality of life, and family functioning assessed outcomes at baseline and one-month post-treatment conclusion. RESULTS: Forty-three participants commenced SMART Family and Friends groups. 84 % (n = 36) completed ≥4 modules, 67 % (n = 29) completed ≥6, and 42 % (n = 18) completed all 8 modules. Participant satisfaction (M = 4.32, SD = 0.66, out of 5) and facilitator fidelity (>94 % for all modules) were high. A within-group analysis, without comparison condition demonstrated significant improvements in psychological distress (d = 0.38), family impact (d = 0.64), family strain symptoms (d = 0.48), and total family burden (d = 0.69) post-treatment. Qualitative findings illustrated the benefits and challenges of the video-conference-delivered group, as well as recommendations for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide initial support for the feasibility and positive outcomes of the SMART Family and Friends program. These findings demonstrate the successful provision of a mutual-support group for affected families delivered via video-conferencing, and merit further sufficiently powered randomised-control-trials to evaluate efficacy.

Health utility among people who regularly use opioids in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Studies of health utilities among people who use opioids have mostly been based on in-treatment populations. We aim to report utility-based quality of life by participants' socio-demographic, drug and treatment characteristics, and to examine the determinants of health utility among people who use opioids regularly. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of participants who used opioids regularly, recruited across New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania in 2018-2019. Differences in European Quality of Life (EQ-5D-5L) heath utility scores between socio-demographic and clinical subgroups were assessed using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test by rank. To address the unique distribution of EQ-5D-5L health utility scores in the current sample, a two-part model was applied to assess factors associated with health utility. RESULTS: Among 402 participants enrolled in the study, 385 (96%) completed the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. The mean health utility of the total sample was 0.63 (SD 0.29). Participants who previously received opioid agonist treatment [OAT] (adj marginal effect (ME) -0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.20 to -0.02) and those currently in OAT (adj ME -0.13; 95% CI -0.22 to -0.06) reported lower health utility than those who had never received OAT. Participants who used both pharmaceutical opioids and benzodiazepines had lower health utility compared to no pharmaceutical opioids and no benzodiazepines use (adj ME -0.17; 95% CI -0.28 to -0.07). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide important health utility data for economic evaluations, useful for guiding allocation of resources for treatment strategies among people who use opioids. Lower health utilities among those using benzodiazepines and pharmaceutical opioids suggests interventions targeting these subgroups may be beneficial.

The benefits and challenges of virtual SMART recovery mutual-help groups: Participant and facilitator perspectives.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 prompted widespread transition of face-to-face mutual-help groups to virtual delivery. Current understanding of the experience of virtual mutual-help groups is limited to 12-step approaches or asynchronous groups (e.g., forums). This paper explores participant and facilitator perspectives regarding the benefits and challenges of accessing SMART Recovery mutual-help groups virtually via videoconference. METHODS: A self-selected convenience sample of participants (n = 29) and facilitators (n = 15) from SMART Recovery mutual-help groups in Australia were enrolled. Participants and facilitators were sampled to reflect experience of virtual groups delivered via videoconference ('online'), face-to-face groups ('face-to-face') or both types of groups ('both'). Telephone qualitative interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using iterative categorisation. RESULTS: Participant and facilitators discussed their experience across eight interconnected themes benefits were typically discussed with regard to the (1) availability, (2) ease of access and (3) value add of the chat feature in online groups. Challenges largely pertained to (1) in-group engagement, (2) group size, (3) non-verbal cues, (4) social interaction and (5) technology problems. The impact of these challenges on participant and facilitator experience varied, and neither modality was consistently identified as superior. CONCLUSIONS: SMART Recovery mutual-help groups provided participants with another option for accessing mutual-help and appealed to different people under different circumstances. Depending on the needs and preferences of the individual, online SMART Recovery mutual-help groups may help to mitigate a range of barriers to help seeking and may also engage people otherwise unable or reluctant to engage in treatment. To inform training, practice and policy, improved understanding of the individual and contextual factors that enhance participant engagement, experience and outcomes is needed.

Buprenorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid dependence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Opioid dependence is associated with substantial health and social burdens, and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is highly effective in improving multiple outcomes for people who receive this treatment. Methadone and buprenorphine are common medications provided as OAT. We aimed to examine buprenorphine compared with methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence across a wide range of primary and secondary outcomes. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with GATHER and PRISMA guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO from database inception to Aug 1, 2022; clinical trial registries and previous relevant Cochrane reviews were also reviewed. We included all RCTs and observational studies of adults (aged ≥18 years) with opioid dependence comparing treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Primary outcomes were retention in treatment at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, treatment adherence (measured through doses taken as prescribed, dosing visits attended, and biological measures), or extra-medical opioid use (measured by urinalysis and self-report). Secondary outcomes were use of benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, and alcohol; withdrawal; craving; criminal activity and engagement with the criminal justice system; overdose; mental and physical health; sleep; pain; global functioning; suicidality and self-harm; and adverse events. Single-arm cohort studies and RCTs that collected data on buprenorphine retention alone were also reviewed. Data on study, participant, and treatment characteristics were extracted. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional data when required. Comparative estimates were pooled with use of random-effects meta-analyses. The proportion of individuals retained in treatment across multiple timepoints was pooled for each drug. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020205109). FINDINGS: We identified 32 eligible RCTs (N=5808 participants) and 69 observational studies (N=323 340) comparing buprenorphine and methadone, in addition to 51 RCTs (N=11 644) and 124 observational studies (N=700 035) that reported on treatment retention with buprenorphine. Overall, 61 studies were done in western Europe, 162 in North America, 14 in north Africa and the Middle East, 20 in Australasia, five in southeast Asia, seven in south Asia, two in eastern Europe, three in central Europe, one in east Asia, and one in central Asia. 1 040 827 participants were included in these primary studies; however, gender was only reported for 572 111 participants, of whom 377 991 (66·1%) were male and 194 120 (33·9%) were female. Mean age was 37·1 years (SD 6·0). At timepoints beyond 1 month, retention was better for methadone than for buprenorphine: for example, at 6 months, the pooled effect favoured methadone in RCTs (risk ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·67-0·85]; I·=74·2%; 16 studies, N=3151) and in observational studies (0·77 [0·68-0·86]; I·=98·5%; 21 studies, N=155 111). Retention was generally higher in RCTs than observational studies. There was no evidence suggesting that adherence to treatment differed with buprenorphine compared with methadone. There was some evidence that extra-medical opioid use was lower in those receiving buprenorphine in RCTs that measured this outcome by urinalysis and reported proportion of positive urine samples (over various time frames; standardised mean difference -0·20 [-0·29 to -0·11]; I·=0·0%; three studies, N=841), but no differences were found when using other measures. Some statistically significant differences were found between buprenorphine and methadone among secondary outcomes. There was evidence of reduced cocaine use, cravings, anxiety, and cardiac dysfunction, as well as increased treatment satisfaction among people receiving buprenorphine compared with methadone; and evidence of reduced hospitalisation and alcohol use in people receiving methadone. These differences in secondary outcomes were based on small numbers of studies (maximum five), and were often not consistent across study types or different measures of the same constructs (eg, cocaine use). INTERPRETATION: Evidence from trials and observational studies suggest that treatment retention is better for methadone than for sublingual buprenorphine. Comparative evidence on other outcomes examined showed few statistically significant differences and was generally based on small numbers of studies. These findings highlight the imperative for interventions to improve retention, consideration of client-centred factors (such as client preference) when selecting between methadone and buprenorphine, and harmonisation of data collection and reporting to strengthen future syntheses. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for family members impacted by another's substance use: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Family members affected by another's substance use disorder experience physical health problems, breakdowns in relationships and reduced psychological wellbeing. This review examines the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for improving the wellbeing of family members. METHODS: A systematic review of randomised-controlled trials (RCT), non-RCTs and pre-post studies examining group or individual interventions for affected families. Five databases were searched (PubMed, PsycINFO, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library). Outcomes included psychological functioning, quality of life, physical health and substance use, family functioning and coping. Outcomes were analysed by study design and mode of delivery (individual or group). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tools (RoB2, ROBINS-I). The review followed PRISMA reporting guidelines and was prospectively registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42020200260). RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included (k = 10 included in meta-analyses). In k = 3 RCTs, individually administered interventions significantly reduced depression (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21, 0.79) and distress (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.03, 0.54). In k = 2 pre-post studies, individual interventions improved family functioning (d = 0.51, 95% CI 0.28, 0.73) and coping (d = 0.43, 95% CI 0.24, 0.61). In k = 3 non-RCTs and k = 2 pre-post designs group interventions significantly reduced depression (d = 0.50, 95% CI 0.17, 0.82) and distress (d = 0.44, 95% CI 0.13, 0.75), and improved coping (d = 0.81, 95% CI 0.29, 1.33). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This review summarises the contemporary literature evaluating interventions for affected families, with both individual and group interventions demonstrating favourable outcomes. However, small sample sizes and methodologically weak-quality studies limit conclusions.

Supporting people affected by problematic alcohol, substance use and other behaviours under pandemic conditions: A pragmatic evaluation of how SMART recovery Australia responded to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted rapid, reflexive transition from face-to-face to online healthcare. For group-based addiction services, evidence for the impact on service delivery and participant experience is limited. METHODS: A 12-month (plus 2-month follow-up) pragmatic evaluation of the upscaling of online mutual-help groups by SMART Recovery Australia (SRAU) was conducted using The Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Data captured by SRAU between 1st July 2020 and 31st August 2021 included participant questionnaires, Zoom Data Analytics and administrative logs. RESULTS: Reach: The number of online groups increased from just 6 pre-COVID-19 to 132. These groups were delivered on 2786 (M = 232.16, SD = 42.34 per month) occasions, to 41,752 (M = 3479.33, SD = 576.34) attendees. EFFECTIVENESS: Participants (n = 1052) reported finding the online group meetings highly engaging and a positive, recovery supportive experience. 91 % of people with experience of face-to-face group meetings rated their online experience as equivalent or better. Adoption: Eleven services (including SRAU) and five volunteers delivered group meetings for the entire 12-months. IMPLEMENTATION: SRAU surpassed their goal of establishing 100 groups. Maintenance: The average number of meetings delivered [t(11.14) = -1.45, p = 0.1737] and attendees [t(1.95) = -3.28, p = 0.1880] per month were maintained across a two-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: SRAU scaled-up the delivery of online mutual-help groups in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings support the accessibility, acceptability and sustainability of delivering SMART Recovery mutual-help groups online. Not only are these findings important in light of the global pandemic and public safety, but they demonstrate the potential for reaching and supporting difficult and under-served populations.

Online SMART Recovery mutual support groups: Characteristics and experience of adults seeking treatment for methamphetamine compared to those seeking treatment for other addictive behaviours.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted the transition of Australian Self-Management and Recovery Training (SMART) Recovery mutual support groups to virtual delivery. This study examined the self-reported experience of online SMART Recovery groups for people seeking support for methamphetamine use (alone or in combination with other behaviours) compared to those who did not endorse methamphetamine use as a reason for seeking support. METHODS: An online survey invitation was embedded in the post-group exit page. Items assessed participant demographic characteristics, experience, engagement and perceived contribution of the online group to recovery. Unique responses (n = 1414) were analysed using chi-square. RESULTS: After alcohol, methamphetamine use was the second most common behaviour to prompt online SMART Recovery group attendance (n = 205, 14.5%). People attending for methamphetamine use were more likely to endorse multiple addictive behaviours (n = 137, 66.8% vs. n = 371, 30.7%, p < 0.001). Irrespective of whether people attended for methamphetamine use or not, participant ratings of experience, engagement and perceived contribution to recovery were positive and largely comparable. People attending for methamphetamine use were significantly less likely to set a 7-day plan (72.7% vs. 81.9%; χ2  = 9.47, p = 0.002). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the acceptability of online SMART Recovery groups for people experiencing addictive behaviours, including methamphetamine use. To maximise the benefits of these groups, further evidence on how best to support people to develop a change plan within a time-limited, online group setting is needed. Online mutual support groups may help to reach and support people who might not otherwise engage in treatment and support, including people who use methamphetamine.

Opioid agonist treatment for people who are dependent on pharmaceutical opioids.

BACKGROUND: There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of maintenance opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and two trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs with adults and adolescents examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons. 1. Full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment. 2. Full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus non-opioid agonist treatments (detoxification, opioid antagonist, or psychological treatment without opioid agonist treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs that met inclusion criteria (709 participants). We found four studies that compared methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment, and four studies that compared buprenorphine maintenance to either buprenorphine taper (in addition to psychological treatment) or a non-opioid maintenance treatment comparison. We found low-certainty evidence from three studies of a difference between methadone and buprenorphine in favour of methadone on self-reported opioid use at end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.86; 165 participants), and low-certainty evidence from four studies finding a difference in favour of methadone for retention in treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; 379 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from three studies showing no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on substance use measured with urine drug screens at end of treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 206 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence from one study of no difference in days of self-reported opioid use (mean difference 1.41 days, 95% CI 3.37 lower to 0.55 days higher; 129 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.93; 206 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from four studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over non-opioid treatments in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests at end of treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84; 270 participants), and very low-certainty evidence from four studies finding no difference on self-reported opioid use in the past 30 days at end of treatment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01; 276 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in the number of days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.09; 205 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from four studies favouring buprenorphine maintenance over non-opioid treatments on retention in treatment (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.27; 333 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in adverse effects between buprenorphine maintenance and non-opioid treatments (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.48; 252 participants). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs, and difference in follow-up rates between treatment arms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is  very low- to moderate-certainty evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine did not differ on some outcomes, although on the outcomes of retention and self-reported substance use some results favoured methadone. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appears more effective than non-opioid treatments. Due to the overall very low- to moderate-certainty evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.

Systematic review of guidelines for managing physical health during treatment for substance use disorders: Implications for the alcohol and other drug workforce.

ISSUES: Substance use disorders are associated with significant physical health comorbidities, necessitating an integrated treatment response. However, service fragmentation can preclude the management of physical health problems during addiction treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the recommendations made by clinical practice guidelines for addressing the physical health of people attending alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment. APPROACH: An iterative search strategy of grey literature sources was conducted from September 2020 to February 2021 to identify clinical practice guidelines. Content pertaining to physical health care during AOD treatment was extracted. Quality of guidelines were appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) tool. FINDINGS: Thirty-three guidelines were included for review. Fourteen guidelines were considered high quality based on AGREE-II scores. Neurological conditions (90.9%) and hepatitis (81.8%) were the most frequent health problems addressed. Most guidelines recommended establishing referral pathways to address physical health comorbidities (90.9%). Guidance on facilitating these referral pathways was less common (42.4%). Guidelines were inconsistent in their recommendations related to oral health, tobacco use, physical activity, nutrition and the use of standardised assessment tools. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Greater consistency and specificity in the recommendations made for integrating physical health care within addiction treatment is needed. Ensuring that recommendations are applicable to the AOD workforce and to treatment services limited by funding and resource constraints should enhance implementation. Future guideline development groups should consider increased consultation with the AOD workforce and inclusion of clinical tools and decision aids to facilitate referral pathways.

Self-reported challenges obtaining ongoing prescription opioids among Australians with chronic non-cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Policies to address opioid-related harms include strategies to reduce opioid prescribing for new and ongoing pain management. Concerns have been raised that people with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) may be adversely affected by prescribing restrictions, and by involuntary tapering and cessation of opioids. We describe self-reported challenges obtaining prescription opioids among people prescribed opioids long-term for CNCP and explore associations with participant and treatment characteristics. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analysed data from a longitudinal cohort study of Australians prescribed restricted opioids for CNCP. In 2018, 861 participants who took part in Year 5 follow-up and who also reported past 12-month opioid use were asked about challenges obtaining opioid prescriptions, including prescriber access-related difficulties obtaining prescriptions or having opioids tapered or ceased involuntarily. Associations between challenges and demographics, treatment characteristics including daily opioid dose as oral morphine equivalent milligrams (OME mg/day), substance use disorder (SUD), and opioid dependence were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 285 (31%) participants reported at least one challenge, predominantly prescriber access-related difficulties (n=177/285; 62%). Prescriber access-related difficulties were associated with younger age (adjustedOR 0.94 per year increase, 95%CI 0.93-0.96), and past 12-month pharmaceutical opioid dependence (adjustedOR 2.25, 95%CI 1.33-3.80). Involuntary opioid tapering or cessation was reported by 73 participants (26% of those reporting challenges) and was associated with lifetime SUD diagnosis (adjustedOR 2.15, 95%CI 1.15-3.90), and opioid doses of ≥200 OME mg/day (adjustedOR 2.41, 95%CI 1.18-4.88). CONCLUSION: One-third of participants with CNCP reported experiencing challenges obtaining prescriptions for opioids or having their opioid medicines involuntarily reduced. Given increasing restrictions to opioid access, it is important that strategies to reduce opioid-related harms are balanced against the current treatment needs of people prescribed opioids long-term for CNCP.

Examining the cost and impact of dosing fees among clients in opioid agonist treatment: Results from a cross-sectional survey of Australian treatment clients.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) clients frequently bear costs associated with their treatment, including dosing fees. This study aimed to explore the financial and social impact of dosing fees upon clients. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of people who use opioids regularly (N = 402) between December 2017 and March 2018, conducted in Australia. Dosing fees were calculated and expressed as percentage of income, by OAT type. Consequences and strategies for difficulties making payments were examined as proportions. RESULTS: A total of N = 360 participants had ever been in OAT and N = 245 participants currently engaged in OAT reported data on dosing fees, of them 53% (n = 129) reported paying dosing fees. Compared to clients with high levels of dosing supervision, those with moderate or low levels of supervision were more likely to pay dosing fees. The median 28-day dosing fee was AUD$110 (interquartile range AUD$80); median 28-day income was AUD$1520 (interquartile range AUD$700). For those who paid dosing fees, the fee comprised <10% of total monthly income for 70% of participants; however, 23% of participants paid fees comprising 10% to <20%, and 7% of participants paid fees comprising 20% or more of monthly income. Among those that had ever been in OAT, 72% experienced difficulties in paying treatment costs; 36% left treatment earlier than intended and 25% had been excluded due to payment difficulties. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Negative consequences of treatment costs to clients, particularly dosing fees, are evident. These costs impact treatment access and retention that may negatively impact clients' physical health, mental health and social wellbeing.

Outcomes of a single-arm implementation trial of extended-release subcutaneous buprenorphine depot injections in people with opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is an effective intervention for opioid dependence. Extended-release buprenorphine injections (BUP-XR) may have additional potential benefits over sublingual buprenorphine. This single-arm trial evaluated outcomes among people receiving 48 weeks of BUP-XR in diverse community healthcare settings in Australia, permitting examination of outcomes when BUP-XR is delivered in standard practice. METHODS: Participants were recruited from a network of specialist public drug treatment services, primary care and some private practices in three states. Following a minimum 7 days on 8-32 mg of sublingual buprenorphine (±naloxone), participants received monthly subcutaneous BUP-XR injections administered by a healthcare practitioner and completed monthly research interviews. The primary endpoint was retention in treatment at 48 weeks. FINDINGS: Participants (n = 100) were 28% women, mean age 44 years with a long history of OAT (median 5.8 years); heroin was the most common opioid of concern (58%). Treatment retention at 24 and 48 weeks was 86% and 75%, respectively. Participants with past-month injecting drug use (OR 0.23; 95%CI: 0.09-0.61) or heroin use (OR 0.23; 95%CI: 0.08-0.65) at baseline had lower odds of being retained in treatment to 48 weeks. Reductions in multiple forms of extra-medical drug use were observed. Improvements in quality of life, participation in employment, and treatment satisfaction measures were also observed. INTERPRETATION: This real-world implementation study of BUP-XR demonstrated high retention and treatment satisfaction. This study provides important additional data on the uptake and experience of clients, with relevance for policy makers, health service planners, administrators, and practitioners. FUNDING: Indivior. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03809143.

Economic analysis of out-of-pocket costs among people in opioid agonist treatment: A cross-sectional survey in three Australian jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket costs for opioid agonist treatment (OAT) constitute a barrier to treatment entry and retention.This study examines OAT clients' total out-of-pocket costs (including dispensing fees, travel costs and OAT-related appointment costs) in different treatment settings (public clinics, community pharmacies, and private clinics). METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 402 people with opioid drug use (OUD) in New South Wales (NSW), Victoria (VIC), Tasmania (TAS), Australia; 266 clients (66%) currently receiving methadone, buprenorphine or buprenorphine-naloxone treatment were asked about dispensing fees, travel costs and OAT-related appointment costs in the past 28 days. A two-part regression model was used to deal with non-normal distributions of costing data (right skew and excess zeros). RESULTS: Among clients currently receiving OAT, 87% paid out-of-pocket costs. Among those who paid out-of-pocket costs (N=194), travel costs accounted for more than half of total costs (52%), followed by dispensing fees (44%). The mean monthly total out-of-pocket costs were AU$135 (SD: AU$121) for public clinics, AU$161 (SD: AU$110) to AU$214 (SD: AU$166) for community pharmacies and AU$355 (SD: AU$159) for private clinics. Compared to participants in NSW private clinics, those at public clinics paid one third the total out-of-pocket costs (coefficient = 0.33; 95%CI = 0.23-0.48) and those at NSW, TAS, VIC pharmacies paid approximately half the costs (coefficient = 0.58; 95%CI = 0.42-0.79; coefficient = 0.51; 95%CI = 0.36-0.72; coefficient = 0.47; 95%CI = 0.34-0.66, respectively). People in OAT for more than a year paid half the total out-of-pocket costs, compared with those in OAT less than a year (coefficient = 0.49, 95%CI = 0.31-0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Participants in the current study spent one-eighth of their income on out-of-pocket costs associated with OAT representing a substantial financial burden. Total out-of-pocket costs disproportionately affects those who are newer in treatment and receiving fewer unsupervised doses. Considering and addressing total out-of-pocket costs, especially travel costs and dispensing fees, to clients is critical to prevent cost from being a barrier from receiving effective care.

Feasibility of a Mobile Health App for Routine Outcome Monitoring and Feedback in SMART Recovery Mutual Support Groups: Stage 1 Mixed Methods Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Mutual support groups are an important source of long-term help for people impacted by addictive behaviors. Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) and feedback are yet to be implemented in these settings. SMART Recovery mutual support groups focus on self-empowerment and use evidence-based techniques (eg, motivational and behavioral strategies). Trained facilitators lead all SMART Recovery groups, providing an opportunity to implement ROM. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this stage 1 pilot study is to explore the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary outcomes of a novel, purpose-built mobile health ROM and feedback app (SMART Track) in mutual support groups coordinated by SMART Recovery Australia (SRAU) over 8 weeks. METHODS: SMART Track was developed during phase 1 of this study using participatory design methods and an iterative development process. During phase 2, 72 SRAU group participants were recruited to a nonrandomized, prospective, single-arm trial of the SMART Track app. Four modes of data collection were used: ROM data directly entered by participants into the app; app data analytics captured by Amplitude Analytics (number of visits, number of unique users, visit duration, time of visit, and user retention); baseline, 2-, and 8-week follow-up assessments conducted through telephone; and qualitative telephone interviews with a convenience sample of study participants (20/72, 28%) and facilitators (n=8). RESULTS: Of the 72 study participants, 68 (94%) created a SMART Track account, 64 (88%) used SMART Track at least once, and 42 (58%) used the app for more than 5 weeks. During week 1, 83% (60/72) of participants entered ROM data for one or more outcomes, decreasing to 31% (22/72) by the end of 8 weeks. The two main screens designed to provide personal feedback data (Urges screen and Overall Progress screen) were the most frequently visited sections of the app. Qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators supported the acceptability of SMART Track and the need for improved integration into the SRAU groups. Participants reported significant reductions between the baseline and 8- week scores on the Severity of Dependence Scale (mean difference 1.93, SD 3.02; 95% CI 1.12-2.73) and the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale-10 (mean difference 3.96, SD 8.31; 95% CI 1.75-6.17), but no change on the Substance Use Recovery Evaluator (mean difference 0.11, SD 7.97; 95% CI -2.02 to 2.24) was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of SMART Track. Given that sustained engagement with mobile health apps is notoriously difficult to achieve, our findings are promising. SMART Track offers a potential solution for ROM and personal feedback, particularly for people with substance use disorders who attend mutual support groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619000686101; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377336. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/15113.

SMART Recovery International and COVID-19: Expanding the reach of mutual support through online groups.

BACKGROUND: Mutual support groups play an extremely important role in providing opportunities for people to engage in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment and support. SMART Recovery groups employ cognitive, behavioural and motivational principles and strategies to offer support for a range of addictive behaviours. COVID-19 fundamentally changed the way that these groups could be delivered. METHODS: A series of online meetings were conducted by the lead author (PK) and the SMART Recovery International Executive Officer (KM), with representatives from the SMART Recovery National Offices in the Ireland (DO), United States (MR), Australia (RM), and Denmark (BSH, DA), and the United Kingdom (AK). The meetings focused on discussing the impacts of COVID-19 on SMART Recovery in each of the regions. RESULTS: As a result of restrictions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, the vast majority of SMART Recovery face-to-face meetings were required to cease globally. To ensure people still had access to AOD mutual support, SMART Recovery rapidly scaled up the provision of online groups. This upscaling has increased the number of groups in countries that had previously provided a limited number of online meetings (i.e., United States, England, Australia), and has meant that online groups are available for the first time in Denmark, Ireland, Hong Kong, Spain, Malaysia and Brazil. DISCUSSION: Whilst the urgent and rapid expansion of online groups was required to support people during the pandemic, it has also created an opportunity for the ongoing availability of online mutual support post-pandemic. The challenge for the research community is to critically evaluate the online delivery of mutual support groups, to better understand the mechanisms through which they may work, and to help understand the experience of people accessing the groups.

Preliminary psychometric evaluation of the patient reported experience measure for addiction treatment (PREMAT).

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are recommended for use in evaluating person-centred care. To date, a PREM has not been validated for residential alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment. Utilising items developed through a previously published qualitative study informing the development of the PREM for Addiction Treatment (PREMAT), the current study conducted a psychometric evaluation and validation of the PREMAT. DESIGN AND METHODS: Cross-sectional survey data were collected from six Australian residential AOD treatment facilities (N = 178). Psychometric evaluation included examining the factor structure, internal consistency, and construct validity of the PREMAT. Test re-test reliability was conducted at one treatment site (n = 24). RESULTS: The total PREMAT score demonstrated strong internal consistency (α = 0.91). Principle components analysis identified six factors (all α > 0.72). The PREMAT total score and factor scores were negatively skewed. Concurrent validity was demonstrated by strong positive correlations with measures of satisfaction (ρ = 0.81, Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8; ρ = 0.78, Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire), and divergent validity was demonstrated with weaker correlations with Drug-Taking Confidence Questionnaire (ρ = 0.25) and Kessler-10 (ρ = -0.20). Test-retest reliability was strong for the total PREMAT (ρ = 0.89). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Results support the use of the PREMAT as a valid measure of experience in residential AOD treatment settings. Future research should examine the use of the PREMAT across the course of treatment to examine if experience is related to client characteristics, outcome, dropout or re-engagement in treatment.

The use of Australian SMART Recovery groups by people who use methamphetamine: Analysis of routinely-collected nationwide data.

INTRODUCTION: Mutual support groups (e.g. SMART Recovery) are an important source of support for people experiencing addictive behaviours. Little is known about the use of mutual support groups by people who use methamphetamine, or the factors that may influence group cohesion. METHODS: This study uses post-group data reported by SMART Recovery facilitators in Australia between 2018 and 2020. Group cohesion was indexed by facilitator ratings of The Group Entitativity measure (GEM-GP). Participant characteristics (gender, age, new or returning group member, voluntary or mandated attendance) and group location (major city vs. regional/remote vs. online) were used to (a) compare methamphetamine and non-methamphetamine related attendances; and (b) explore relationships to group cohesion within groups where the majority attended for methamphetamine. RESULTS: Methamphetamine use was the second most common reason for attending SMART Recovery groups (n = 4929; 22.2 % service occasions). Methamphetamine-related service occasions were more likely amongst men, people aged <45 years, returning attendees and regional/rural groups (allp < .05). GEM-GP scores were high (signalling strong cohesion), and did not significantly differ according to proportion of participants attending for methamphetamine (F(1,2) = 0.482, p = .618). Group cohesion increased with larger group size, proportion of women and proportion of younger people (F(4, 504) = 11.058, p < .001)). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study improves current understanding of service utilisation by people who use methamphetamine. SMART Recovery groups offer an avenue for supporting a diverse range of people who use methamphetamine, outside the formal treatment system. This provides an important foundation for improving community support options for people who use methamphetamine.

Pharmaceutical Opioid Use Patterns and Indicators of Extramedical Use and Harm in Adults With Chronic Noncancer Pain, 2012-2018.

Importance: Despite concern about harms related to long-term prescribed opioid use among individuals with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), no study has examined whether the same patients engage in a risky pattern of use consistently for the long term. Objective: To examine the prevalence, incidence, persistence, and cessation of a range of opioid behaviors, indicators of extramedical use, and harm among individuals who are prescribed opioids. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 5-year prospective cohort study in communities across Australia included 1514 adults who were prescribed opioids for CNCP. Data collection took place from August 2012 to December 2018, and data analysis took place from February to November 2020. Exposure: Prescription opioid use. Main Outcomes and Measures: High-dose opioid use (≥200 oral morphine equivalent [OME] mg/d); requesting an increase in opioid dose; requesting an early prescription renewal; tampering with opioid medication; diversion of medication to others; and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision opioid dependence. Cessation of opioid use was also assessed. Results: Of the 1514 participants, 672 (44.39%) were men, the mean (SD) age was 58 (19) years, and 737 (48.68%) were unemployed. At each annual interview, approximately 1 in 8 people (10.98% [95% CI, 10.33%-11.63%] to 14.73% [95% CI, 13.98%-15.48%] at any given interview) were taking more than 200 OME mg/d; comparatively more had requested an increased dosage in the previous 3 months (8.46% [95% CI, 7.89%-9.03%] to 23.77% [95% CI, 22.82%-24.73%]); and fewer asked for an early prescription renewal (4.61% [95% CI, 4.19%-5.03%] to 13.97% [95% CI, 13.24%-14.70%]). In any given interview, between 3.06% (95% CI, 2.72%-3.40%) and 7.86% (95% CI, 7.31%-8.41%) of respondents reported tampering and between 0.47% (95% CI, 0.33%-0.60%) and 1.39% (95% CI, 1.16%-1.62%) reported diversion to others. Between 8.28% (95% CI, 7.71%-8.84%) and 13.06% (95% CI, 12.35%-13.77%) met criteria for opioid dependence at each interview. Opioid cessation increased across interviews, from year 1 (9.15% [95% CI, 8.55%-9.74%]) to year 5 (20.02% [19.14%-20.89%]). There was considerable incidence and cessation in all behaviors from 1 interview to the next: most who engaged in any of these behaviors only did so at only 1 interview. For pharmaceutical opioid dependence, between 55.26% (95% CI, 53.81%-56.71%) and 64.44% (95% CI, 62.87%-66.00%) of cases in 1 interview did not meet dependence criteria in the following interview. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest considerable fluidity in opioid use, extramedical behaviors, and opioid dependence among people with CNCP. This reinforces the need for reassessment of the effectiveness and safety of prescription opioid use over time.

Perceptions of injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) among people who regularly use opioids in Australia: findings from a cross-sectional study in three Australian cities.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Not all people experiencing opioid dependence benefit from oral opioid agonist treatment. The aim of this study was to examine perceptions of (supervised) injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) (described as 'an opioid similar to heroin self-injected at a clinic several times a day') among people who regularly use opioids and determine how common iOAT eligibility criteria accord with interest in iOAT. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey SETTING: Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, Australia PARTICIPANTS: A total of 344 people (63% male) who use opioids regularly and had ever injected opioids, interviewed December 2017-March 2018. The mean age of participants was 41.5 years [standard deviation (SD) = 8.5]. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome measures were interest in iOAT, factors associated with interest and the proportion of participants who would be eligible using common criteria from trials and guidelines. We examined willingness to travel for iOAT, medication preferences and perspectives on whom should receive iOAT. FINDINGS: Overall, 53% of participants (n = 182) believed that iOAT would be a good treatment option for them. Participants who believed that iOAT was a good treatment option for them were more likely to be male [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-2.82], have used heroin in the past month (aOR = 6.03, 95% CI = 2.86-12.71), currently regularly inject opioids (aOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.16-2.91) and have met ICD-10 criteria for opioid dependence (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.65-7.24). Those interested in iOAT had commenced more treatment episodes (aOR =1.06, 95% CI = 1.00-1.12). Among those interested in iOAT (n = 182), 26% (n = 48) met common eligibility criteria for iOAT. CONCLUSIONS: Interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment does not appear to be universal among people who regularly use opioids. Among study participants who expressed interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment, most did not meet common eligibility criteria.